Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants 

Supplement 34 

Regarding 

Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2 

Final Report 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

NUREG-1437 

Supplement 34
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS 

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC=s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

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

Publicly released records include, to name a few, 

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; 

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and 

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal 

memoranda; bulletins and information notices; 

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event 

reports; and Commission papers and their 

attachments. 

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

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

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents 

 U.S. Government Printing Office 

 Mail Stop SSOP 

 Washington, DC 20402B0001 

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov 

 Telephone: 202-512-1800 

 Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

 Springfield, VA 22161B0002 

 www.ntis.gov 

 1B800B553B6847 or, locally, 703B605B6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows: 

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Administration 

 Mail, Distribution and Messenger Team 

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301B415B2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC=s Web site address 

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

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found 

on a Web site bear the date the material was 

accessed, the material available on the date cited may 

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as 

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal 

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and 

congressional reports. Such documents as theses, 

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and 

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased 

from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained atC

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852B2738 

These standards are available in the library for 

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are 

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the 

originating organization or, if they are American 

National Standards, fromC

American National Standards Institute 

11 West 42nd Street 

New York, NY 10036B8002 

www.ansi.org 

212B642B4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in 

contractor-prepared publications in this series are not 

necessarily those of the NRC. 

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREGBXXXX) or agency contractors 

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

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

international agreements (NUREG/IABXXXX), (4) 

brochures (NUREG/BRBXXXX), and (5) compilations 

of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and 

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors=

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC=s regulations 

(NUREGB0750).
Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants 

Supplement 34 

Regarding 

Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, 

Units 1 and 2 

Final Report 

Manuscript Completed: November 2008 

Date Published: December 2008 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

NUREG-1437 

Supplement 34 

December 2008 iii NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Abstract

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

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

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in 10 CFR Part 51. In the GEIS (and its Addendum 

1), the Staff identified 92 environmental issues and reached 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 by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) to the NRC to 

renew the operating licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 (VEGP) 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 SNC nor the 

Staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any issue that applies to 

VEGP. In addition, the Staff determined that information provided during the scoping process 

was not new and significant with respect to the conclusions in the GEIS. Therefore, the Staff 

concludes that the impacts of renewing the operating licenses for VEGP will 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 VEGP are addressed in this SEIS. The 

Staff concludes that the significance of potential environmental impacts related to operating 

license renewal is SMALL for each applicable issue, with one exception. Research is continuing 

in the area of chronic effects on electromagnetic fields, and a scientific consensus has not been 

reached. Therefore, no further evaluation of this issue is required. 

 

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

 noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
Abstract 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 iv December 2008 

The NRC staff’s recommendation is that the Commission determines that the adverse 

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

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

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

Report submitted by SNC; (3) consultation with federal, state, and local agencies; (4) the Staff’s 

own independent review; and (5) the Staff’s consideration of public comments received during 

the scoping process and on the draft SEIS. 
December 2008 v NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Contents

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

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................xvii 

Abbreviations/Acronyms ............................................................................................................xxiii 

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

 1.1 Report Contents.........................................................................................................1-2

 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 ..................................................................................1-9 

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

2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction with the 

 Environment .......................................................................................................................2-1 

 2.1 Facility and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the 

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

 2.1.1 Site Location and Features ............................................................................2-4 

 2.1.2 Reactor Systems............................................................................................2-7 

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

 2.1.3.1 Circulating Water System ..............................................................2-8 

 2.1.3.2 Nuclear Service Cooling Water System.........................................2-9 

 2.1.3.3 Other Water Systems.....................................................................2-9 

 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent 

 Control Systems.............................................................................................2-9 

 

 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent 

 Controls .......................................................................................2-10 

 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent 

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

 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 vi December 2008 

 2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Management System...............................................2-13 

 

 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems ...................................................................2-14 

 2.1.5.1 Nonradioactive Waste Streams ...................................................2-14 

 2.1.5.2 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization..............................2-15 

 2.1.6 Facility Operation and Maintenance ............................................................2-15 

 2.1.7 Power Transmission System........................................................................2-16 

 

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

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

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

 2.2.2.1 Hydrology.....................................................................................2-19

 2.2.2.1.1 Surface Water .........................................................2-19 

2.2.2.1.2 Groundwater ...........................................................2-21 

 2.2.2.2 Facility Water Use........................................................................2-25 

 2.2.2.2.1 Surface Water .........................................................2-25 

2.2.2.2.2 Groundwater ...........................................................2-25 

 2.2.3 Water Quality ...............................................................................................2-27 

 

 2.2.3.1 Surface Water..............................................................................2-27 

 2.2.3.2 Groundwater ................................................................................2-34 

 2.2.4 Meteorology and Air Quality.........................................................................2-35 

 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources.......................................................................................2-36 

 2.2.5.1 Savannah River ..........................................................................2-36 

 2.2.5.2 Beaverdam Creek........................................................................2-53 

 2.2.5.3 Water Bodies in Transmission Line ROWs..................................2-54 

 2.2.5.4 Protected Aquatic Species............................................................2-55

 2.2.5.4.1 Site Vicinity..............................................................2-57 

 2.2.5.4.2 Transmission Line ROWs........................................2-60 

 
Contents

December 2008 vii NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................2-61

 

 2.2.6.1 Terrestrial Resources at the VEGP Site ....................................2-61

 2.2.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species........................2-66

 

 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts ................................................................................2-86

 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors................................................................................2-88 

 2.2.8.1 Housing........................................................................................2-90

 2.2.8.2 Public Services ............................................................................2-91

 2.2.8.2.1 Water Supply...........................................................2-91

 2.2.8.2.2 Education ................................................................2-93

 2.2.8.2.3 Transportation .........................................................2-93

 2.2.8.3 Off-site Land Use.........................................................................2-94

 2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise ........................................................2-96 

 2.2.8.5 Demography ...............................................................................2-96

 2.2.8.5.1 Transient Population ...............................................2-97

 2.2.8.5.2 Migrant Farm Workers.............................................2-98

 

 2.2.8.6 Economy....................................................................................2-100

 2.2.8.6.1 Employment and Income.......................................2-100

 2.2.8.6.2 Unemployment ......................................................2-101

 2.2.8.6.3 Taxes ....................................................................2-101

 

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources......................................................2-102 

 2.2.9.1 Cultural Background ..................................................................2-102 

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the VEGP 

 Site.............................................................................................2-105

 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations ................................2-106 

 2.3 References ............................................................................................................2-107
Contents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 viii December 2008 

3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment...........................................................................3-1 

 3.1 References ..............................................................................................................3-4

4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation ..................................................................................4-1 

 4.1 Cooling System..........................................................................................................4-2

 4.1.1 Water Use Conflicts .....................................................................................4-12 

 4.1.2 Microbiological Organisms (Public Health) ..................................................4-14 

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

 4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields-Acute Effects ..........................................................4-21 

 4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields-Chronic Effects .......................................................4-24 

 4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................................................4-24 

 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the License Renewal 

 Term ........................................................................................................................4-26

 4.4.1 Housing Impacts ..........................................................................................4-27 

 4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts ........................................................4-29 

 4.4.3 Off-site Land Use During Operations...........................................................4-29 

4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations ......................4-31 

 4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources .......................................................4-31 

 

 4.4.5.1 Site Specific Cultural Resources Information ..............................4-32

 4.4.5.2 Conclusions .................................................................................4-32 

 4.4.6 Environmental Justice..................................................................................4-32 

 

 4.4.6.1 Minority Populations in 2000........................................................4-34

 4.4.6.2 Low-Income Populations in 2000.................................................4-34 

 4.4.6.3 Analysis of Impacts......................................................................4-37 

 4.4.6.4 Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife............................4-37 

 4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality .................................................................................4-39 

 4.5.1 Groundwater Use Conflicts, Plants Using > 100 GPM.................................4-39 

 4.5.1.1 Groundwater Users Potentially Impacted ....................................4-40 

 4.5.1.2 Effect of Withdrawal on Groundwater Volume Available .............4-40 
Contents

December 2008 ix NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

 4.5.1.3 Summary of Impacts Related to Groundwater Use 

 Conflicts .......................................................................................4-41 

 4.5.2 Groundwater Use Conflicts, Plants Using Cooling Towers 

Withdrawing Make-Up Water from Small River............................................4-42 

 

 4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species........................................................................4-43 

 4.6.1 Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species ...............................................4-44 

 4.6.2 Terrestrial Threatened or Endangered Species...........................................4-45 

 4.7 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant Information on Impacts of 

 Operations During the Renewal Term .....................................................................4-46 

 4.8 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................4-47 

 4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts on Water Use and Quality ...........................................4-48 

4.8.1.1 Water Use Impacts .....................................................................4-49 

4.8.1.2 Water Quality Impacts .................................................................4-53 

 4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources .................................................4-55 

 4.8.3 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial Resources .............................................4-56 

 4.8.4 Cumulative Human Health Impacts .............................................................4-58 

4.8.4.1 Cumulative Thermophilic Microorganism Impacts ......................4-58 

4.8.4.2 Cumulative Electromagnetic Field Impacts .................................4-59 

4.8.4.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts ................................................4-59 

 4.8.5 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts ............................................................4-60 

 

 4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term ...............................4-61 

 4.10 References ..............................................................................................................4-62

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 ........................................................................................5-4 
Contents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 x December 2008 

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

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

 5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements ........................................................................5-7 

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

 5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison...............................................................................5-8 

 5.2.6 Conclusions ...................................................................................................5-9 

 5.3 References ..............................................................................................................5-10

 

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 ................................................................................................................7-4

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

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

 8.2 Alternative Energy Sources .......................................................................................8-7 

 8.2.1 Supercritical Conventional Coal-Fired Generation.........................................8-9 

 8.2.2 Coal Based Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) 

 Generation........................................................................................ ...........8-27 

 8.2.3 Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Generation ..........................................8-44 

 8.2.4 New Nuclear Generation..............................................................................8-54 

 8.2.5 Conservation ...............................................................................................8-64 

 8.2.6 Purchased Electrical Power ........................................................................8-66 

 8.2.7 Other Alternatives ........................................................................................8-67 

 8.2.7.1 Oil-Fired Generation ....................................................................8-67 

 8.2.7.2 Wind Power .................................................................................8-67 

 8.2.7.3 Solar Power .................................................................................8-69 

 8.2.7.4 Hydropower..................................................................................8-70 

 8.2.7.5 Geothermal ..................................................................................8-70 

 8.2.7.6 Wood Waste and Other Biomass Derived Fuels .........................8-71 

 8.2.7.7 Municipal Solid Waste .................................................................8-72 

 8.2.7.8 Fuel Cells.....................................................................................8-73 
Contents

December 2008 xi NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

 8.2.7.9 Delayed Retirement .....................................................................8-74 

 8.2.8 Combination of Alternatives .........................................................................8-74 

 8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered ......................................................................8-78 

 8.4 References ..............................................................................................................8-79

9.0 Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................................9-1

 9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action - License Renewal ..........................9-4 

 9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................9-5 

 9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments......................................9-6 

 9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity ...........................................9-6 

 9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License 

Renewal and Alternatives ..........................................................................................9-6 

 9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................9-7 

 9.4 References ..............................................................................................................9-10

Appendix A Comments Received on the Environmental Review ......................................... A-1 

Appendix B Contributors to the Supplement......................................................................... B-1 

Appendix C Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence 

 Related to Southern Nuclear Operating Company Application for 

 License Renewal of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2................. C-1 

Appendix D Organizations Contacted................................................................................... D-1 

Appendix E Southern Nuclear Operating Company’s (SNC) Compliance Status and 

 Consultation Correspondence........................................................................... E-1 

Appendix F GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Vogtle Electric Generating 

 Plant ...................................................................................................................F-1 

Appendix G Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) for Vogtle Electric 

 Generating Plant ...............................................................................................G-1 
NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 xii December 2008 

Figures

2-1 Location of VEGP, 50-Mile Radius.................................................................................2-2 

2-2 Location of VEGP, 6-Mile Radius...................................................................................2-3 

2-3 VEGP Property Boundaries and Facility Layout.............................................................2-5 

2-4 VEGP Transmission Lines and Water Bodies................................................................2-6 

2-5 Potentiometric Map – Water Table Aquifer ..................................................................2-23 

2-6 Potentiometric Map – Tertiary Aquifer..........................................................................2-24 

2-7 Location of Groundwater Supply Wells ........................................................................2-26 

2-8 Vegetation Communities and Ponds on the VEGP Site...............................................2-63

4-1 Minority block groups in 2000 within a 50-mi radius of VEGP .....................................4-35 

4-2 Low-income block groups in 2000 within a 50-mi radius of VEGP...............................4-36 
December 2008 xiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Tables

2-1 VEGP Transmission Lines and ROWs......................................................................2-17 

2-2 Groundwater Wells Used at VEGP ...........................................................................2-27 

2-3 Summary of 2006 VEGP Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program ......................2-28 

2-4 Summary of 2000 to 2002 GDNR Surface Water Tritium Results ............................2-30 

2-5 Effluent Limitations – NPDES Permit for VEGP........................................................2-32 

2-6 Native Resident, Diadromous, and Marine Fish Species of the Middle Savannah 

River Basin ...............................................................................................................2-38

2-7 Introduced Fish Species in the Middle Savannah River Basin and Their 

Establishment Status ................................................................................................2-48 

2-8 Federally and State Listed Aquatic Species with Recorded Occurrences in the 

Vicinity of the VEGP Site...........................................................................................2-55 

2-9 Federally and State Listed Aquatic Species with Recorded Occurrences in the 

Counties Crossed by the Transmission Line ROWs .................................................2-56 

2-10 Federally Listed Terrestrial Species with Recorded Occurrences in the Vicinity 

 of the VEGP Site .......................................................................................................2-67

2-11 Federally Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially Occurring in Counties 

Crossed by the Transmission Line ROWs ................................................................2-68

2-12 State Listed Terrestrial Species with Recorded Occurrences 

in the Vicinity of the VEGP Site .................................................................................2-73

2-13 State Listed Terrestrial Species with Recorded Occurrences in the Counties 

Crossed by the Transmission Line ROWs.................................................................2-77

2-14 VEGP Permanent Employee Residence by County in 2005.....................................2-89

2-15 Housing in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties, Georgia, in 2000.................2-90

2-16 Public Water Supply System Capacity and Usage for Groundwater Withdrawals ....2-91

2-17 Public Water Supply System Capacity and Usage for Surface Water 

Withdrawals...............................................................................................................2-92

2-18 Land Use in Burke, Columbia and Richmond Counties, Georgia .............................2-95

2-19 Population and Percent Growth in Burke, Columbia and Richmond Counties, 

Georgia, from 1970 to 2000 and Projected for 2010 to 2050....................................2-97

2-20 Demographic Profile of the Population in the VEGP Region of Influence.................2-98

2-21 Farms that Employ Migrant Labor within 50 miles of VEGP .....................................2-99

2-22 Income Information for the VEGP Region of Influence ...........................................2-101

2-23 Property Tax Information for Burke County (2000-2006) ........................................2-102

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

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

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 xiv December 2008 

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

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

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

During the Renewal Term .........................................................................................4-12 

4-3 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the VEGP Transmission Lines During the 

Renewal Term...........................................................................................................4-18 

4-4 Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the VEGP Transmission 

Lines During the Renewal Term................................................................................4-21 

4-5 Results of Induced Current Analysis .........................................................................4-23 

4-6 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

During the Renewal Term .........................................................................................4-25 

4-7 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term...........4-26 

4-8 Category 2 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

During the Renewal Term .........................................................................................4-28 

4-9 Category 2 Issues Applicable to VEGP Groundwater Use and Quality During 

the Renewal Term.....................................................................................................4-39 

4-10 Permitted Municipal and Industrial Groundwater Users in Burke County ................4-40 

4-11 Category 2 Issues Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species During the 

Renewal Term...........................................................................................................4-43 

4-12 Current, Past, and Potential Future Water Withdrawal Permits within Savannah 

 River Basin................................................................................................................4-49

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

 Renewal Term-Design Basis Accidents ......................................................................5-3 

5-2 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the 

 Renewal Term-Severe Accidents................................................................................5-4 

5-3 VEGP Core Damage Frequency.................................................................................5-6 

5-4 Breakdown of Population Dose by Contaminant Release Mode.................................5-7 

6-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste 

Management During the Renewal Term .....................................................................6-2 

7-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of VEGP Following 

the Renewal Term.......................................................................................................7-2 

8-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative...............................8-2 

8-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Supercritical Conventional Coal-Fired 

Generation at VEGP Site and at an Alternate Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling.......8-10 

8-3 Class I Areas in Georgia and South Carolina............................................................8-18 

8-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal IGCC Generation at 

VEGP Site and an Alternate Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling.................................8-31 
Tables

December 2008 xv NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

8-5 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Generation at VEGP 

and an Alternate Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling...................................................8-46 

8-6 Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Power Generation at 

 VEGP Site and at an Alternate Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling.............................8-57 

8-7 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Alternative .......................8-76 

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

Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Generation Using Once-Through Cooling ....9-8 

A-1 Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period .......................... A-3 

E-1 Consultation Correspondence.................................................................................... E-1 

E-2 Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other 

Approvals for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant .......................................................... E-3 

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

G-1 VEGP Core Damage Frequency................................................................................G-3 

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

G-3 VEGP PRA Historical Summary.................................................................................G-6 

G-4 Fire Scenarios and Their Contribution to Fire CDF....................................................G-9 

G-5 SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for VEGP ...................................................G-18 

December 2008 xvii NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

By letter dated June 27, 2007, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) submitted an 

application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses 

for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 (VEGP) for an additional 20-year period (SNC 

2007a). If the operating licenses are renewed, State regulatory agencies and VEGP 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 

operating licenses are not renewed, then the plant must be shut down at or before the expiration 

of the current operating licenses, which expires on January 16, 2027 for Unit 1 and February 9, 

2029 for Unit 2. 

The NRC has implemented Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA) (42 USC 4321) in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 

(10 CFR Part 51). In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor 

operating license. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the operating 

license renewal stage will be a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

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

Upon acceptance of the VEGP 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 (Federal Register, Volume 72, page 43296 [NRC 2007]) on August 3, 2007. The Staff 

visited the VEGP site and conducted a site audit in October 2007, and held two public scoping 

meetings on September 27, 2007. In the preparation of this supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS) for VEGP, the Staff reviewed the VEGP Environmental Report and compared 

it to the GEIS, consulted with other agencies, 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, 

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 draft 

SEIS. 

The NRC staff held two public meetings in Waynesboro, Georgia, in June 2008, to describe the 

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

members of the public with information to assist them in formulating comments on the SEIS. 

When the comment period ended, the NRC staff considered and addressed all of the comments 

received. These comments are addressed in Appendix A, Part 2, of this final SEIS. 

This SEIS includes the NRC staff’s preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the 

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

proposed action, and mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also 

includes the Staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action. 

 

(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.
Executive Summary 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 xviii December 2008

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. 

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 operating 

licenses. 

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). 

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

operating license 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: 
Executive Summary 

December 2008 xix NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

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 (that is 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 plant 

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 consideration of all 92 environmental issues identified 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 operating licenses for VEGP) and alternative methods of power generation. Based 

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

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

alternatives if the power from VEGP is replaced. These alternatives are evaluated assuming 
Executive Summary 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 xx December 2008

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

unspecified alternate location. 

SNC 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 

SNC 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 has identified any new issue applicable to VEGP 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 VEGP. 

VEGP’s license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues plus 

environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields. The Staff has reviewed 

SNC’s analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent review of each issue. Five 

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

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

because they are specifically related to refurbishment. SNC 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 

VEGP for the license renewal period. In addition, any replacement of components or additional 

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

affect the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations evaluated in the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 1985 Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

Operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. 

Twelve 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. For all of the twelve 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. The Staff also 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 for VEGP and the plant improvements already made, the Staff concludes that SNC 

identified two potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. However, these SAMAs do not relate to 

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

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

Mitigation measures were considered for adverse effects associated with Category 2 issues. For 

these issues, 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 which agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 
Executive Summary 

December 2008 xxi NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

other actions. For purposes of this analysis, the Staff concluded that the cumulative impacts 

resulting from the incremental contribution of VEGP operation and maintenance of transmission 

line ROW would be SMALL for all resources. 

If the VEGP operating license is not renewed and the unit ceases operation on or before the 

expiration of their current operating license, then the adverse impacts of likely alternatives will 

not be smaller than those associated with continued operation of VEGP. 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 VEGP 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 SNC; (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 received 

during the scoping process and on the draft SEIS. 

December 2008 xxiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Abbreviations/Acronyms

̊ degree(s) 

 

ac acre(s) 

AC alternating current 

ACC averted cleanup and decontamination 

ACEEE American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 

ADAMS Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System 

AEO Annual Energy Outlook 

AFW auxiliary feed water 

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

ANS Academy of Natural Sciences 

AOC averted off-site property damage costs 

AOE averted occupational exposure costs 

AOSC averted on-site costs 

APE averted public exposure 

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

ATWS anticipated transient without scram 

BA biological assessment 

B.P. Before Present 

Bq becquerel 

BTU British thermal unit(s) 

C Celsius 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CCW component cooling water 

CDC U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

CDF core damage frequency 

CET Containment Event Tree 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic foot (feet) per second 

cms cubic meter(s) per second 

cm/sec centimeter(s) per second 

Ci curie(s) 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

COE cost of enhancement 

CPUE catch-per-unit-effort 

CSET Containment Safeguards for Event Tree 

CVCS Chemical and Volume Control System 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 xxiv December 2008

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWIS Circulating Water Intake Structure 

CWS Circulating Water System 

CWSH Circulating Water Screenhouse 

dBa decibels 

DBA Design Base Accident 

DAW dry waste system 

DC direct current 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DSM Demand Side Management 

DWR Division of Water Resources 

EDG emergency diesel generator 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EGS Enhanced Geothermal Systems 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EL Environmental Laboratory 

ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

ERS Environmental Radiation Surveillance 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESP early site permit 

ESWS Essential Service Water System 

F Fahrenheit 

F&O Facts and Observations 

FES Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FIVE fire-induced vulnerability evaluation 

FMP Fishery Management Plan 

fps foot (feet) per second 

FPS fire protection system 

FR Federal Register

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report 

FSM Fishery Management Plan 

ft foot (feet) 

ft3

 cubic feet 

ft/sec feet per second 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

December 2008 xxv NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

GDNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, 

NUREG-1437 

GEPD Georgia Environmental Protection Division

GL Generic Letter 

GPC Georgia Power Company 

gpm gallon(s) per minute 

GPSC Georgia Public Service Commission 

GWPS gaseous radioactive waste processing system 

ha hectare(s) 

HCLPF high confidence of low probability of failure 

HEPA high efficiency particulate air 

HNP Edwin/Hatch Nuclear Plant 

hr hour(s) 

HRA Human Reliability Analysis 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

IGCC Integrated Gusification Combined-Cycle 

INEEL Idaho National Energy and Environmental Laboratory 

IPE individual plant examination 

IPEEE individual plant examination of external events 

IRP Integrated Resource Plan 

ISLOCA Interfacing Systems Loss of Coolant Accidents 

J Joule 

kg kilogram(s) 

km kilometer(s) 

kV kilovolt(s) 

kW kilowatt(s) 

kWh kilowatt hour(s) 

lb Pound 

LC50 median lethal concentration 

LERF Large Early Release Frequency 

LLMW low-level mixed waste 

LOCA loss of coolant accident 

LOS level of service 

LPSI low pressure safety injection 

LWPS liquid waste processing system 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 xxvi December 2008

m meter(s) 

m/s meter(s) per second 

mm millimeter(s) 

m3 cubic meter(s) 

mA milliampere(s) 

MAAP Modular Accident Analysis Program 

MACCS2 MELLCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 

MBq megabequerel 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MDC Minimal Detectable Concentration 

MDS Minimum Desirable Streamflow 

mg milligram(s) 

mgd million gallons per day 

mGy milligray(s) 

mg/L milligram(s) per liter 

mi mile(s) 

mL milliliter(s) 

MMACR Modified Maximum Averted Cost-Risk 

MOX mixed oxide 

mph miles per hour 

mrad milliard(s) 

mrem millirem(s) 

m/s meter(s) per second 

msl mean sea level 

MSW Municipal Solid Waste 

mSv millisievert 

MT metric ton 

MTHM metric tonne 

MTU metric ton of uranium 

MUSH Makeup Water Screen House 

MW megawatt(s) 

MWd megawatt-days 

MW(e) megawatt(s) electric 

MWh megawatt hour(s) 

MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal 

MWSF Mixed Waste Storage Facility 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NCP normal charging pump 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

NESC National Electric Safety Code 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

December 2008 xxvii NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory 

ng Nanograms 

NGVD national geodetic vertical datum 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx nitrogen oxide(s) 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSCW Nuclear Service Cooling Water 

O3 ozone 

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

O&G oil and grease 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

PAM primary amoebic meningoencephalitis 

PAYS Pay as You Save 

Pb lead 

pCi/L picoCuries per liter 

pCi/kg picoCuries per kilogram 

PM2.5 particulate matter, 2.5 microns or less in diameter 

PM10 particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter 

ppm parts per million 

PRA probabilistic risk assessment 

PSA probabilistic safety assessment 

PWR pressurized water reactor 

radwaste radioactive waste 

RAI request for additional information 

RCP reactor coolant pump 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 

rkm river kilometer(s) 

RLE review level earthquake 

RM river mile(s) 

ROI region of influence 

ROW right-of-way 

RPC long-term replacement power costs 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 xxviii December 2008

RRW risk reduction worth 

RWDS radioactive waste disposal system 

RWST refueling water storage tank 

s second(s) 

SAR Safety Analysis Report 

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative 

SBO station blackout 

SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

SCE&G South Carolina Electric and Gas 

SCR selective catalytic reduction 

SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System 

sec second 

SECPOP sector population, land fraction and economic estimation program 

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

SER Safety Evaluation Report 

SGTR Steam Generator Tube Ruptures 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SNC Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOx sulfur oxide(s) 

SOP standard operating procedure(s) 

SRS Savannah River Site 

SSE safe shutdown earthquake 

Sv sievert 

SWMS solid waste management system 

SWS Service Water System 

 

TD turbine driven 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TL total length 

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeters 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TRC Third Rock Consultants 

TSS total suspended solids 

UHS ultimate heat sink 

U.S. United States 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

USD Unified School District 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

December 2008 xxix NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

V volt(s) 

VEGP Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WET whole effluent toxicity 

WHC Wildlife Habitat Council 

WINGS Wildlife Incentives for Non-Game and Game Species 

WMA Wildlife Management Area 

WOG Westinghouse Owner’s Group 

YOY young of year 

yr year(s)

December 2008 1-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

1.0 Introduction

Under the U.S. 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, as amended (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear power plant 

operating license 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 issue a final statement after considering public comments on the draft. To 

support the preparation of the EIS, the Staff 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 to define the number and scope of 

issues that need to be addressed by the applicants in plant-by-plant renewal proceedings. Use 

of the GEIS guides the preparation of complete plant-specific information in support of the 

operating license renewal process. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) operates Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 1 and 2 (VEGP) near Waynesboro, Georgia under Operating License NPF-68 for Unit 1 

and NPF-81 for Unit 2, which were issued by the NRC. The operating license will expire on 

January 16, 2027 for Unit 1 and February 9, 2029 for Unit 2. The Unit 2 license will not expire 

within the 20-year period designated in the License Renewal Rule; therefore, SNC filed for and 

received exemption by letter from the NRC dated January 9, 2007 (NRC 2007a) that supports 

the early renewal of the Unit 2 license. 

On June 27, 2007, SNC submitted an application to the NRC to renew the SNC operating 

licenses for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54 (SNC 2007a). SNC is a licensee for 

the purposes of its current operating license and an applicant for the renewal of the operating 

license. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23 and 51.53(c), SNC submitted an Environmental Report 

(Environmental Report; SNC 2007b) in which SNC 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 facility-specific supplement to the GEIS (the supplemental EIS [SEIS]) for the 

SNC 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. 

 

(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.
Introduction 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 1-2 December 2008 

1.1 Report Contents 

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

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

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

action to renew the VEGP operating license, (3) discuss the purpose and need for the proposed 

action, and (4) present the status of SNC'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 renewal term. Chapter 5 contains an evaluation of 

potential environmental impacts of plant accidents and includes consideration of severe 

accident mitigation alternatives. 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 man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity; and the 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 appendices. Appendix A contains public comments related 

to the environmental review for license renewal and Staff responses to those comments. 

Appendices B through G, respectively, include the following: 

• The preparers of the supplement (Appendix B), 

• The chronology of the NRC staff’s environmental review correspondence related to this 

SEIS (Appendix C), 

• The organizations contacted during the development of this SEIS (Appendix D), 

• SNC’s compliance status (this appendix also contains copies of consultation 

correspondence prepared and sent during the evaluation process) (Appendix E), 

• GEIS environmental issues that are not applicable to VEGP (Appendix F), and 

• NRC staff evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) (Appendix G).
Introduction 

December 2008 1-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

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 operating licenses under 10 CFR Part 54, and 

the established license renewal evaluation process support the thorough evaluation of the 

impacts of operating license renewal. 

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 EISs. 

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 for impacts was established using the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for “significantly” which requires consideration of both 

“context” and “intensity” (40 CFR 1508.27). Using the CEQ 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. 
Introduction 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 1-4 December 2008 

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

important attributes of the resource. 

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

mitigation measures would continue. 

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 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 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 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; 

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

In the GEIS, the Staff assessed 92 environmental issues and determined that 69 qualified as 

Category 1 issues, 21 qualified as Category 2 issues, and 2 issues were not categorized. The 

two issues not categorized are environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic 

fields. Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a 

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

fields was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared. 

Of the 92 issues, 11 are related only to refurbishment, 6 are related only to decommissioning, 

67 apply only to operation during the renewal term, and 8 apply to both refurbishment and 

operation during the renewal term. A summary of the findings for all 92 issues in the GEIS is 

codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. 
Introduction 

December 2008 1-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process

An applicant seeking to renew its operating license is required to submit an Environmental 

Report as part of its application. The license renewal evaluation process involves careful review 

of the applicant’s Environmental Report and 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 Environmental Report submitted by the 

applicant must: 

• Provide an analysis of the Category 2 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, 

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

• 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 Environmental Report 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), or 

• Contain an analysis of any Category 1 issue unless there is significant new information 

on a specific issue — this is pursuant to 10 CFR 51.23(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. 
Introduction 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 1-6 December 2008 

In preparing to submit its application to renew the VEGP operating license, SNC 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 VEGP would be properly reviewed 

before submitting the Environmental Report and (2) such new and potentially significant 

information related to renewal of the license for VEGP would be identified, reviewed, and 

assessed during the period of NRC review. SNC 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 VEGP. This review was performed by personnel from SNC and 

its support organization who were familiar with NEPA issues and the scientific disciplines 

involved in the preparation of a license renewal Environmental Report. 

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, NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (NRC 2000). 

The search for new information includes: (1) review of an applicant’s Environmental Report 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 where new and 

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

in scope to the assessment of 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 VEGP. At the beginning of the discussion of each set of issues, there is a table 

that identifies the issues to be addressed and lists the sections in the GEIS where 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 where the analysis is presented. The SEIS sections that discuss the Category 2 issues 

are presented immediately following the table. 

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

and compares these impacts with the environmental impacts of alternatives. The evaluation of 

the SNC license renewal application began with the publication of a notice of acceptance for 

docketing, notice of opportunity for a hearing, and notice of intent to prepare an EIS and 
Introduction 

December 2008 1-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

conduct scoping in the Federal Register (FR; 72FR43296; NRC 2007b) on August 3, 2007. A 

public scoping meeting was held on September 27, 2007 in Waynesboro, Georgia. Comments 

received during the scoping period were summarized in the Environmental Impact Statement 

Scoping Process: Summary Report – Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (NRC 2007c). 

Comments are presented in Part 1 of Appendix A of this SEIS. 

The Staff followed the review guidance contained in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (NRC 2000). 

The Staff and contractor retained to assist the Staff visited the SNC Site on October 15 through 

17, 2007, 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 VEGP were reviewed and are referenced within this SEIS. 

On April 25, 2008, the NRC published the Notice of Availability of the draft SEIS in 73 FR 22448 

(NRC 2007d). A 75-day comment period began on the date of publication of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Availability (73 FR 24280) of the draft SEIS to allow 

members of the public to comment on the results of the NRC staff's review. In June 2008, 

during this comment period, two public meetings were held in Waynesboro, Georgia. During 

these meetings, the NRC staff described the preliminary results of the NRC environmental 

review and answered questions to provide members of the public with information to assist them 

in formulating their comments. The comment period for the VEGP draft SEIS ended on July 16, 

2008. Comments made during the 75-day comment period, including those made at the two 

public meetings, are presented in Part 2 of Appendix A. The NRC responses to those 

comments are also provided. 

This SEIS presents the Staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of 

the proposed renewal of the operating license for VEGP, 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 operating license for VEGP. The VEGP facility is 

located approximately 15 miles east-northeast of Waynesboro, Georgia and 26 miles southeast 

of Augusta, Georgia. The VEGP Nuclear Steam Supply System consists of two Westinghouse 

pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and a reactor core power of 3,626 megawatts-thermal 

(MWt), and an approximate net electrical output of 1,343 megawatts-electrical (MWe) for each 

unit (NRC 2008). Plant cooling for VEGP is provided by a closed-cycle system with two natural 
Introduction 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 1-8 December 2008 

draft cooling towers. Cooling tower makeup water is drawn from and blowdown is discharged to 

the Savannah River. 

The current operating licenses for VEGP expire on January 16, 2027 for Unit 1 and February 9, 

2029. The Unit 2 license will not expire within the 20-year period designated in the License 

Renewal Rule; therefore, SNC filed for and received exemption by letter from the NRC dated 

January 9, 2007 (Docket No. 50-425; NRC 2007a) that supports the early renewal of the Unit 2 

license. By letter dated June 27, 2007, SNC submitted an application to the NRC (SNC 2007a) 

to renew this operating license for an additional 20 years of operation (i.e., January 16, 2047 for 

Unit 1 and February 9, 2049 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 operating license, 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 operating license 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) decision makers. 

This definition of purpose and need reflects the NRC’s recognition that, unless there are findings 

in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 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 

operating license is to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy 

requirements beyond the current term of the plant’s license. 
Introduction 

December 2008 1-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

1.5 Compliance and Consultations 

SNC is required to hold certain Federal, State, and local environmental permits, as well as meet 

relevant Federal and State statutory requirements. In its Environmental Report, SNC provided a 

list of the authorizations from Federal, State, and local authorities for current operations as well 

as environmental approvals and consultations associated with VEGP license renewal. 

Authorizations and consultations relevant to the proposed operating license renewal action are 

included in Appendix E. 

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 Environmental Report states that SNC is in compliance with 

applicable environmental standards and requirements for VEGP. 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.” 

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

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

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1437 Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, DC. 

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.” NUREG1437 Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, DC. 
Introduction 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 1-10 December 2008 

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

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1555, 

Supplement 1, Washington, DC. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007a. Letter from Mr. Robert E. Martin, NRC, 

Washington, DC, to Mr. D. E. Grissette regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 2, 

Exception from the Requirements of 10 CFR part 54, Section 54.17(a) Regarding Schedule for 

License Renewal Application (TAC No. MD2116), January 9, 2007. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007b. “Notice of Receipt and Availability of 

Application for Renewal of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating 

Licenses Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81, for an Additional Twenty-Year Period.” Federal Register

Volume 72, p. 43296. August 3, 2007. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007c. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping 

Process: Summary Report – Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Washington, DC. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007d. “Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 

34 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, and 

Public Meeting for the License Renewal of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2.” 

Federal Register. Vol. 73, No. 81, pp. 22448-22449. April 25, 2008. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Issuance of amendments regarding 

measurement uncertainty recapture, power uprate for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2. Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425. February. ML080350347 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007a. License Renewal Application, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating 

License Numbers NPF-68 and NPF-81.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007b. Applicant’s Environmental Report – 

Operating License Renewal Stage, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Docket Numbers 50-424 

and 50-425.
December 2008 2-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and 

Plant Interaction with the Environment

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) is located in Burke County, Georgia. The facility 

consists of two Westinghouse pressurized water reactors (PWR) producing steam that turns a 

turbine to generate electricity. Plant cooling for VEGP is provided by a closed-cycle system with 

two natural draft cooling towers. The plant and its environs are described in Section 2.1, and the 

plant’s interaction with the environment is presented in Section 2.2. 

2.1 Facility and Site Description and Proposed Plant 

Operation During the Renewal Term

VEGP is a 3169-acre (ac) site located in a rural area on former forest and agricultural land. 

Ownership of VEGP is shared by the following based on the ownership percentages shown: 

Georgia Power Company (GPC) (45.7 percent), Oglethorpe Power Corporation (30 percent), 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7 percent), and City of Dalton, Georgia (1.6 percent).

Dalton is a municipality that is doing business by and through the Water, Light, and Sinking 

Fund Board of Commissioners as Dalton Utilities. GPC is owned by the Southern Company.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) is a subsidiary of the Southern Company and is 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensee for VEGP (SNC 2007a). 

VEGP is located on a Coastal Plain bluff on the southwest side of the Savannah River. The 

nearest cities are Waynesboro, Georgia approximately 15 miles west-southwest and Augusta, 

Georgia approximately 26 miles northwest. The site is bounded by River Road, Hancock 

Landing Road, and approximately 1.7 miles of the Savannah River (River Miles [RM] 150.0 to 

151.7). The topography consists of low rolling hills with elevations ranging from 200 to 280 feet 

(ft) above mean sea level (msl) (SNC 2007a). The site location and features within a 50-miles 

and 6-mile radii are illustrated on Figures 2-1 and 2-2, respectively. 

The following features are located within a 6-mile radius of the VEGP site: 

• Telfair Woods, a crossroads community approximately 5 miles southwest of VEGP; 

• Yuchi Wildlife Management Area, a 7,000 acre site adjacent to VEGP to the south; and 

• Savannah River Site (SRS), a Department of Energy (DOE) facility located directly 

across the Savannah River from VEGP. 

The SRS is a DOE-operated, Federally owned facility that covers a total area of 310 square 

miles. Its development began in 1950. Five nuclear reactors and two processing facilities for 

the production of materials for nuclear weapons, as well as other facilities, were built on SRS, 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-2 December 2008

• Interstate highway 1-20 (SNC 2007a). 

Figure 2-1. Location of VEGP, 50-Mi Radius 

Source: SNC 2007a 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Figure 2-2. Location of VEGP, 6-Mi Radius 

Source: SNC 2007a 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-4 December 2008

and construction was completed in 1955. The SRS reactors utilized once-through cooling 

systems that used water from the Savannah River, and the heated water was discharged to 

tributaries of the river (Reed et al. 2002). Within the 6-mile radius of VEGP, features at SRS 

include two remediated industrial areas, one fossil fuel power plant (the D-Area Power House), 

and three recessed intake structures located on the east side of the Savannah River (SNC 

2007b). Past operations at SRS have resulted in the release of radiological and hazardous 

contaminants, including tritium, to the atmosphere, groundwater, and surface water (SNC 

2007b).

Although SRS is not specifically associated with the proposed relicensing of VEGP, the close 

proximity of SRS to VEGP and the types of operations conducted at SRS are relevant to this 

SEIS for two reasons: past industrial and radiological operations at SRS may have affected 

environmental resources in the vicinity of VEGP, and environmental studies associated with 

SRS are the source of much of the data and information utilized in Chapter 2 of the SEIS. 

Baseline environmental studies of the SRS area and the Savannah River began in 1951 prior to 

construction. Subsequently, numerous studies have been and continue to be conducted to 

assess the environmental impacts of SRS operations. All SRS nuclear reactors were shut down 

by 1989, though other nuclear-related operations, research and development, environmental 

remediation, and ecological studies at the facility are ongoing (Reed et al. 2002). 

2.1.1 Site Location and Features 

VEGP is located on the Savannah River (RM 150.0 to 151.7). The facility can be accessed by 

U.S. Route 25; Georgia Routes 46, 80, 24, or 23; and River Road (Figure 2-2). 

The major features of the 3169-ac VEGP site are the reactor containment building, turbine 

building, auxiliary building, combustion turbine plant, cooling towers, switchyard, and the training 

center (SNC 2007a). The nearest residence is located approximately 1.6 kilometer (km; 1 mile) 

from the facility (SNC 2007b). The closest communities are Telfair Woods (a crossroads 

community), located approximately 5 miles southwest of the facility and Girard (population 230), 

located approximately 8 miles to the south (SNC 2007a). The property boundary and general 

facility layout are depicted on Figure 2-3. 

VEGP has two 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines and five 230-kV lines contained within five 

right-of-ways (ROWs; Figure 2-4). The two 500-kV lines are the Scherer and the Thalmann 

lines. The Scherer line runs west from VEGP to Plant Scherer in Macon, Georgia. The 

associated ROW is approximately 154 miles long and generally 150 feet wide. The Thalmann 

line runs south to West McIntosh substation north of Savannah, Georgia. The associated ROW 

is approximately 159 miles long and 150 feet wide. Three of the 230-kV lines run north from the 

VEGP site. Two lines run approximately 19 miles to the Goshen substation in a 275 feet wide 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Figure 2-3. VEGP Property Boundaries and Facility Layout 

Source: SNC 2007a 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-6 December 2008

Figure 2-4. VEGP Transmission Lines and Water Bodies 

Adapted from: SNC 2007a and ESRI 2002 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

ROW. A third lines runs 17 miles in the South Augusta ROW and then branches off for 

approximately 3 miles to the Augusta Newsprint substation in a 275 foot wide ROW. One 230- 

kV line runs through the South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) ROW. This ROW runs north 

and east for 4.5 miles, crosses the Savannah River, and runs 17 miles to a substation operated 

by SCE&G on the SRS. The ROW is 125 foot wide in Georgia and 100 foot wide in South 

Carolina. The fifth 230-kV line is the Wilson Line, which is located wholly on VEGP property, 

connects VEGP to Plant Wilson, and is used in the event of an emergency. The associated 

ROW is 150 foot wide (SNC 2007a).

2.1.2 Reactor Systems

VEGP is a nuclear-powered steam electric generating facility that began commercial operation 

in May 1987 (Southern Company 2007). The two nuclear reactors are Westinghouse PWRs 

producing a reactor core power of 3,626 megawatts-thermal per unit. The design net electrical 

capacity is 1,343 megawatts-electric per unit (NRC 2008). 

For each unit, the nuclear steam supply system at VEGP is a four-loop Westinghouse 

pressurized water reactor. The steam yields its energy to turn the turbines, which are 

connected to the electrical generator. The nuclear fuel is low-enriched uranium dioxide with 

enrichments of 5 percent by weight uranium-235 or less and fuel burnup levels of a batch 

average of approximately 60,000 megawatt-days per metric ton uranium. VEGP operates on an 

18-month refueling cycle. The reactor, steam generators, and related systems are enclosed in 

a containment building that is designed to prevent leakage of radioactivity to the environment in 

the improbable event of a rupture of the reactor coolant piping. The containment building is a 

vertical, right-cylindrical, pre-stressed, post-tensioned concrete structure with a dome and flat 

base with a depressed center for a reactor cavity and instrumentation tunnel. A carbon steel 

liner is attached to the inside face of the concrete shell to insure a high degree of leak tightness. 

In addition, the approximately 4-foot thick concrete walls serve as a radiation shield for both 

normal and accident conditions (SNC 2007a). 

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems 

VEGP operates several water systems, including systems to provide cooling for the reactor to 

remove waste heat from the condensors (circulating water system); and to serve a variety of 

other purposes (SNC 2007a, USACE 1996). The source of water for the circulating water 

system is the Savannah River, while the source for all other systems is onsite groundwater wells 

(SNC 2007a, USACE 1996). 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-8 December 2008

 2.1.3.1 Circulating Water System 

The circulating water system at VEGP is part of a closed-cycle heat dissipation system that 

utilizes water withdrawal from intakes on the Savannah River and natural draft cooling towers 

(SNC 2007a). The intake system consists of a 365-ft long intake canal located on the western 

bank of the river (SNC 2007a). The earthen bottom of the river at the discharge is 67 feet 

above msl. There is a skimmer weir at the entrance to the intake canal, and a canal weir 100 

feet inside the entrance. A sedimentation basin between the two weirs is used to allow silt to 

settle out before entering the plant. The purpose of the skimmer weir is to prevent floating 

materials from entering the intake canal (SNC 2007a). 

The intake structure at the head of the canal contains four bays (two for each unit), each with a 

stop log, trash rack, traveling screens, and a single pump (SNC 2007a). The trash racks consist 

of a series of vertical flat bars, and the traveling screens are annealed type 304 stainless steel 

3⁄4 inch mesh (SNC 2007a). As the system operates, wash water is used to rinse the traveling 

screen and drive debris into a debris basket, which is emptied periodically (SNC 2007a). Daily 

inspections are performed, and fish or other aquatic organisms are rarely observed (SNC 

2007a).

Using an average river flow rate of 10,300 cubic feet per second (cfs) and water elevation of 85 

feet above msl, the Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the facility operations determined 

that flow velocities across the trash rack would be 0.3 feet per second, and velocities across the 

screens would be 0.7 feet per second (NRC 1985). The FES concluded that these velocities 

would be low enough so that fish entering the intake canal could escape the screens by 

swimming away (NRC 1985). 

The circulating water is removed from the intake by vertical turbine pumps, each with a capacity 

of 22,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (SNC 2007a). The circulating water is directed into the 

natural draft cooling towers, which use natural convection to remove heat from water that has 

been used to cool the condensers (SNC 2007a). Because the cooling towers operate as a 

closed-system, the only water loss is through evaporation, drift, and blowdown (SNC 2007a). 

To minimize fouling within the cooling towers and condensers, the circulating water is treated 

with sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide (SNC 2007a). To treat the oxidation products 

from these chemicals, the water is also treated with ammonium bisulfite in the blowdown mixing 

sump prior to discharge of blowdown (SNC 2007a). Potential contaminants with the blowdown 

are regulated by the facility’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, 

which is described in Section 2.2.3.1. 

The cooling tower blowdown and other liquid wastestreams (such as the liquid radioactive waste 

treatment effluents) are discharged back to the Savannah River through a discharge structure 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

located 500 feet downstream of the intake structure (SNC 2007a). The discharge consists of a 

buried pipe which is 2 feet in diameter, and oriented in order to minimize bottom scour (SNC 

2007a).

2.1.3.2 Nuclear Service Cooling Water System

The source of water for the Nuclear Service Cooling Water (NSCW) system is groundwater 

production wells located on the VEGP property (SNC 2007a). A description of these wells, and 

their uses, is provided in Section 2.2.2.1.2. The water within this system is circulated through 

four forced-draft mechanical cooling towers with underground reservoirs, which act as the 

ultimate heat sink for the facility (SNC 2007a). Blowdown from this system is combined with the 

cooling tower blowdown from the circulating water system and liquid radioactive waste 

treatment effluent, and discharged to the Savannah River through the same discharge structure 

(SNC 2007a). As with the circulating water, the discharge of the NSCW system blowdown is 

monitored and regulated in accordance with the VEGP NPDES permit (SNC 2007a). 

2.1.3.3 Other Water Systems 

In addition to cooling water, VEGP uses water for a variety of miscellaneous purposes, including 

makeup water for the wastewater treatment plant, fire protection systems, potable water supply, 

sanitary water, pure water systems, and irrigation for landscaping (SNC 2007a). The source of 

water for all of these uses is from groundwater production wells, which are discussed in more 

detail in Section 2.2.2.1.2. The ultimate discharge of all of these systems is through the 

Savannah River discharge location, which is regulated by the VEGP NPDES permit (SNC 

2007a).

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems 

VEGP radioactive waste disposal systems (RWDS) provide controlled handling and disposal of 

radioactive wastes. All equipment in the RWDS is controlled from the waste processing system 

panel. Operating procedures for the RWDS ensure that radioactive wastes are safely 

processed and discharged from the plant to ensure compliance with the dose limits contained in 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 20; the dose design objectives of 

Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, Numerical Guide for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions 

for Operation to Meet the Criterion “As Low As is Reasonably Achievable” for Radiological 

Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents; the plant’s technical 

specifications; and VEGP’s Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) (SNC 2003a). 

Unless otherwise noted, the description of the radioactive wastes management systems is 

based on information provided in the applicant’s Environmental Report (SNC 2007a) or the 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-10 December 2008

VEGP Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)(SNC 2006a), and the Staff’s independent review of 

NRC Inspection Reports. 

VEGP’s RWDS are designed to collect, treat, and dispose of the radioactive wastes that are 

byproducts of plant operations. The byproducts are activation products resulting from the 

irradiation of reactor water and impurities therein (principally metallic corrosion products) and 

fission products resulting from migration through the fuel cladding or uranium contamination 

within the reactor coolant system. Radioactive wastes resulting from plant operations are 

classified as liquid, gaseous, or solid. Liquid radioactive wastes are generated from liquids 

received directly from portions of the reactor coolant system or were contaminated by contact 

with liquids from the reactor coolant system. Gaseous radioactive wastes are generated from 

gases or airborne particulates vented from the reactor. Solid radioactive wastes are solids from 

the reactor coolant system or solids that came into contact with reactor coolant system’s liquids 

or gases (SNC 2006a). 

Reactor fuel that has exhausted a certain percentage of its fissile uranium content is referred to 

as spent fuel. Spent fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor core and replaced with fresh 

fuel assemblies during routine refueling outages, typically every 18 months. The spent fuel 

assemblies are stored in the spent fuel pool in the reactor building. VEGP also provides for onsite storage of mixed wastes, which contain both radioactive and chemically hazardous 

materials (SNC 2006a). 

VEGP’s ODCM contains the methodology and parameters used to calculate off-site doses 

resulting from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents, and the radiation monitoring alarm and 

trip set points used to verify that the radioactive material being discharged meets regulatory 

limits (SNC 2003a). The ODCM also contains the radioactive effluent controls and radiological 

environmental monitoring program requirements and the information that is required to be 

included in the annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report and annual 

Radioactive Effluent Release Report required by Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR 

50.36a, respectively. 

 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls 

The VEGP liquid waste processing system (LWPS) collects, holds, treats, processes, and 

monitors all liquid radioactive wastes for reuse or disposal. The LWPS is divided into several 

subsystems so that liquid wastes from various sources can be segregated and processed 

separately. Cross connections between the subsystems provide additional flexibility for 

processing the wastes by alternate methods. The wastes are collected, treated, and disposed 

of according to their conductivity and/or radioactivity (SNC 2006a). 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Liquid wastes are collected in sumps and drain tanks and transferred to the appropriate 

subsystem collection tanks for subsequent treatment, disposal, or recycle. Liquid wastes are 

processed by a series of components and employing various processes specifically designed to 

provide maximum decontamination factors. The processing methods used include; filtration, 

reverse osmosis, and/or demineralization. Following treatment, the processed wastes in the 

waste evaporator condensate tank, waste monitor tanks, or secondary liquid waste monitor 

tanks are analyzed for chemical and radioactive content prior to being discharged. In addition, 

the LWPS can handle effluent streams that typically do not contain radioactive material, but that 

may, on occasion, become radioactive (e.g., steam generator blowdown as a result of steam 

generator tube leakage). Any planned releases from the system are evaluated in conjunction 

with all other radioactive liquid releases to ensure that the total release does not exceed the 

ODCM limits. The liquid effluent normally discharges from the plant into the cooling water 

system, which dilutes the effluent and transports it to the Savannah River. Liquid releases to 

the Savannah River are controlled and limited to satisfy the dose objectives of Appendix I to10 

CFR Part 50. 

The NRC staff reviewed the VEGP radioactive effluent release reports for 2002 through 2006 for 

liquid effluents (SNC 2003a, 2004a, 2005a, 2006b, 2007b). There were no unplanned releases 

from either unit in 2006. The amount of radioactivity discharged in liquid releases, excluding 

gases, tritium, and alpha, totaled 9.02 E-02 curies (Ci) (3.33 E+03 megabequerel [MBq]), from 

the VEGP site in 2006. A total of 2.00 E+03 Ci (7.40 E+07 MBq) of tritium were released from 

the VEGP site in 2006. A total of 1.48 E-03 Ci (5.47 E+01 MBq) of dissolved and entrained 

gases were released from the VEGP site in 2006. There were no releases of gross alpha 

radioactivity from the VEGP site in 2006 (SNC 2007b). The liquid discharges for 2006 are 

consistent with the radioactive liquid effluents discharged from 2002 through 2005. Variations 

on the amount of radioactive effluents released from year to year are expected based on the 

overall performance of the plant and the number and scope of outages. The liquid radioactive 

wastes reported by VEGP are reasonable and no unusual trends were noted. Based on the 

applicant’s assertion that there are no refurbishment activities planned, similar quantities of 

radioactive liquid effluents are expected from VEGP during the license renewal term. 

 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls 

The gaseous radioactive waste processing system (GWPS) and the plant ventilation exhaust 

system control, collect, process, store, and dispose of gaseous radioactive wastes generated as 

a result of normal operation. The GWPS consists mainly of two closed loops comprised of a 

waste gas compressor, a catalytic hydrogen recombiner, and seven gas waste gas decay tanks 

to accumulate the fission product gases. All pipes containing radioactive gases are shielded as 

necessary, and no piping is run through normally occupied areas. Gaseous effluents at VEGP 

are currently discharged through the following locations or systems: Unit 1 and Unit 2 plant 

vents (which includes discharges from containment purge system, gaseous radioactive waste 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-12 December 2008

system, fuel handling building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), and auxiliary 

building HVAC), the condenser air ejector, Unit 1 and Unit 2 steam packing exhauster systems, 

Radwaste Processing Facility, and the Dry Active Waste Building. The primary source of the 

radioactive gas to the GWPS is the volume control tank purge. Smaller quantities of radioactive 

gas are received via the vent connections from the reactor coolant drain tank, the pressurizer 

relief tank, and the recycle holdup tanks. The operation of the GWPS reduces the fission gas 

concentration in the reactor coolant system which, in turn, reduces the release of fission gases 

from the reactor coolant system during maintenance operations or through equipment leakage 

(SNC 2006a). 

Gaseous wastes are collected in the vent header. These gases are withdrawn from the vent 

header by one of the two compressors and sent to the waste gas decay tanks. The gases are 

monitored and pass through a pre-filter, high efficiency particulate filter, charcoal filter, and 

another high efficiency particulate filter in series which reduce the amount of particulate 

radioactive material to very low levels. Although the system is designed to accommodate 

continuous operation without atmospheric releases, the VEGP GWPS design permits controlled 

discharges of gas from the system to the atmosphere. Before a waste gas decay tank is 

released to the atmosphere through the plant vent, the gas must be analyzed to determine and 

document the amount of radioactivity being released. When the contents of the tank are being 

released to the atmosphere, a trip valve in the discharge line will close automatically if activity 

above a predetermined level is detected by the plant vent radiation monitor (SNC 2006a). 

VEGP maintains radioactive gaseous effluents in accordance with the procedures and 

methodology described in the ODCM. The GWPS is used to reduce radioactive materials in 

gaseous effluents before discharge to meet the ALARA dose objectives in Appendix I to10 CFR 

Part 50 (SNC 2007b). 

The NRC staff reviewed the VEGP radioactive effluent release reports for 2002 through 2006 for 

gaseous effluents (SNC 2003a, 2004a, 2005a, 2006b, 2007b). There were five (5) unplanned 

releases from the VEGP site in 2006. Analysis by the applicant’s staff showed that none of the 

unplanned releases exceeded regulatory dose limits. The amount of radioactivity discharged in 

the form of fission and activation gases from the VEGP site in 2006, totaled 2.95 Ci (1.09 E+05 

MBq). A total of 81.5 Ci (3.01 E+06 MBq) of tritium were released from the VEGP site in 2006. 

A total of 2.55 E-07 Ci (9.43 E-03 MBq) of radioiodines and 7.68 E-05 Ci (2.84 MBq) of 

particulates were released from the VEGP site in 2006 (SNC 2007b). The gaseous discharges 

for 2006 are consistent with the radioactive gaseous effluents discharged from 2003 through 

2005. Variations on the amount of radioactive effluents released from year to year are expected 

based on the overall performance of the plant and the number and scope of outages. The 

gaseous radioactive wastes reported by VEGP are reasonable and no unusual trends were 

noted.
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Based on the applicant’s assertion that there are no refurbishment activities planned, similar 

quantities of radioactive gaseous effluents are expected from VEGP during the license renewal 

term.

 2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Management System 

The solid waste management system (SWMS) is designed to collect, process, and package 

low-level radioactive wastes generated as a result of normal plant operation. The SWMS is 

designed and operated in a manner to keep radiation exposure to plant personnel as low as 

reasonably achievable (ALARA). The SWMS equipment is located in the radioactive waste 

processing facility and the dry active waste (DAW) facility. The DAW facility is also capable of 

storing the packaged waste until it is shipped off-site to a waste processor for treatment and/or 

disposal or directly to a licensed burial site. Transportation and disposal of solid radioactive 

wastes are performed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 71 and 10 CFR Part 

61, respectively. To minimize worker’s radiation exposure, access to the process equipment 

and solid radioactive waste storage areas is controlled by barriers such as locked doors, gates, 

or control cards. 

The SWMS consists of a wet process stream used to collect, process, dewater, and solidify wet 

solid wastes, and a dry process stream used to collect and package dry solid wastes. Wet solid 

wastes include spent resins, filter cartridges, and filter crud. Dry solid wastes include 

contaminated rags, clothing, paper, outage equipment, and other radioactively contaminated 

equipment (SNC 2006a). 

In 2006, VEGP made a total of 31 shipments of solid waste. The class A, B, and C, solid noncompacted waste volume was 96.60 cubic meters (3.41 E+03 cubic feet) of dry compressible 

waste and contaminated equipment, with an activity of 3.37 E+02 Ci (1.24 E+07 MBq) (SNC 

2007b). Volume reduction of the waste prior to final disposal is performed by a contractor at an 

off-site location. No shipments of spent resins, irradiated fuel, or irradiated components were 

made in 2006. The solid waste volumes and radioactivity amounts generated in 2006 are 

typical of annual waste shipments made by VEGP. Variations on the amount of solid 

radioactive waste generated and shipped from year to year are expected based on the overall 

performance of the plant and the number and scope of maintenance work and outages. The 

volume and activity of solid radioactive waste reported by VEGP are reasonable and no unusual 

trends were noted. Based on the applicant’s assertion that there are no refurbishment activities 

planned, similar quantities of radioactive solid radioactive wastes are expected from VEGP 

during the license renewal term. 

The State of South Carolina's licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, located in 

Barnwell; stopped accepting waste as of July 2008 from radioactive waste generators located in 

states that are not part of the Atlantic Low-Level Waste Compact. Georgia is not a member of 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-14 December 2008

the Atlantic Low-Level Waste Compact. This has an impact on VEGP's ability to dispose of its 

low-level solid radioactive waste. However, VEGP is aware of this situation and is developing 

several design concepts to provide for on-site low-level radioactive waste storage. One design 

concept being considered is to use a shielded storage pad with individual compartments for the 

placement of high integrity containers containing radioactive wastes. The shielding will be 

designed to ensure that the off site dose does not exceed any of the Federal limits specified in 

10 CFR Part 20, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) radiation standards in 

40 CFR Part 190 (SNC 2007d). 

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 

VEGP generates solid, hazardous, universal, and mixed waste from routine facility operations 

and maintenance activities. 

 2.1.5.1 Nonradioactive Waste Streams 

VEGP generates solid waste, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA), as part of routine plant maintenance, cleaning activities, and plant operations. These 

solid waste streams include non-radioactive resins and sludges, putrescible wastes, recyclable 

wastes, concrete, bricks, and rubble. The non-radioactive resins and sludge are disposed of 

offsite in a permitted industrial landfill, with a total volume of six roll-off containers disposed in 

2006. Putrescible wastes also are disposed offsite in a permitted landfill (SNC 2006c). 

Materials that are collected for local recycling include paper, aluminum cans, scrap metal (300 

tons per year), used oil, and antifreeze (SNC 2006c). Construction materials such as concrete, 

bricks, and rubble are disposed onsite in a facility called the Private Industrial Landfill, which is 

permitted by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR; SNC 2006c). 

Hazardous waste is nonradioactive waste that is listed by the EPA as hazardous waste or that 

exhibits characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (40 CFR Part 261). RCRA 

regulates the treatment, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous waste and requires a hazardous 

waste permit for facilities that treat or store large quantities of hazardous waste for more than 90 

days and for entities that dispose of hazardous waste at the facility. RCRA regulations are 

administered in Georgia by the GDNR, Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD). 

VEGP is a small quantity generator, but manages wastes in a manner consistent with the 

regulatory requirements for large quantity generators (SNC 2006c). In both 2006 and 2007, 

VEGP disposed of a total of approximately 600 pounds of RCRA hazardous waste. 

Universal waste is hazardous waste that has been specified as universal waste by the EPA. 

Universal waste, including mercury-containing equipment, batteries, lamps, and pesticides, has 

specific regulations (40 CFR Part 273) to ensure proper collection and recycling or treatment. 

VEGP generates batteries, capacitors, and fluorescent light bulbs as universal wastes from 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

normal facility operations. These wastes are accumulated in satellite areas and then shipped 

off-site for disposal in accordance with universal waste regulations. On an annual basis, VEGP 

generates an average of 18 drums of light bulbs, 28 drums of capacitors, and 50 pallets of 

batteries (SNC 2006c). 

Low-level mixed waste (LLMW) is waste that exhibits hazardous characteristics and contains 

low levels of radioactivity. LLMW has been regulated under multiple authorities. EPA or State 

agencies regulate the hazardous component of LLMW through RCRA and the NRC regulates 

the radioactive component. VEGP generates LLMW from routine maintenance, refueling 

outages, health protection activities, and from operations in the radiochemical laboratory. The 

facility generates small volumes of LLMW, and maintains procedures for safe management, 

storage, and offsite disposal (SNC 2006c). 

The VEGP facility has two sanitary treatment systems which operate under a NPDES permit. 

These systems generate sludge as a solid waste. The sludge is disposed of offsite through the 

Burke County wastewater treatment facility (SNC 2006c). 

 2.1.5.2 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 

Currently, VEGP has a Waste Minimization Plan designed to reduce the amount and toxicity of 

waste generated and disposed of in a landfill (SNC 2006c). The plan includes procedures for 

evaluating and reducing the generation of the following types of wastes: oily rags and resins; 

light bulbs; batteries and capacitors; asbestos; and used oil. 

2.1.6 Facility Operation and Maintenance 

Maintenance activities conducted at VEGP include inspection, testing, and surveillance to 

maintain the current licensing basis of the facility and to ensure compliance with environmental 

and safety requirements. Various programs and activities currently exist at VEGP to maintain, 

inspect, test, and monitor the performance of facility equipment. These maintenance activities 

include inspection requirements for reactor vessel materials, boiler and pressure vessel inservice inspection and testing, maintenance structures monitoring program, and maintenance of 

water chemistry. 

Additional programs include those implemented to meet technical specification surveillance 

requirements, those implemented in response to the NRC generic communications, and various 

periodic maintenance, testing, and inspection procedures. Certain program activities are 

performed during the operation of the unit, while others are performed during scheduled 

refueling outages. SNC refuels VEGP on an 18 month fueling cycle (SNC 2007a). 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-16 December 2008

2.1.7 Power Transmission System 

VEGP is currently connected to the electric power grid via two 500-kV and five 230-kV 

transmission lines, all of which are owned, operated, and maintained by GPC (SNC 2007a). 

The FES for the operation of the VEGP site (NRC 1985) discusses the seven transmission lines 

intended to connect the VEGP site with the regional transmission grid. Transmission lines 

considered in scope for license renewal are those constructed to connect the facility to the 

transmission system (10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H)); a discussion of the seven in scope 

transmission lines follows. The characteristics of these lines and their ROWs are summarized 

in Table 2-1. Figure 2-4 is a map of the transmission system. 

• Scherer Line – The 500-kV line is 154 miles (248 km) long and runs generally westward 

from the VEGP site to Plant Scherer, which is located north of Macon, Georgia. It crosses 

portions of Burke, Jefferson, Washington, Hancock, Putnam, Baldwin, Jones, and Monroe 

Counties. The Scherer Line ROW is 150 feet (46 meters [m]) wide for the majority of its 

length, but occasionally has a width of 400 feet (122 m). The ROW crosses terrain that is 

mainly flat to rolling (SNC 2007a).

• West McIntosh (Thalmann) Line – The 500-kV line is 159 miles (256 km) long and runs from 

the VEGP site to a substation near Brunswick. The line first runs south from VEGP for 69 

miles (111 km) to the West McIntosh substation near Savannah. It then continues south for 

an additional 90 miles (145 km) to its termination at the Thalmann substation, near 

Brunswick. The line has a 150 foot (46 m) wide ROW. The terrain traversed by the ROW is 

gently rolling to flat and includes many low, wet areas (TRC 2006; SNC 2007a). 

• Goshen (Black) and Goshen (White) Line – The two 230-kV Goshen lines run approximately 

19 miles (31 km) northwest from the VEGP site to the Goshen substation south of Augusta. 

The line has a 275 foot (84 m) wide ROW. The two Goshen lines, plus 17 miles (27 km) of 

the Augusta Newsprint line, described below, share the ROW. The ROW crosses terrain 

that is generally flat (SNC 2007a). 

• Augusta Newsprint Line – The 230-kV line runs approximately 20 miles (32 km) from the 

VEGP site to the Augusta Newsprint substation where it serves a large paper mill located in 

southeast Richmond County. The Augusta Newsprint and Goshen lines share a 275 foot 

(84 m) wide ROW until the Augusta Newsprint line diverges east from the two Goshen lines 

at mile 17 (km 27). The ROW of the Augusta Newsprint line is 100 to 125 feet (30 to 38 m) 

wide for the remaining 3 miles (5 km). The terrain traversed by the ROW is generally flat 

(SNC 2007a). 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 2-1. VEGP Transmission Lines and ROWs 

Voltage Approximate 

Line Length Transmission ROW Width ROW Area 

Line kV km mi m ft hectares ac 

Scherer 500 248 154 46 150 1,133 2,800 

West McIntosh 

(Thalmann) 500 257 160 46 150 1,177 2,909 

Goshen (Black) 230 31 19 84 275 140 346 

Goshen (White) 230 31 19 Shared with 

Black Shared with Black 

Augusta Newsprint 230 27 17 Shared with 

Goshen Shared with Goshen 

 230 5 3 38 125 18 45 

SCE&G 230 7.2 4.5 38 125 28 68 

 230 27 17 30 100 83 206 

Wilson 230 2.3 1.4 46 150 10 25 

Totals 636 395 2,585 6,395 

Adapted from: SNC 2007a 

• SCE&G Line – The 230-kV line runs north and east from the VEGP site for 4.5 miles (7.2 

km) where it crosses the Savannah River, then runs an additional 17 miles (27 km) to a 

substation on SRS, which is maintained and managed by SCE&G. The line has a 125 foot 

(38 m) wide ROW within Georgia and a 100 foot (30 m) wide ROW within South Carolina. 

The part of the line and its ROW in South Carolina is entirely within the SRS. The ROW 

crosses terrain that is mostly flat (SNC 2007a). 

• Wilson Line – The 230-kV line runs southeast from the VEGP switchyard for 1.4 miles (2.3 

km) to Plant Wilson. The line and ROW are entirely on VEGP property and maintain a 150 

foot (46 m) wide ROW. The ROW crosses terrain that is mostly flat. The Wilson line would 

provide offsite power to the VEGP site in the event of an emergency (SNC 2007a). 

GPC owns and operates 395 miles (636 km) of transmission lines and maintains 6395 acres 

(2585 hectacres [ha]) of ROW associated with the transmission lines. The ROWs are generally 

on agricultural land and forests, and occasionally cross swamps and wetlands. Much of the 

farmland the ROWs cross is currently active. The Oconee National Forest is crossed by the 

Scherer line northeast of Plant Scherer. Additionally, the West McIntosh (Thalmann) line 

crosses three significant natural areas: the Yuchi Wildlife Management Area, which is adjacent 

to the VEGP site, the Tuckahoe Wildlife Management Area, which is approximately 30 miles (48 

km) south of the VEGP site, and one privately owned swamp, the Ebenezer Creek Swamp, 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-18 December 2008

which is designated as a National Natural Landmark and is crossed by the line near the West 

McIntosh plant (SNC 2007a). 

GPC maintains the ROW for all seven transmission lines, in accordance with established 

procedures, to prevent vegetation from interfering with the lines (GPC 1997). The vegetative 

maintenance program includes selected backpack spraying of approved herbicides on dry 

ground and stream crossings every other year; in non-spraying years, SNC follows a four-year 

mowing cycle (SNC 2007a; TRC 2006). If danger trees are identified at any time during the 

maintenance cycle, they are trimmed and sprayed as needed. On wetland areas, no herbicides 

are used, the area is not mowed, and only hand clearing is allowed. ROWs that cross farmland 

are not maintained, as the land is cultivated by the local farmers. The transmission lines were 

built in conjunction with the construction of the plant in the mid-1980s and in accordance with 

the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). SNC plans to maintain these ROWs whether or 

not VEGP has its license renewed, and has stated that the transmission lines play a role in the 

overall transmission system (SNC 2007a). 

2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment 

2.2.1 Land Use

The VEGP facility occupies a 3169-ac site. The two nuclear units (Units 1 and 2 including 

containment and turbine buildings, as well as shared auxiliary, control, and fuel handing 

buildings), two natural draft cooling towers, supporting facilities such as service water cooling 

towers, a water treatment building, switchyard, and training center, parking lots, roads, 

transmission ROWs, and Plant Wilson occupy approximately 800 acres. The undeveloped 

portion of the site includes approximately 1634 acres of pine forest, 612 acres of hardwood 

forest, and 96 acres of open areas including mowed grass (NRC 2007). The forested acreage 

is covered by a land management plan developed to ensure effective management of timber 

and wildlife resources (SNC 2007a). Figure 2-3 depicts the VEGP property boundary and 

general facility layout. 

VEGP is located in and pays property taxes to Burke County. Burke County guides land use by 

means of a comprehensive plan and land development code, but does not currently have 

zoning regulations. 

Seven transmission lines with a total length of approximately 395 miles connect the VEGP 

facility to the electric power grid. These transmission lines are described in detail in Section 

2.1.7. The transmission line ROWs, which occupy approximately 6395 acres, traverse primarily 

agricultural and forest lands. The primary land use classifications traversed by the ROWs are: 

Scherer line – agricultural 29 percent, forest 63 percent; West McIntosh (Thalmann) – 

agricultural 32 percent, forest 29 percent for VEGP to West McIntosh substation, and 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

agricultural 5 percent, forest 68 percent for West McIntosh substation to Thalmann substation; 

Goshen/Augusta Newsprint – agricultural 14 percent, forest 75 percent; SCE&G – agricultural 4 

percent, forest 69 percent (SNC 2007a). 

Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)) 

requires that applicants for Federal licenses to conduct an activity in a coastal zone 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. Within six months of receipt of the certification, the State is to notify the Federal 

agency whether the State concurs with or objects to the applicant’s certification. The VEGP site 

is not located in a coastal zone, however one transmission line, the West McIntosh (Thalmann) 

line, extents into a coastal county. In a letter dated July 14, 2008, SNC indicated that CZMA 

certification to the State of Georgia was not required for VEGP as identified in the Georgia 

Coastal Management Program document (SNC 2008). 

2.2.2 Water Use 

2.2.2.1 Hydrology 

This section describes the surface water and groundwater features of the area that could be 

impacted by the proposed relicensing of VEGP. 

 2.2.2.1.1 Surface Water 

The VEGP facility is located on the southern bank of the Savannah River, which serves as the 

border between Georgia and South Carolina. VEGP uses water from the river to provide makeup water to the facility’s cooling tower system. The Savannah River watershed is approximately 

10,579 square miles. The upstream end of the Savannah River is the confluence of the Seneca 

and Tugaloo Rivers, which is a part of Hartwell Lake (USACE 1996). The Savannah River flows 

288.9 miles from the Hartwell Dam to the Atlantic Ocean at the mouth of the river in Savannah, 

Georgia. The facility is located at RM 151, directly across the river from the DOE’s SRS (SNC 

2006c). 

Flow in the Savannah River is primarily controlled by releases from three upstream dams and 

reservoirs operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), including the Hartwell Dam 

(RM 288.9), Richard B. Russell Dam (RM 259.1), and J. Strom Thurmond Dam (RM 221.6). 

Between the J. Strom Thurmond Dam and the VEGP site are the Stevens Creek Dam (RM 

208.1), the city of Augusta (approximately RM 200), the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam 

(RM 187.7), and the mouths of several small creeks (SNC 2006d). The factor most directly 

affecting river flow rates at RM 151 is the releases from J. Strom Thurmond Reservoir, which is 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-20 December 2008

located 72 miles upstream of the VEGP facility (SNC 2006c). The annual mean flow volume of 

the Savannah River near Augusta from 1952 to 2004 was 9157 cfs (Gotvald et al. 2005). 

The Savannah River adjacent to the VEGP site is relatively straight with very few bends. The 

substrate in the deep sections of the Savannah River ranges from “brown poorly graded gravel 

with sand" to "poorly graded gravel" (SNC 2006d). 

Channel modifications have been made to the Savannah River to allow for a 9-ft deep by 90-ft 

wide navigation channel from the Savannah Harbor to the city of Augusta. Maintenance of the 

channel was discontinued in 1980; therefore, discharges from J. Strom Thurmond Dam are 

based on the needs of downstream water supply withdrawals without concern for navigation 

(USACE 2006). U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flow gage 02197320 is located near Jackson, 

South Carolina, approximately 6 miles upstream of the VEGP site at Savannah (RM 156.8) 

(USGS 2002).

Water releases from the J. Strom Thurmond Dam are governed by the USACE’s Drought 

Contingency Plan for the Savannah River, which requires releases of a minimum of 3800 cfs to 

the Savannah River to maintain flows for downstream water users, unless the reservoir’s level 

falls below the bottom of the conservation pool, which is at an elevation of 312 feet above msl 

(USACE 2007a). If the water level in the reservoir falls below 312 feet above msl, then the 

Drought Contingency Plan requires that releases be made at the same flow rate as inflows to 

the reservoir (USACE 2007a). The minimum flow of 3800 cfs is based on Georgia’s instream 

flow guidelines for the Savannah River, established by the GEPD for the regulation of surface 

water withdrawals. The instream flow guidelines were established in 2006 and are based on the 

7Q10 value (SNC 2007b), which is the lowest average stream flow expected to occur for seven 

consecutive days with an average frequency of once in ten years (UGA Carl Vinson Institute of 

Government 2006). 

Long-term daily flow records for the Savannah River at Augusta, recent flow records for the 

Savannah River at VEGP (a site referred to as “Savannah River near Waynesboro”), release 

rates from the J. Strom Thurmond Dam, and lake levels in J. Strom Thurmond Reservoir were 

reviewed to estimate average and low-flow conditions in the Savannah River. A review of the 

USACE data for J. Strom Thurmond Dam shows that the level of the reservoir has never fallen 

below 312 feet above msl since operation of VEGP began in 1987 (USACE 2007b). However, 

releases of flows less than 3800 cfs are not uncommon and occurred on 76 separate days 

between October 2006 and October 2007 (USACE 2007c). Instream flow data for the 

Savannah River near the Waynesboro station at VEGP are available only since 2005. 

However, these limited data show that the flow rate near the VEGP facility has not dropped 

below 3900 cfs even though this portion of Georgia is currently considered to be in a state of 

severe hydrologic drought (USGS 2007a and USGS 2007b). Reviews of the available USGS 

stream flow data for the Savannah River at Augusta (22 miles upstream of VEGP; USGS 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

2007c) indicate that actual flows of less than 3800 cfs are rare. Since 1987, the lowest annual 

average stream flow recorded in the Savannah River at Augusta was 4470 cfs in 2002 (USGS 

2007d).

The following water temperature statistics were generated for the period from January 30, 1973, 

to August 13, 1996: minimum = 5.0°C (41.0°F), average = 17.4°C (63.4°F), median = 18.0°C 

(64.4°F), and maximum = 27.2°C (81.0°F) (SNC 2006d). Savannah River water temperature 

data were collected by the GDNR at Shell Bluff Landing, approximately 11 RM upstream of the 

VEGP site. 

2.2.2.1.2 Groundwater 

The VEGP facility exists within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. At the facility 

location, the subsurface geology consists of more than 1000 feet of Coastal Plain sediments 

overlying Triassic Basin rock and Paleozoic crystalline rock. Within these rock units, three 

distinct hydrogeologic aquifers underlie the facility: the Cretaceous aquifer, Tertiary aquifer, and 

Water Table aquifer. 

The lower aquifer is the Cretaceous aquifer, which is approximately 700 feet thick at the facility 

(SNC 2007a). The Cretaceous aquifer consists of sediments of the Cape Fear Formation, PioNono Formation, Galliard Formation, Black Creek Formation, and Steel Creek Formation (SNC 

2007a). The Cretaceous aquifer is a good water source, and is capable of producing up to 5 

billion gallons per day throughout its extent (SNC 2005b). The Cretaceous aquifer is the 

primary aquifer, in the local region, from which municipal and industrial water supplies are 

derived. A review of the registered groundwater users within 50 miles of the VEGP site shows 

that the majority of permitted wells (124 out of 171) derive their water supply from the 

Cretaceous aquifer (SNC 2006c). The largest user of groundwater in the local area is the SRS, 

which withdraws water from the Cretaceous aquifer at a rate of 5000 gpm (SNC 2007a). 

According to the facility’s Updated UFSAR (SNC 2005b), the withdrawals at the SRS do not 

have an impact on groundwater conditions at VEGP. 

The Cretaceous aquifer is overlain by the Tertiary aquifer, which consists of permeable sands of 

the Still Branch and Congaree Formations, and is approximately 100 feet thick (SNC 2006c). 

Groundwater recharge in both aquifers occurs through rainfall in the area where the aquifers 

crop out, northwest of the VEGP site. At the VEGP site, both the Cretaceous and Tertiary 

aquifers are overlain and confined by the Blue Bluff marl, but they are in hydraulic contact with 

each other. Further downdip, to the south, the Cretaceous and Tertiary aquifers become 

separated by impermeable silts and clays of the Huber and Ellenton Formations (SNC 2006c). 

The regional flow direction in both aquifers is to the southeast, in the direction of dip. 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-22 December 2008

The Water Table aquifer is unconfined, and is present within sands of the Barnwell Group. 

Although present at the VEGP site, it is not continuous throughout the area, and does not 

provide a substantial groundwater source in the local area (SNC 2006c). 

Hydraulic monitoring data has been collected in both the Water Table aquifer and Tertiary 

aquifer by VEGP. Beginning in 1979, water levels were measured in observation wells in the 

Water Table aquifer to monitor dewatering associated with plant construction. Water levels 

were measured monthly in these wells through 1988, then quarterly from 1995 to 2005, and 

then monthly again (with 10 newly installed observation wells) from 2005 to present. Water 

levels were also monitored in two wells in the Tertiary aquifer from 1971 to 1975, and 1979 to 

1985. Five new observation wells were installed in the Tertiary aquifer in 2005, and their water 

levels have been monitored monthly since that time. No observation wells exist in the 

Cretaceous aquifer, which is separated from the Tertiary aquifer by a leaky confining unit. The 

15 new observation wells installed in 2005 were installed for the purpose of collecting 

groundwater flow direction data to support the proposed construction of two additional units at 

VEGP (SNC 2006c). 

The hydraulic monitoring data for the Water Table aquifer shows that the flow direction on the 

VEGP site is radial, apparently driven by the topography of the site. The potentiometric surface, 

shown in Figure 2-5, has a high that is coincident with the highest land surface elevation on the 

site, and the groundwater flow direction is to the north, east, south, and west of this high (SNC 

2006c). The potentiometric surface for the Tertiary aquifer, shown in Figure 2-6, shows that the 

flow direction is to the northeast, in the direction of the Savannah River. This is in contrast to 

the general regional flow direction, which is southeast, and reflects the fact that the Savannah 

River has eroded down through the Blue Bluff marl and indicates that there is a potential for 

discharge from the Tertiary aquifer to the Savannah River in the area of the VEGP facility. Preoperational and post-operational groundwater levels were measured in the Water Table Aquifer 

from 1979 to 1988, and again from 1995 to present (SNC 2006c). Groundwater levels were 

also measured in Tertiary Aquifer wells from 1971 to 1985, and again from 2005 to present 

(SNC 2006c). A review of the potentiometric surface in the area near withdrawal well MU-1 

indicates a lowering of groundwater levels by about 15 feet between 1971 and 2006. However, 

water levels in nearby observation wells (such as well 27 and 29) do not appear to indicate any 

long-term trend, such as gradually falling water levels, that may indicate that facility operations 

are having a widespread impact on groundwater resources. 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Figure 2-5. Potentiometric Map – Water Table Aquifer 

Source: SNC 2006c 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-24 December 2008

Figure 2-6. Potentiometric Map – Tertiary Aquifer 

Source: SNC 2006c 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

2.2.2.2 Facility Water Use

For facility operations, VEGP uses both surface water and groundwater resources to supply the 

cooling water and auxiliary water systems, as well as potable water supply and other 

miscellaneous water systems. 

 2.2.2.2.1 Surface Water 

The cooling water system is the CWS, a closed-cycle system used for removing waste heat 

from the steam condensers associated with the power generation system (SNC 2007a). The 

CWS is supplied by a surface water intake which acquires water from the Savannah River. The 

water is obtained through a 365-ft long intake canal, and placed into a closed-loop system in 

which the water is heated at the steam condensers, and cooled in two natural draft cooling 

towers. To avoid buildup of minerals within the cooling tower water, blowdown water is 

discharged, along with liquid radioactive waste treatment effluents, through a pipe located 

approximately 500 feet downstream of the intake canal (SNC 2007a). 

Although a closed system, the system does lose water through evaporative losses, drift, and 

blowdown, resulting in net usage of water from the Savannah River (SNC 2007a). The VEGP 

ER reports that the capacity of the intake system is 89 cfs (SNC 2007a), of which an estimated 

66.8 cfs (about 75 percent) is consumed through evaporative losses and drift (NRC 1985). In 

2006, the actual reported maximum monthly average for water withdrawal was 103.8 cfs (SNC 

2007e). Using the same 75 percent consumption ratio, the maximum monthly average 

consumptive use in 2006 was 77.9 cfs for the entire facility. 

 2.2.2.2.2 Groundwater 

Groundwater is used by the facility to supply the Nuclear Service Cooling Water (NSCW) 

system, demineralized water treatment plant, potable water, utility water, and fire protection 

water (SNC 2007f). The groundwater supply source is a network of nine wells. The location of 

the wells is shown in Figure 2-7, and details regarding the construction and capacity of the wells 

are provided in Table 2-2. The groundwater wells are permitted under a single withdrawal 

permit (Groundwater Use Permit #017-0003) from the GEPD (SNC 2007f). The total permitted 

annual average withdrawal volume for all purposes is 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd), while 

the actual annual average withdrawal volume since 2000 is 1.05 mgd (SNC 2007a). 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-26 December 2008

Figure 2-7. Location of Groundwater Supply Wells 

Source: SNC 2006c 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

2.2.3 Water Quality

 2.2.3.1 Surface Water 

Contaminant concentrations in the aquatic environment at VEGP are monitored on an ongoing 

basis by personnel of the Georgia Power Company (GPC) Environmental Laboratory (EL), the 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), the GDNR, and 

the SRS. These organizations operate sampling programs to evaluate any potential impacts of 

facility operations on surface water, sediment, and aquatic life. Samples collected to monitor for 

potential releases of radionuclides to surface water include surface water samples, drinking 

water samples, shoreline sediment samples, and fish tissue samples. Sample collection and 

analytical frequencies vary depending on the exposure pathway and constituent. 

Table 2-2. Groundwater Wells Used at VEGP 

Well

Identification 

Number

Depth (ft) Capacity (gpm) Primary Purpose 

MU-1 851 2,000 Service water, potable and sanitary water, fire protection, plant 

water, irrigation 

MU-2A 884 1,000 Back-up for MU-1 

TW-1 860 1,000 Back-up for production well make-up system 

SW-5 200 20 Water for old security tactical training area 

REC 265 150 Potable water for recreation facility 

CW-3 220 Not Available Water supply for Nuclear Operations Garage 

IW-4 370 120 Irrigation well for vegetation 

SEC 320 10 Non-potable water supply for lavatory at plant entrance security 

building 

SB 340 50 Potable water for Training Facility 

Source: SNC 2007a 

The impact of VEGP operations on water quality within the Savannah River is evaluated by 

monitoring associated with the facility’s Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 

(REMP). Samples collected to monitor for potential releases of radionuclides to surface water 

include surface water samples, drinking water samples, shoreline sediment samples, and fish 

tissue samples. The VEGP program is operated in accordance with the VEGP ODCM and the 

results are documented within the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports. 

REMP sampling began in 1981, providing more than 5 years of pre-operational water quality 

data (SNC 2007g). 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-28 December 2008

The most recent REMP report was completed in 2007 for the calendar year 2006 (SNC 2007g). 

The components of the VEGP monitoring program related to surface water quality are described 

in Table 2-3. 

Table 2-3. Summary of 2006 VEGP Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program 

Sample

Type 

Location Number 

and Location 

Indicator or 

Control 

Number of 

Samples in 

2006 Program 

Analytes 

Surface

Water 

Savannah River, 

RM 151.2, Location 

82

Control 12 Gamma isotopic 

(monthly), tritium 

(quarterly) 

Surface

Water 

Savannah River, 

RM 150.4, Location 

83

Indicator 12 Gamma isotopic 

(monthly), tritium 

(quarterly) 

Surface

Water 

Savannah River, 

RM 149.5, Location 

84

Indicator 12 Gamma isotopic 

(monthly), tritium 

(quarterly) 

Drinking 

Water 

Beaufort-Jasper 

Water Treatment 

Plant, Location 87 

Indicator 12 Gamma isotopic 

and gross beta 

(monthly), tritium 

(quarterly), I-131 

when dose dictates 

Drinking 

Water 

Cherokee Hill Water 

Treatment Plant, 

Location 88 

Indicator 12 Gamma isotopic 

and gross beta 

(monthly), tritium 

(quarterly), I-131 

when dose dictates 

Drinking 

Water 

Purrysburg Water 

Treatment Plant, 

Location 89 

Indicator 12 Gamma isotopic 

and gross beta 

(monthly), tritium 

(quarterly), I-131 

when dose dictates 

Shoreline 

Sediment 

Savannah River, RM 

150.2 (usually), 

Location 83 

Indicator 2 Gamma isotopic (semi 

annually) 

Fish Tissue Savannah River, RM 

153 to 158, Location 

81

Control 2 Gamma isotopic (semi 

annually) 

Fish Tissue Savannah River, RM 

144 to 149.4, Location 

85

Indicator 2 Gamma isotopic 

(semi-annually) 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

The results from the 2006 REMP program report indicate that tritium releases from VEGP may 

have resulted in increases of tritium concentrations in river water in the Savannah River near 

the facility (SNC 2007g). In 2006, total tritium releases from the facility were higher than normal 

due to several outages (SNC 2007g). In addition, drought conditions resulted in a lower volume 

of water present in the river (SNC 2007g). These resulted in tritium concentrations in water 

samples ranging from 1140 to 3870 picoCuries/liter (pCi/l). Because the indicator sample tritium 

concentrations were higher than the control sample concentrations, the tritium concentrations 

could be indicative of plant releases (SNC 2007g). These values are still well below the EPA 

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 20,000 pCi/l tritium for drinking water. Also, the report 

notes that the Savannah River is not used as a drinking water source for more than 100 miles 

downstream of VEGP (SNC 2007g). Tritium concentrations in samples collected from pretreated and treated water at these drinking water sources (Beaufort-Jasper, Cherokee Hill, and 

Purrysburg) were not statistically different from the tritium concentrations at the control location 

(Augusta) (SNC 2007g). 

REMP sampling results for sediment detected two man-made radionuclides (Cs-137 and Co-60) 

that may be attributed to VEGP operations or other sources (SNC 2007g). The plots of 

historical Cs-137 and Co-60 concentrations at these sampling locations do not show any 

increasing or decreasing trend (SNC 2007g). 

The REMP program included sampling of fish tissue samples at both control and indicator 

locations, with the results analyzed only for gamma isotopic analysis (not tritium). The results 

did not identify any radionuclides that had a statistical difference between the indicator and 

control samples, so there is no discernable impact from facility operations (SNC 2007g). 

The GEDP Program is similar in scope to the VEGP annual program and the results are 

reported in the GDNR’s Environmental Radiation Surveillance Report. The most recent 

finalized version of this report covers the period from 2000 to 2002 (GDNR 2004). Due to the 

proximity of VEGP and SRS, the GDNR Environmental Radiation Surveillance Monitoring 

Program includes the collection and analysis of samples whose locations were selected to 

provide an assessment of radiation releases and water quality potentially impacted by both 

facilities. The program includes the collection of samples from air, rain, vegetation, crops, 

game, milk, groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment, drinking water, and fish. A summary of 

the tritium results are in Table 2-4. 

In addition to the tritium detections, elevated concentrations of Cs-137 and Sr-90 were also 

detected in fish tissue in the samples collected adjacent to SRS, with concentrations that 

exceeded the NRC reporting limit (GDNR 2004). Several radionuclides were also detected in 

sediment samples up to 100 miles downstream of SRS, including Co-60, Sr-90, Cs-137, Pu238, and Pu-239. The GDNR report stated that a portion of the Co-60 may have been 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-30 December 2008

attributable to VEGP releases, but the remainder were attributed to SRS, as well as global 

fallout (GDNR 2004). 

Table 2-4. Summary of 2000 to 2002 GDNR Surface Water Tritium Results 

Sample

Type 

Location Average 

Tritium

Concentration

Maximum Tritium 

Concentration 

Maximum as a % 

of the MCL 

Surface

Water 

Savannah River, SRS 

Outfall

5,700 pCi/L 60,000 pCi/L 300% 

Surface

Water 

Savannah River, 

VEGP Outfall 

2,200 pCi/L 11,000 pCi/L 55% 

Surface

Water 

Savannah River, 

downstream

1,000 pCi/L 3,300 pCi/L 17% 

Drinking 

Water 

Savannah 900 pCi/L 2,300 pCi/L 12% 

Fish Savannah River, SRS 

Outfall

2,000 pCi/kg 47,000 pCi/kg 0.7% 

Fish Savannah River, 

VEGP Outfall 

1,100 pCi/kg 2,500 pCi/kg 0.04% 

Fish Savannah River, 

downstream

600 pCi/kg 1,880 pCi/kg 0.03% 

Source: GDNR 2004 

The only other radionuclide detected in fish tissue samples collected by GPC during VEGP’s 

operation was I-131. Historically, I-131 was detected in 1989 at one downstream station at 18 

pCi/kg-wet, and it was detected in 1990 at one downstream station at 13 pCi/kg-wet and one 

upstream control station at 12 pCi/kg-wet. All three of these detections were below the 

minimum detectable concentration (MDC) for I-131 of 53 pCi/kg-wet (SNC 2007g). GPC does 

not analyze fish tissue samples for tritium.

SRS has collected freshwater fish from nine locations on the Savannah River – from above SRS 

at Augusta, Georgia to the coast at Savannah, Georgia. SRS found the radionuclides Cs-137, I129, and TC-99 in Savannah River edible fish composites. Sr-89, Sr-90, and tritium were 

detected at most of the SRS freshwater river locations. Pu-238 was found slightly above the 

MDC in composites from eight freshwater locations. Cs-137 and Sr-89/90 concentrations in 

2006 were similar to those of previous years (Westinghouse Savannah River Company Inc. 

2007).

The primary conclusion from both the VEGP and GEPD monitoring programs is that releases of 

radionuclides have occurred from both the SRS and VEGP facilities into the Savannah River. 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

However, SRS is believed to be the primary source of the radionuclides, with VEGP contributing 

up to 10 percent of the tritium detected in the Savannah River (GDNR 2004). 

Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act 

[CWA]), VEGP effluent discharges are regulated by a NPDES permit. The current permit, 

Number GA0026786, was issued by the GDNR on June 30, 1999. The current permit expiration 

date was May 31, 2004, and was extended indefinitely by GDNR on that date. Sample 

collection to demonstrate compliance with this NPDES permit is the only requirement of the 

non-radiological Annual Environmental Operating Report required by NRC (SNC 2007h). 

The quantitative effluent limitations regulated under the VEGP NPDES permit are shown in 

Table 2-5. There are eleven separate outfalls regulated under this permit. Of these, Outfall 001 

is designated as the Final Plant Discharge into the Savannah River, through the underground 

discharge pipe. Most of the other Outfalls (002 through 011) consist of discharges of various 

water systems into Outfall 001. The only exceptions are: 

• Outfalls 002A and 003A, which are emergency overflows to storm drains; 

• Outfall 006, which is the emergency overflow from the Sewage Treatment Plant to the 

Savannah River; and 

• Outfall 011, which is the backwash from the Intake Screens directly into the Savannah River 

at the intake screen location (SNC 2007a). 

The effluent limitations for each outfall are provided in Table 2-5. 

The NPDES permit does not regulate the discharge of radionuclides from the facility, and does 

not require routine monitoring of the temperature of the discharge to the Savannah River (SNC 

2007a).

A review of the quarterly NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports since 2002 identified a total of 

six exceedances, or possible exceedances, of permit standards (SNC 2007i). These included 

two sample results that exceeded permit standards for oil and grease (O&G), two that exceeded 

standards for Total Suspended Solids (TSS), one that may have exceeded a standard for Total 

Residual Chlorine, and one event in which influent flow exceeded the capacity of the Waste 

Water Retention Basins, resulting in a discharge of water that bypassed the required outfall 

(SNC 2007i). In all cases, these exceedances were relatively minor, did not result in impacts to 

the Savannah River, and did not result in enforcement action. Also, each event was 

immediately reported to GDNR, investigated, and corrective actions taken (SNC 2007i). 
Table 2-5. Effluent Limitations – NPDES Permit for VEGP 

Free Available 

Chlorine

(mg/L)

Total 

Suspended 

Solids (mg/L) 

Oil and Grease 

(mg/L)

Total Cr 

(mg/L)

Total Zn 

(mg/L) pH Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L) Outfall No. Outfall

Description 

Daily 

Avg. 

Daily 

Max.

Daily 

Avg. 

Daily 

Max.

Daily 

Avg. 

Daily 

Max.

Daily Max. Daily Max. Range Daily 

Avg. 

Daily Max. 

001 Final Plant 

Discharge to Savannah River 

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6-9 NA NA

002 Unit 1 Cooling 

Tower Blowdown to 001

0.2 0.5 NA NA NA NA 0.2 1.0 NA NA NA

002A 

Emergency Overflow to Storm Drains

0.2 0.5 NA NA NA NA 0.2 1.0 NA NA NA

003 Unit 2 Cooling 

Tower Blowdown to 001

0.2 0.5 NA NA NA NA 0.2 1.0 NA NA NA

003A 

Emergency Overflow to Storm Drains

0.2 0.5 NA NA NA NA 0.2 1.0 NA NA NA

004 Unit 1 Wastewater 

Retention Basin to 001

NA NA 30.0 100.0 15.0 20.0 NA NA NA NA NA

005 Unit 2 Wastewater 

Retention Basin to 001

NA NA 30.0 100.0 15.0 20.0 NA NA NA NA NA

Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-32 December 2008 
Table 2-5. (cont’d) 

Free Available 

Chlorine

(mg/L)

Total 

Suspended 

Solids (mg/L) 

Oil and Grease 

(mg/L)

Total Cr 

(mg/L)

Total Zn 

(mg/L) pH Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L) Outfall No. Outfall

Description 

Daily 

Avg. 

Daily 

Max.

Daily 

Avg. 

Daily 

Max.

Daily 

Avg. 

Daily 

Max.

Daily Max. Daily Max. Range Daily 

Avg. 

Daily Max. 

006 Sewage treatment 

Plant Emergency Overflow to Savannah River 

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30.0 45.0

007 Unit 1 Liquid Rad 

Waste Systems Discharge to 001 

NA NA 30.0 100.0 15.0 20.0 NA NA NA NA NA

008 Unit 2 Liquid Rad 

Waste Systems Discharge to 001 

NA NA 30.0 100.0 15.0 20.0 NA NA NA NA NA

009 Nuclear Service 

Cooling Tower Blowdown to 001 

0.2 0.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

010 Rad Waste Dilution 

Flow to 001 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6-9 NA NA

011 Intake Screen 

Backwash to Savannah River 

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

mg/l = milligrams per liter 

 Plant and the Environment

December 2008 2-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-34 December 2008

 2.2.3.2 Groundwater 

The VEGP REMP program has not historically required the collection and analysis of 

groundwater samples (SNC 2007g). However, in 2007, VEGP voluntarily implemented a 

groundwater sampling program which will consist of samples from 29 wells and one surface 

water location (SNC 2007j). The results will be provided within future REMP reports, but will not 

be available until the issuance of the 2007 REMP report in 2008 (SNC 2007j). 

Groundwater samples are included in the GDNR radiological monitoring program (GDNR 2004). 

This program includes the sampling of 42 monitoring wells and 37 groundwater supply wells. 

The sampling frequency is once per year, and the samples are analyzed for gross alpha, gross 

beta, and tritium. The supply well samples have also been analyzed for Cs-137. 

According to the GDNR report, tritium was unexpectedly detected in several relatively deep 

wells in Burke County, Georgia, in 1991 (GDNR 2004). Tritium had been expected to be 

present in Water Table aquifer wells, due to the history of releases of tritium from SRS, but it 

was not expected to be present in the confined Tertiary or Cretaceous aquifers. Based on these 

data, GDNR partnered with the DOE to perform an extensive, regional groundwater study. The 

results of this study concluded that no significant tritium was present in the deeper aquifers. 

During the 2000 to 2002 study, tritium concentrations in the Water Table aquifer averaged less 

than 1,000 pCi/L, compared to EPA’s MCL of 20,000 pCi/L. The distribution of tritium in the 

Water Table aquifer indicated that its source was likely to be airborne or precipitation-related 

tritium from SRS (GDNR 2004). No other radionuclides were detected in the GDNR 

groundwater samples. 

The VEGP facility does perform groundwater monitoring associated with two landfills on the 

property. Landfill #2 is operated by VEGP under Solid Waste Permit #017-006D(L)(I), and is 

used for the disposal on non-putrescible, non-liquid solid waste such as office waste, 

construction and demolition debris, pallets, and concrete (SNC 2007k). Groundwater 

monitoring began at Landfill #2 in 2002, through the sampling of four wells screened in the 

uppermost Water Table aquifer (SNC 2007k). The monitoring samples are analyzed for total 

metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This sampling program has not identified any 

statistically significant releases of any contaminants to the groundwater. 

Landfill #3 is operated by VEGP under Solid Waste Permit #017-007D(L)(I), and began 

operations in 1987 (SNC 2007l). Since 1992, Landfill #3 has been used the disposal of only 

construction and demolition debris. The groundwater monitoring program consists of samples 

from nine Water Table Aquifer wells, which are analyzed for total metals and VOCs. The results 

from Landfill #3 have documented the presence of barium, mercury, and VOCs 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

(trichlorofluoromethane, 1,1-dicholorethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, chlorobenzene, and cis-1,2-

dichloroethene) (SNC 2007l). 

2.2.4 Meteorology and Air Quality 

VEGP is located in Burke County, Georgia. This region has a humid subtropical climate 

characterized by long periods of mild sunny weather in the autumn, short mild winters, 

somewhat more windy but mild weather in the spring, and long hot humid summers (SNC 

2005b). The Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean are approximately 250 miles southsouthwest and 100 miles southeast, respectively. Both the Appalachian chain of mountains and 

these two nearby maritime bodies exert an important influence on the climate. The mountains 

to the north tending to retard the southward movement of Polar air masses. The Bermuda High 

pressure areas of the Atlantic Ocean have a dominant effect on the weather, particularly in the 

summer months. East or northeast winds produce the most unpleasant weather although 

southerly winds are quite humid during the summer (NOAA 2004).

Georgia has a mild climate, with an average temperature of 63°F. The mountainous north has 

cooler summers and fairly cold winters. For example, northern mountains are generally colder 

than the rest of the state, with an average temperature of 78° F in July and 45° F in January. 

The southern portion of the state has a July average of 82°F and a January average of 54°F. 

The highest temperature ever recorded in the state was 112°F at Greenville, GA on August 20, 

1983. The lowest recorded temperature, -17°F, occurred in Floyd County on January 27, 1940 

(World Book Encylopedia 2006). 

The state’s precipitation (in forms of rain, melted snow, and other forms of moisture) averages 

50 inches per year. The greatest amount of precipitation occurs in mid summer. The rainiest 

months are July and August, and the driest are October and November. Rainfall ranges from 

approximately 56 inches a year in the north to about 48 inches near the east and central 

portions of Georgia. About one inch of snow falls yearly in the state (World Book Encylopedia 

2006).

VEGP is located in a region of relatively low tornado activity and is far enough inland that the 

strong winds associated with tropical storms and hurricanes are greatly reduced, although these 

storms can cause heavy precipitation in late summer (SNC 2005b). 

There are no Class I areas designated by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), or the U.S. Forest Service within 50 miles of the site. Class I areas, as defined 

in the Clean Air Act, are the following areas that were in existence as of August 7, 1977: 

national parks over 6000 acres, national wilderness areas and national memorial parks over 

5000 acres, and international parks (NPS 2006a). The closest Class I area is Cape Romaine 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-36 December 2008 

Wilderness Area, South Carolina, which is located approximately 120 miles from VEGP and 

Wolf Island Wilderness Area, Georgia, which is located approximately 125 miles from VEGP.

All areas within the Augusta-Aiken area are classified as achieving attainment with the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS; 40 CFR 81.311 and 40 CFR 81.341). The NAAQS 

define ambient concentration criteria for sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with 

aerodynamic diameters of 10 microns or less (PM10), particulate matter with aerodynamic 

diameters of 2.5 microns or less (PM 2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

ozone (O3), and lead (Pb). These pollutants are generally referred to as “criteria pollutants.” 

Areas of the United States having air quality as good as or better than the NAAQS are 

designated by the EPA as attainment areas. Areas having air quality that is worse than the 

NAAQS are designated by EPA as non-attainment areas. The nearest non-attainment area to 

VEGP is the Columbia, South Carolina metropolitan area, a non-attainment area under the 8-

hour O3 standard, located approximately 80 miles northeast of the plant (SNC 2005b). The 

currently designated non-attainment areas for all criteria pollutants for areas in Georgia are as 

follows: 

• Atlanta, GA – 8-hour O3 and PM 2.5 

• Macon, GA – 8-hour O3 and Pm 2.5 

• Rome, GA – PM 2.5 

• Chattahoochee National Forest Mountains in Murray County – 8-hour O3 

The non-attainment areas of South Carolina are as follows: 

 

• Columbia, SC – 8-hour O3 

• Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson – 8-hour O3 (EPA 2006) 

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources

The aquatic resources relevant to the operation of VEGP are those of the Savannah River. The 

location of VEGP and the river is shown in Figure 2-3. This section describes the aquatic biota 

of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the VEGP site, as well as other water bodies in the 

transmission line ROWs, that potentially could be affected by the future operation and 

maintenance of VEGP and the associated transmission lines. 

 2.2.5.1 Savannah River 

The Savannah River is the largest and most important aquatic resource in the vicinity of the 

VEGP site. The river borders the VEGP site on the north and east, and the site is located 

between RM 150 and 152. This area is within the reach referred to as the middle Savannah 

River, which has been defined as the river segment from the Fall Line (a line along which 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

waterfalls occur at the transition from the Piedmont to the Coastal Plain) just above Kiokee 

Creek in Columbia County at RM 221 (between Augusta and J. Strom Thurmond Lake) south to 

the mouth of Brier Creek at RM 97 in Screven County (Figure 2-4). The middle Savannah River 

basin, which includes this reach of the Savannah River and all the tributaries that empty into this 

reach, is typical of southeastern river basins – it is home to a diverse fish community and, like 

other southeastern rivers, its watershed is increasingly affected by a growing human population. 

The Savannah River provides several habitat types for fish, including the main river channel, 

“cutoff bends” or "dead rivers” (former channels still connected to the main channel), and 

streams or smaller tributaries that empty into the river. Additional fish habitat is provided by 

swamps (such as the Savannah River Swamp along the river mainly on the SRS) and 

floodplains during high water. The main river channel within this reach generally has a 

substrate of sand, but other substrate types also are present, including gravel where there is 

moderate flow and mud and plant detritus in backwaters (Marcy et al. 2005). The aquatic 

organisms inhabiting the Savannah River include fish, benthic macroinvertebrates (including 

mussels, clams, and aquatic insects), aquatic macrophytes, attached algae, and diatoms. 

The aquatic community of the area of the Savannah River adjacent to the VEGP site has been 

extensively studied over a long period of time because of the presence of the SRS, as 

discussed in Section 2.1. The five SRS reactors, which operated intermittently during the period 

from the mid-1950s to 1988, employed once-through cooling systems that used cooling water 

from the Savannah River and discharged heated water to tributaries of the river. Baseline 

ecological studies of the Savannah River began in 1951 prior to construction, numerous studies 

were performed during the more than 30 years of reactor operation, and other studies are 

ongoing (Reed et al. 2002). 

The Academy of Natural Sciences (ANS) in Philadelphia was initially selected to conduct the 

baseline ecological studies at SRS, and since 1951 it has continued to conduct biological and 

water-quality studies of this reach of the Savannah River to assess the effects of SRS on the 

aquatic community. The results provide one of the most comprehensive ecological data sets 

available for any river in the world (ANS 2003). The ANS assessments were focused in the 

vicinity of the SRS between RM 161 and RM 122. Until 1997, these assessments included 

comprehensive studies at sites in the Savannah River along the SRS, cursory studies in the 

Savannah River in the vicinity of the SRS, and independent monitoring of two locations near the 

VEGP site. The comprehensive studies included a twice-per-year assessment every 4 years of 

all study components and all sampling locations. The cursory studies were annual assessments 

with four sampling periods per year of fewer study components and fewer sample locations. 

Studies in the vicinity of the VEGP site, which included the same components as the 

comprehensive surveys but different sampling locations, were initiated in 1985 in order to 

assess potential impacts from VEGP so they could be separated from potential SRS impacts. 

For this purpose, the ANS included studies starting in 1985 at two stations adjacent to the 

VEGP site. A station upstream of VEGP (Station 2A) was located at RM 151.2, and a 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-38 December 2008 

downstream station (Station 2B) was located approximately 1.0 miles below the VEGP cooling 

water discharge at RM 149.8. From 1985 through 1996, studies were performed approximately 

every 2 years (ANS 2003). 

Starting in 1997, the sampling design was simplified to an annual, early fall assessment of 

diatoms, attached algae and aquatic macrophytes, aquatic insects, non-insect 

macroinvertebrates, and fish at four stations. The four stations included a reference station 

upstream of SRS and VEGP (Station 1), and three downstream stations potentially exposed to 

the influence of SRS and VEGP (Stations 2B, 5 and 6). The sampling design began another 

transition in 2001, the last year in which fish were sampled at Station 2B (ANS 2003). 

Fish Community

As discussed above, the fish community and other aquatic resources of the middle Savannah 

River basin have been characterized by numerous studies, the most comprehensive of which is 

documented in the series of reports by the ANS. The latest fish survey performed by the ANS, 

which included samples from stations upstream and downstream of VEGP, was in the fall of 

2001 (ANS 2003).

The fish community of the middle Savannah River basin includes approximately 82 native 

species and 13 introduced species (Marcy et al. 2005). Comparison of this community to those 

of four other river drainages in the region indicates that the Savannah River is not unusual in its 

species composition or number of species (Marcy et al. 2005). The fishes of the middle 

Savannah River basin can be grouped into three main categories based on their life histories: 1) 

resident freshwater species (present in the area throughout all life stages), 2) diadromous 

species (migratory species present only during certain life stages), and 3) marine/estuarine 

species (sometimes found in the river upstream of the saltwater-freshwater interface) (Marcy et 

al. 2005). A listing of the native resident, diadromous, and marine fish species that occur in the 

middle Savannah River basin is provided in Table 2-6. 

Table 2-6. Native Resident, Diadromous, and Marine Fish Species of the 

Middle Savannah River Basin 

Family Common Name Scientific Name 

Resident Species 

Lepisosteidae (gars) longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 

 Florida gar Lepisosteus platyrhincus 

Amiidae (bowfin) bowfin Amia calva 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 2-6. (cont’d) 

Family Common Name Scientific Name 

Clupeidae (herrings & shads) gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 

Cyprinidae (minnows) bannerfin shiner Cyprinella leedsi 

 whitefin shiner Cyprinella nivea 

 eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius 

 rosyface chub Hybopsis rubrifrons 

 bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus 

 golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 

 ironcolor shiner Notropis chalybaeus 

 dusky shiner Notropis cummingsae 

 spottail shiner Notropois hudsonius 

 yellowfin shiner Notropis lutipinnis 

 taillight shiner Notropois maculatus 

 coastal shiner Notropis petersoni 

 pugnose shiner Opsopoeodus emiliae 

 lowland shiner Pteronotropis stonei 

 creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus 

Catostomidae (suckers) quillback Carpiodes cyprinus 

 highfin carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 

 creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus 

 lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta 

 northern hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans 

 spotted sucker Minytrema melanops 

 notchlip redhorse Moxostoma collapsum 

 robust redhorse Moxostoma robustum 

 brassy jumprock Scartomyzon sp.

Ictaluridae (bullhead catfishes) snail bullhead Ameiurus brunneus 

 white catfish Ameiurus catus 

 yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis 

 brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 

 flat bullhead Ameiurus platycephalus 

 tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus 

 margined madtom Noturus insignis 

 speckled madtom Natures leptacanthus 

Esocidae (pikes & pickerels) redfin pickerel Esox americanus 

 chain pickerel Esox niger 

Umbridae (mudminnows) eastern mudminnow Umbra pygmaea 

Aphredoderidae (pirate perch) pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus 

Amblyopsidae (cave fishes) swampfish Chologaster cornuta 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-40 December 2008 

Table 2-6. (cont’d) 

Family Common Name Scientific Name 

Fundulidae (top minnows) golden topminnow Fundulus chrysotus 

 lined topminnow Fundulus lineolatus 

Poeciliidae (livebearers) eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 

Atherinopsidae (New World silversides) brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus 

Centrarchidae (sunfishes) mud sunfish Acantharchus pomotis 

 flier Centrarchus macropterus 

 blackbanded sunfish Enneacanthus chaetodon 

 bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus 

 banded sunfish Enneacanthus obesus 

 redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus 

 pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 

 warmouth Lepomis gulosus 

 bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

 dollar sunfish Lepomis marginatus 

 redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus 

 spotted sunfish Lepomis punctatus 

 redeye bass Micropterus coosae 

 largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 

 black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Elassomatidae (pygmy sunfishes) Everglades pygmy sunfish Elassoma evergladei 

 bluebarred pygmy sunfish Elassoma okatie 

 banded pigmy sunfish Elassoma zonatum 

Percidae (darters & perches) Savannah darter Etheostoma fricksium 

 swamp darter Etheostoma fusiforme 

 Christmas darter Etheostoma hopkinsi 

 turquoise darter Etheostoma inscriptum 

 tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi 

 sawcheek darter Etheostoma serrifer 

 blackbanded darter Percina nigrofasciata 

Diadromous Species 

Acipenseridae (sturgeons) shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum 

 Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus 

Anguillidae (freshwater eels) American eel Anguilla rostrata 

Clupeidae (herrings & shads) blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 

 hickory shad Alosa mediocris 

 American shad Alosa sapidissima 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 2-6. (cont’d) 

Family Common Name Scientific Name 

Moronidae (temperate basses) striped bass Morone saxatilis 

Marine Species 

Megalopidae (tarpon) tarpon Megalops atlanticus 

Belonidae (needle fish) Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina 

Mugilidae (mullets) mountain mullet Agonostomus monticola 

 striped mullet Mugil cephalus 

Achiridae (American soles) hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 

Adapted from Marcy et al. 2005 

Freshwater Resident Fishes 

The results of the 2000 ANS study illustrate the freshwater resident fish species that are most 

abundant in the fish community of the middle Savannah River. A total of 4599 individuals of 50 

species of fish were collected. The species most frequently collected were the spottail shiner 

(Notropis hudsonius; 36.5 percent of the total number of fish caught), followed by the bannerfin 

shiner (Cyprinella leedsi; 11.7 percent) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus; 10.8 percent). The 

brook silverside (Labidesthes sicculus, 6.7 percent) and whitefin shiner (Cyprinella nivea; 6.5 

percent) also were relatively common. These five species together made up approximately 72 

percent of the total catch. Other commonly collected species were the redbreast sunfish 

(Lepomis auritus), rosyface chub (Hybopsis rubrifrons), coastal shiner (Notropis petersoni),

largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops). No 

statistically significant differences were found between stations for species richness, species 

diversity, or density. These results were similar to the 1999 study results and were concluded to 

provide no evidence of impacts on the fish community of the river (ANS 2001). 

In the 2001 ANS study, a total of 3951 specimens of 48 species of fish were collected, and the 

species composition was similar to the 2000 results. The most common species was the 

spottail shiner (24.4 percent of the total number of fish), followed by the taillight shiner (Notropis

maculatus, 19.5 percent). The bluegill (5.1 percent), bannerfin shiner (5.0 percent), and whitefin 

shiner (4.1 percent) also were relatively common. These five species together made up 

approximately 58 percent of the total catch (ANS 2003). Results from the 2001 ANS study 

indicated that species richness at the sampling location downstream of the VEGP cooling water 

discharge was significantly higher than at the upstream location. However, neither species 

diversity nor the densities of common species differed significantly between stations and, in 

general, there was greater temporal than spatial variation in fish assemblages between the 

study sites. These results were similar to the 2000 study results and were concluded to provide 

no evidence of impacts on the fish community of the river (ANS 2003). 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-42 December 2008 

The Savannah River and the mouths of creeks flowing into the river also were sampled 

intensively as part of a study of the SRS during the period 1983 to 1985. Electrofishing 

collections from this period were dominated by Centrarchids, which made up approximately 60 

percent of all fish collected. Redbreast sunfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass appeared most 

frequently in the collections, representing 17, 14, and 9 percent, respectively, of fish collected. 

They were followed in frequency by spotted sucker (8 percent), spotted sunfish (Lepomis 

punctatus; 8 percent), chain pickerel (Esox niger; 5 percent), and bowfin (Amia calva; 5 

percent). In the same study, hoop net collections were numerically dominated by flat bullhead 

(Ameiurus platycephalus; 29 percent), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus; 21 percent), 

redbreast sunfish (10 percent), and white catfish (Ameiurus catus; 9 percent). These species 

are habitat generalists that are all commonly found in large southeastern Coastal Plain river 

systems in habitats that include sloughs, backwaters, oxbow lakes, small tributary streams, and 

small impoundments on these tributaries (SNC 2007a). 

The 1983-1984 study also included separate surveys of smaller fish species that serve as prey 

for larger predators, including predators of recreational importance such as largemouth bass, 

black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white bass (Morone

chrysops), and hybrid bass (Morone saxatilis X Morone chrysops). The small fish collected in 

the surveys predominantly were shiners (genus Notropis), which made up 89 percent of all fish 

collected, and other species collected regularly were brook silversides, lined topminnow 

(Fundulus lineolatus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), and mosquitofish (Gambusia 

spp.), all of which are common residents of swamps, bayous, and streams in the southeastern 

U.S. The 1983-1984 study did not distinguish between the various species of Notropis 

collected; however, a follow-up survey of small, minnow-like fish in the Savannah River and its 

tributaries found that more than two-thirds of those collected consisted of three Notropid 

species: the coastal shiner (40 percent), dusky shiner (Notropis cummingsae; 17 percent), and 

spottail shiner (10 percent) (SNC 2007a). 

Thus, the resident freshwater fishes of the middle Savannah River include a variety of mainly 

minnows (family Cyprinidae), sunfish (family Centrarchidae), suckers (family Catastomidae), 

catfish (family Ictaluridae), and darters (family Percidae). 

Diadromous Fishes

Diadromous fishes of the middle Savannah River include sturgeons (family Acipenseridae), 

shad and herrings (family Clupeidae), temperate basses of the genus Morone, and one eel 

(family Anguillidae) (SNC 2007a). Species within these groups are mainly anadromous 

(spawning and beginning life in freshwater but mostly living and growing to sexual maturity in 

estuaries or the ocean) except the eel, which is catadromous (growing to sexual maturity in 

freshwater but migrating to the ocean to spawn) (Marcy et al. 2005). Several of these species 

are or historically have been important commercially. There is no essential fish habitat (EFH) 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the reach of the Savannah 

River near the site. EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary for spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity of marine, estuarine, or anadromous animals. NMFS 

designates EFH in accordance with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 USC 1801 et seq.). Although 

this reach of the Savannah River has no designated EFH, the diadromous fishes that occur in 

the middle Savannah River and have designated EFH in the south Atlantic region off the coast 

of the Carolinas, Georgia, or Florida are discussed below. 

 Sturgeons 

The Savannah River is among the spawning rivers used by the two species of anadromous 

sturgeon that occur on the east coast of the United States, the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser

brevirostrum) and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). The shortnose sturgeon is an 

endangered species and is discussed in Section 2.2.5.4. The Atlantic sturgeon is considered a 

species of concern by National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA). A species of 

concern is not protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531), but 

concerns about its status indicate that it may warrant listing in the future (NMFS 1998). 

The Atlantic sturgeon inhabits the Atlantic coast from New Brunswick, Canada to north Florida 

and is the largest fish to inhabit freshwaters on the east coast of the United States. It is an 

anadromous species that ascends coastal rivers to spawn in the early spring, typically spawning 

in flowing water between the salt front and the fall line of large rivers (NMFS 2007). Atlantic 

sturgeons enter the Savannah River in February to March and remain there through October, 

spawning when the current is strong in the spring and fall, with all adults leaving the river by the 

end of October (Meyer et al. 2003). Historically, it is believed that Atlantic sturgeon occurred 

throughout the Savannah River, including upstream shoal habitats. Although presently used 

spawning sites in the Savannah River have not been identified, locations used may be similar to 

those used by the shortnose sturgeon, which also spawns over hard substrates at river bends 

(Meyer et al. 2003). Eggs are demersal and adhesive and usually attach to the substrate or 

submerged vegetation. Young–of-the-year move downstream to nursery areas in the lower 

portions of rivers and the associated estuaries and young may spend several years in fresh and 

brackish water before migrating to sea. The Atlantic sturgeon feeds on a variety of benthic 

macroinvertebrates as a juvenile in estuaries and as an adult in the Atlantic Ocean (SAFMC 

1998).

Although historically the Atlantic sturgeon supported important subsistence and commercial 

fisheries, stocks are depressed range-wide, and in 1990 a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

instituted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) required Atlantic coastal 

states to enact a closure or moratorium on harvest in order to revive population numbers 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-44 December 2008 

(ASMFC 1990). This coast-wide moratorium was implemented in 1998, and NMFS followed this 

with a similar moratorium for Federal waters (NMFS 2007). 

 Shad and River Herrings 

Three clupeids migrate from the ocean up the Savannah River to spawn in its middle reaches: 

the American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), and blueback herring 

(Alosa aestivalis). Two other clupeids, the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and threadfin 

shad (Dorosoma petenense), also spawn in the middle Savannah River, but remain in fresh to 

brackish water and do not migrate between the river and the ocean; thus, they are not strictly 

anadromous. Gizzard shad are found in brackish water as adults while threadfin shad tend to 

remain in freshwater (SNC 2007a, Marcy et al. 2005) 

The American shad, the largest member of the herring family, has a long history of supporting 

commercial and recreational fisheries along the east coast since the early 1800s, and it was the 

most valuable food fish on the east coast prior to World War II. There have been reduced 

commercial harvests (NRC 2007), and the sport fishery for this species has recently become 

more important economically than the commercial fishery. As a result, the species has become 

the focus of major restoration programs (SAFMC 1998). American shad forage mostly offshore 

for a variety of invertebrates but depend on riverine systems for spawning, often returning to 

their natal streams (Weiss-Glanz et at. 1986). American shad spawn in the Savannah River 

between January and April (Meyer et al. 2003), when water temperatures are approximately 57 

to 70°F (14 to 21°C; SAFMC 1998). The eggs are released into the water column and are 

demersal but not adhesive, so they tend to sink and are slowly carried downstream. Larvae drift 

downstream to the estuary probably between February and June (Weiss-Glanz et at. 1986, Stier 

and Crance 1985). Juveniles remain in fresh to brackish waters of lower rivers and their 

estuaries until temperatures begin to drop in late fall, when they migrate to sea. Most adults 

from southeastern rivers die after spawning (Marcy et al. 2005). A considerable number of 

American shad likely pass the VEGP during their annual spawning run. A study in 2001 and 

2002 developed estimates of the American shad population size in the middle Savannah River 

by examining their movement through the New Savannah River Bluff Lock and Dam, located 

below Augusta, Georgia, and approximately 36 miles upstream of VEGP at RM 187. The 

estimated population of American shad that reached this point in the river was 158,000 in 2001 

and 217,000 in 2002 (Bailey et al. 2004). 

The hickory shad is a medium-sized clupeid that is most abundant in the mid-Atlantic region of 

the east coast. Historically, the hickory shad had no importance in commercial fisheries, but the 

species has become popular with recreational fishermen in some southeastern rivers. Its 

biology and life history are not as well known as other shads and herrings. The hickory shad is 

usually the first of the anadromous clupeids to ascend spawning rivers in late winter or early 

spring, when water temperatures are 54 to 55°F (12 to 13°C). Spawning can occur from March 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

to early May in southeastern rivers. The most frequently used spawning habitat is well up 

coastal rivers in creeks, ponds, lakes, and backwaters (Marcy et al. 2005, SAFMC 1998). 

Juveniles leave the freshwater and brackish portions of natal rivers in early summer and migrate 

to nursery areas in the associated estuaries. Their distribution and migration once they enter 

the ocean is essentially unknown. Adults feed primarily on fish and also consume invertebrates, 

but they do not feed during the spawning migration (SAFMC 1998). 

The blueback herring is smaller than the American and hickory shads and is an important forage 

fish for other fish species. It is a schooling species that spawns in tributary rivers of estuaries 

along the east coast from Nova Scotia to Florida. Historically, it has been the basis of an 

important commercial fishery (SAFMC 1998). Adults and larger juveniles are marine. Adults 

enter freshwater portions of rivers to spawn in fresh or slightly brackish water with a bottom of 

sand, gravel, or boulders. They probably return to their natal stream to spawn. The spring 

spawning period begins in the Carolinas in March to early May, but adults may begin migrating 

into fresh water in late winter. After spawning, adult fish return to the sea almost immediately. 

Juveniles may remain in the lower river reaches or may move upstream in summer before 

migrating downstream in late fall. Adults feed mainly on zooplankton and sometimes fish, but 

forage little during the spawning run while in freshwater (Marcy et al. 2005).

 Striped bass 

The striped bass is a wide-ranging species of substantial recreational and commercial 

importance. All striped bass stocks in rivers of the southeastern United States are anadromous, 

and the species spawns in estuarine and riverine habitats. In the Savannah River, the degree 

of anadromy is greatly reduced. Savannah River striped bass tend to spawn in the lower, 

tidally-influenced areas of the river. Spawning ranged historically from the estuary to the shoals 

near Augusta, Georgia, but this degree of upstream migration is now prevented by the New 

Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam (Meyer et al. 2003, SAFMC 1998). Currently, the Savannah 

River estuary appears to be the most productive area for striped bass reproduction and rearing 

(Meyer et al. 2003). Striped bass migrate upriver for spring spawning mainly in March, April, 

and May. Spawning occurs in strong currents of large rivers when the temperature is above 

57.9°F (14.4°C) and in areas above the salt wedge of the estuary. The eggs are released into 

the water column and drift downstream with the current from March to April. The presence of 

sufficient current to keep the eggs in the water column and to facilitate downstream transport of 

eggs and larvae influences recruitment success (Marcy et al. 2005, Meyer et al. 2003). 

Juveniles move downstream to nursery areas that may include tidally-influenced fresh waters 

and estuaries. The diet of the striped bass initially is planktonic invertebrates and changes 

gradually with growth to larger invertebrates and fish (SAFMC 1998). 

The population of striped bass drastically declined in the 1980s throughout its range on the 

Atlantic coast. The decline of the fishery in the Savannah River was attributed largely to the 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-46 December 2008 

Savannah River harbor modifications and operation of a tide gate installed in the lower estuary 

in 1977 that altered the habitat of the estuary spawning grounds (GDNR 2007a; Reinert et al. 

2005). The alterations changed the flow patterns of the river and increased the salinity levels in 

parts of the river that were vital for striped bass. Because of the declines in striped bass 

numbers in the river, a moratorium was placed on the harvest of striped bass in the Savannah 

River by the State of Georgia in 1988 and the State of South Carolina in 1991. The moratorium 

affected the free-flowing part of the river up to the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam below 

Augusta at approximately RM 194. Restoration activities that began in the 1990s included 

efforts to restore salinity and flow patterns, including discontinuation of tide gate operation and 

closure of the diversion canal. Stock enhancement programs were also modified in the early 

1990s to increase fish stocking. The dramatic increase in the catch-per-unit effort of adult 

striped bass since 1990 appears to be primarily the result of stocking, as 70 percent or more of 

the catch annually has consisted of stocked fish (Reinert et al. 2005 in NRC 2007). The number 

of naturally reproducing striped bass remains low. However, in October 2005, the successful 

restoration efforts led to the end of the harvest moratorium on Savannah River striped bass that 

was in place since 1991 (Creel 2005). 

 American eel 

The American eel (Anguilla rostrata) is the only catadromous fish that occurs in the South 

Atlantic region, living in freshwater as an adult but returning to the Atlantic Ocean where it was 

spawned to complete its life cycle (SAFMC 1998). It occurs in fresh, brackish and Atlantic coast 

waters from Greenland to northeastern South America. The wide geographic range over which 

American eels exist is directly attributable to their hardiness, tolerance of pollution, ease of 

transplantation, and ability to traverse damp ground and wet vertical surfaces such as dams 

(Facey and Van Den Avyle 1987). The American eel supports valuable commercial and limited 

recreational fisheries throughout its range, and it is an important prey species for larger 

freshwater and marine fishes (SAFMC 1998). During the fall and winter, sexually mature adults 

migrate hundreds of miles to the Sargasso Sea to spawn once and then die. Eels have a 

diverse diet that varies with their life history and consists mainly of invertebrates as well as fish 

(Meyer et al. 2003). 

The life cycle of the American eel is complex and includes oceanic, estuarine, and riverine 

phases. After hatching, larvae drift with ocean currents for a year before developing into glass 

eels and moving into freshwater. As they approach coastal areas, glass eels experience a 

change in pigmentation to dark brown or black. This stage is called an elver. During late winter 

or spring (or earlier in southern rivers), elvers migrate away from estuarine areas they occupy 

near the salt-fresh water interface and begin ascending coastal rivers. The end of this migration 

marks the point when elvers begin to metamorphose into the next stage, yellow eels. Yellow 

eels are formed in an estuary or river and remain there for up to 14 years before migrating back 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

to the Atlantic Ocean to spawn. During the fall season prior to this migration, yellow eels 

undergo metamorphosis into the final stage, silver eels (SAFMC 1998). 

In the middle Savannah River basin, the most common life stage of the American eel are 

female, fully pigmented juveniles (yellow eels) (Marcy et al. 2005). High densities of yellow eels 

were observed in the middle region of the Savannah River, specifically in shallow, nonnavigable areas characterized by rocky pool-riffle habitats with submerged aquatic vegetation 

(McCord 2004). Specifically in the areas surrounding VEGP, eels are found in the mainstem of 

the Savannah River, the Savannah River swamp, tributary systems, and in impoundments 

associated with these tributaries (Marcy et al. 2005). Limited information exists on current 

population trends of the American eel in South Carolina and Georgia, but between 1983 and 

1995, commercial landings of eels in Georgia declined more than 80 percent (ASMFC 2000). 

American eels have historically exhibited high abundance in East Coast streams, composing 

approximately 25 percent of the total fish biomass (ASMFC 2000). However, in response to 

steady population declines in the 1980s and 1990s, the ASMFC issued an “Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for American Eel” in April 2000 (ASMFC 2000) that proposed several 

protective measures to help ensure the species’ recovery and continued viability. Declining 

populations are thought to be the result of a variety of factors, including: overfishing of stock; 

loss of spawning habitat or eggs due to seaweed harvesting in the Sargasso Sea; loss of adult 

habitat from dams, dredging, and wetland destruction; and impingement and entrainment at 

water intakes (ASMFC 2000, McCord 2004, Haro et al. 2000). However, at the SRS during a 

10-month period in 1977, biweekly samples revealed only one eel impinged on water intake 

screens (McFarlane et al. 1978). 

In 2004, an apparent ongoing decline in the commercial eel harvest prompted a request to FWS 

and NMFS by ASMFC to review the status of the American eel. This request was granted in 

September 2004 and in December the two Services announced their intention to consider 

protecting the American eel under the ESA (FWS 2008a). The FWS initiated a status review in 

2005 and in 2007 determined that listing the American eel as a threatened or endangered 

species was not warranted (FWS 2007a). 

Marine/Estuarine Fishes 

Marine/estuarine fishes have been collected sporadically in the vicinity of VEGP. The most 

frequently collected species has been the hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus); the striped mullet 

(Mugil cephalus) and Atlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina) also have been collected. The 

numbers of these marine fish that have been collected are small relative to the freshwater 

resident and diadromous species (ANS 2003, ANS 2001, Marcy et al. 2005). Thus, they are 

considered a minor component of the fish community of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the 

site and are of little commercial or recreational importance (SNC 2007a). 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-48 December 2008 

Introduced Fishes 

Introduced, or non-native, fish species occurring in the middle Savannah River basin are listed 

in Table 2-7. Introduced species that clearly have become established in the river include the 

threadfin shad, common carp (Cyprinus carpio), channel catfish, and yellow perch (Perca

flavescens). The table also lists nine other introduced species that are not established or that 

are rare. None of the introduced fish species are considered nuisance species (Marcy et al. 

2005).

Table 2-7. Introduced Fish Species in the Middle Savannah River Basin 

and Their Establishment Status 

Family Common Name Scientific Name 

Clearly established 

Clupeidae (herrings & shads) threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense 

Cyprinidae (carps & minnows) common carp Cyprinus carpio 

Ictaluridae (bullhead catfishes) channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Percidae (darters and perches) yellow perch Perca flavescens 

Rare and possibly not established 

Cyprinidae (carps & minnows) goldfish Carassius auratus 

Moronidae (temperate basses) white perch Morone americana 

 white bass Morone chrysops 

Centrarchidae (sunfishes) green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 

 white crappie Pomoxis annularis 

Clearly not established 

Cyprinidae (carps & minnows) grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 

Salmonidae (trouts and salmon) rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Too little information to determine status 

Ictaluridae (bullhead catfishes) blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus 

 flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris 

Adapted from Marcy et al. 2005 

Commercially or Recreationally Important Fishes

Among the above categories of native fishes inhabiting the Savannah River are several species 

that currently are or historically have been harvested commercially or recreationally. Fishes 

allowed to be caught commercially in the middle Savannah River include the American shad,

hickory shad, channel catfish, white catfish (Marcy et al. 2005), and American eel (GDNR 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

2007b). A fishery also existed previously for the Atlantic sturgeon; however, all Atlantic coastal 

states have enacted a closure or moratorium on the harvest of Atlantic sturgeon. Although no 

herring are taken in Georgia because of netting restrictions, a commercial blueback herring 

fishery formerly existed in South Carolina portions of the Savannah River (Marcy et al. 2005). 

Sport fishermen are the principal consumers of fish from the middle Savannah River. The 

fishes principally harvested include largemouth bass, black crappie, sunfishes (Lepomis spp.),

American shad, chain pickerel, larger catfishes such as white and channel catfish, and striped 

bass and its hybrids. The striped bass is classified as a game fish in South Carolina and 

Georgia, and no commercial striped bass fishery is allowed in the Savannah River (Marcy et al. 

2005).

Georgia has issued advisories for the Savannah River above and below the New Savannah 

Bluff Lock and Dam (located south of Augusta) that recommend a limit of one meal per week of 

largemouth bass and spotted sucker due to risk from mercury. In addition, Georgia has issued 

a special advisory for the Savannah River from the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam 

downstream to the estuary, recommending a limit of one meal per month of striped bass 27 in 

(69 cm) and greater in length due to risk from mercury, noting that small children and women 

who are pregnant or nursing may want to further limit their consumption of striped bass from this 

area (GDNR 2007c). 

South Carolina has issued advisories for the Savannah River from Stevens Creek in Edgefield 

County north of Augusta to Jasper County in the Coastal Plain. The advisories are due to 

mercury risk, and South Carolina also notes that some fish in the Savannah River contain the 

radionuclides cesium-137 and strontium-90. The species affected and consumption 

recommendations are the following: bowfin – do not eat, largemouth bass – one meal per 

month, and chain pickerel and spotted sucker – one meal per week (SCDHEC 2007). 

Invertebrate Community 

As discussed above, the invertebrate community and other aquatic resources of the middle 

Savannah River basin have been characterized by numerous studies, the most comprehensive 

of which is documented in the series of reports by the ANS. The latest invertebrate surveys with 

results reported by the ANS, which included samples from stations upstream and downstream 

of VEGP, were performed in the fall of 2001 (ANS 2003). 

Aquatic Insects

Aquatic insect abundance and diversity are particularly useful bioindicators of water quality. 

Aquatic insects are abundant, have limited mobility and relatively long life spans, and their 

responses to environmental changes can be easily measured and analyzed (ANS 2003). The 

ANS long-term monitoring survey on the Savannah River, upstream and downstream of VEGP, 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-50 December 2008 

shows a trend of increasing abundance of aquatic insects beginning in the early 1980s (Wike et 

al. 2006) as well as increased taxa richness (SNC 2007a). Biodiversity (number of species) 

was greater downstream of SRS (and VEGP) than upstream (Wike et al. 2006), and the number 

of pollutant-tolerant species was greater upstream, suggesting higher water quality downstream 

of SRS and VEGP than in the vicinity of the upstream cities of Augusta and North Augusta 

(SNC 2007a). 

ANS investigations in 2001 of insect species composition provided results similar to previous 

years, with the dipterans (47 taxa), beetles (28 taxa), dragonflies and damselflies (15 taxa), 

mayflies (17 taxa), and caddisflies (14 taxa) being the most species-rich groups (ANS 2003). 

Overall, the natural spatial variation found in all rivers and streams was considered to explain 

the detected differences among sites that were found in the 2001 aquatic insect study (ANS 

2003). Statistical analyses of the quantitative samples revealed that the condition of aquatic 

insect assemblages at stations potentially exposed to the influences of SRS and VEGP tended 

to be at least as good as conditions at the reference station situated upstream of the SRS and 

VEGP (ANS 2003). Studies conducted in 1999 and 2000 reported similar conclusions. The 

2001 ANS biomonitoring study concluded that the biological communities in the Savannah River 

were not being impacted, either by the SRS or VEGP (ANS 2003). 

Non-Insect Macroinvertebrates

The Savannah River is characterized by the presence of four dominant non-insect 

macroinvertebrate groups; bivalves, snails, crustaceans, and leeches (ANS 2003). The 2001 

ANS study (ANS 2003) reported fewer species in the four dominant non-insect 

macroinvertebrate groups, as well as fewer species overall, were collected compared to studies 

conducted in the mid to late 1990s. This trend first became evident in 1999 and may be 

attributable to drought conditions in the basin and subsequent lower flows in the Savannah 

River (ANS 2003). Other possible contributing factors are the reduced number of sampling 

stations after 1998 and the use of quadrat sampling for mussel collection in 2000 and 2001 

(ANS 2003). 

A good deal of information is provided in the 2001 ANS study on the abundance or diversity of 

Annelids (in particular, leeches) in the Savannah River. In 2001, five species of leeches were 

collected (from stations 1 and 6 only); not counting at least one additional unidentified species 

that was collected from station 5. This total of six leech species matches the most taxa ever 

collected during a study, with the exception of the 1972 study in which 10 leech taxa were 

observed, due to areas of submerged aquatic vegetation (ANS 2003). 

Three species of crustaceans were found in the Savannah River in 2001: a crayfish 

(Procambarus enoplosternum), a riverine grass shrimp (Palaemonetes paludosus), and an 

amphipod (Hyalella azteca; ANS 2003). These three species of crustaceans, which prefer a 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

variety of habitats such as root mats, logs, alligator weed, and leaf litter, were all present at 

stations 1 (upstream reference) and 6 (farthest downstream) (ANS 2003). Four crustacean taxa 

were collected in 2000; the three collected in 2001 plus an unknown amphipod species of the 

genus Gammarus. The mean number of crustacean taxa calculated from values of crustaceans 

collected at four Savannah River stations was 5.1, and the range in the number of crustacean 

taxa from previous studies was 4 to 7 (ANS 2003). 

 Molluscs 

Four locations on the Savannah River were sampled for molluscs during the most recent ANS 

study, one upstream from VEGP, one immediately downstream of VEGP, and two farther 

downstream. An average 7.6 snail species were collected in each study that was conducted 

from 1972 to 2000. Nine species were collected (from stations 1 and 6 only) in 2001, second 

only to the 10 species collected in 1997 and the 11 collected in 1972. The high number of snail 

taxa observed in 1972 coincided with a eutrophic period with increased numbers of submerged 

vascular plants (ANS 2003). Bivalves found near VEGP include mussels, fingernail clams, 

peaclams, and the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea; ANS 2001). 

Given that mussels are considered the most endangered invertebrate group in North America 

(Williams et al. 1993), the survey in August 2001 was entirely devoted to mussel fauna. 

Quadrat sampling was used in place of the comprehensive, qualitative hand collections of 

earlier studies and, as a result, fewer mussels were collected in 2000 and 2001 compared to 

previous studies (ANS 2003). Fewer taxa were collected in 2001 compared to earlier studies 

(1993 to 1999), and this decline in diversity may be related to drought conditions in the basin 

(since June 1998) and the resultant low-flow condition of the Savannah River (ANS 2003). 

Early studies (1951 to 1968) found the Carolina slabshell (Elliptio congarea), eastern elliptio 

(Elliptio complanata), Altantic spike (Elliptio producta), variable spike (Elliptio icterina), yellow 

lamp mussel (Lampsilis cariosa), and rayed pink fatmucket (Lampsilis splendida) to be the most 

abundant species (ANS 2001). Hand collections during the August to October period from 1972 

to 2000 revealed an average of 11 species of mussels were collected per survey (ANS 2003). 

Of the 16 different mussel species that were collected between 1951 and 2000, none was a 

federally listed species. 

According to the 2000 ANS survey (ANS 2001), the Savannah River mussel community 

experienced several changes from 1951 to 2000 including differing taxa dominance from year to 

year, an increasing presence of “hardier forms,” and a scarcity of juvenile mussels. It has been 

hypothesized that construction-related changes in the flow of the Savannah River and increased 

competition from the non-native Asian clam contributed to these changes (ANS 2001). 

A recent survey of freshwater mussels was conducted in late 2006 on the Savannah River for 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (The Catena Group 2007). The survey encompassed 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-52 December 2008 

stretches of the Savannah River between rkm 36.7 (RM 22.8) and rkm 327 (RM 203). The 

closest sampling points to the VEGP site were located at rkm 200 (RM 124.3) (42 km [26 mi] 

downstream of the VEGP site) and rkm 273 (RM 169.6) (29 km [18 mi] upstream of the VEGP 

site). A total of 26 freshwater mussels were identified during the survey, including eigth mussels 

that are listed by the state as endangered, threatened, or species of concern. The Asiatic clam 

was found at all the sites and was the most abundant species. 

There is no question that the introduction of the Asiatic clam has adversely affected the mussel 

community. Surveys by the ANS show the presence of this non-native clam at all sample 

stations by 1976. Widely abundant and able to utilize a variety of substrates in the Savannah 

River, the Asian clam comprised 96 to 98 percent of the bivalves collected (ANS 2001). Of the 

1877 molluscs collected in 2001, 85 percent were Asian clams. These data indicate that the 

numerical dominance of the Asian clam in macrobenthic habitats of the Savannah River has 

been affecting the mussel fauna of the river by competing for space and food resources (ANS 

2001).

Plant Community 

As discussed above, the aquatic plant community and other aquatic resources of the middle 

Savannah River basin have been characterized by numerous studies, the most comprehensive 

of which is documented in the series of reports by the ANS. The latest plant surveys with 

results reported by the ANS, which included samples from stations upstream and downstream 

of VEGP, were performed in 2003. Much of the aquatic flora of riverine systems is comprised of 

algae and macrophytes, which make up the base of an aquatic ecosystem’s food web and 

provide shelter and habitat for aquatic fauna. Attached algae and aquatic macrophytes were 

collected by hand from natural substrates as part of the ANS surveys through 2001 (ANS 2003). 

The Savannah River, with reaches in the vicinity of SRS and VEGP, is a deep and relatively 

swift river that does not provide substantial habitat for macrophyte beds of notable area or 

biomass (Wike et al. 2006), and no significant beds of submerged aquatic vegetation were 

observed in the ANS studies (ANS 2003). 

In most aquatic systems, diatoms (algae with cell walls of silica) are the most common type of 

attached algae (periphyton) and can be used as bioindicators of adverse impacts on water 

quality. The ANS studies have included since 1951 investigations of diatom diversity, richness 

and evenness in the river. The water quality upstream and downstream of VEGP is assessed 

based on comparison of diatom assemblages (ANS 2003). In recent years, diatoms were 

generally the most abundant algal group collected in the river. The dominant diatom species 

generally were Melosira varians, which is tolerant of pollution, and Gomphonema parvulum,

which is common in the presence of organic pollution. Other commonly found diatoms included 

Nitzschia kuetzingiana, Cymbella minuta, Eunotia pectinalis v. undulata, Navicula 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

neoventricosa, Navicula pelliculosa, Achnanthes biporoma, and Navicula confervacea (Wike et 

al. 2006). 

In general, diatom assemblages at all stations exhibited similar species composition and 

pollution tolerance. Nutrient enrichment, likely from sources upstream of VEGP, was evident at 

all stations, and diatom flora did not differ significantly among the downstream stations (ANS 

2003). The 2003 diatom study found that the diatom assemblages upstream (Station 1) and 

downstream of SRS and VEGP (Station 6) were similar, including the dominance of a few 

species of Gomphonema and the low abundance of the majority of species. Ecological 

tolerances of the diatom species found were similar for the dominant species at both stations. 

Nearly all of the dominant diatom species found historically in the Savannah River in the vicinity 

of SRS and VEGP have been characteristic of alkaline waters with moderately high nutrient 

concentrations (ANS 2005). 

The most common algae collected in the ANS studies other than diatoms include the green 

algae Oedogonium sp., Stigeoclonium lubricum, which is associated with pollution, Closterium 

moniliferum, Spirogyra sp. and Mougeotia sp.; the blue-green algae Schizothrix calcicola, 

Microcoleus vaginatus, S. arenaria, Porphyrosiphon splendidus, Schizothrix friesii, and M.

lyngbyaceus, many of which are associated with pollution; the yellow-green algae Vaucheria

sp.; and the red algae Audouinella violacea, Compsopogon coeruleus, and Batrachospermum 

sp. The number of recorded species other than diatoms ranged from 7 to 19 from 1985 through 

1995. At all stations, the average numbers of species were greater during the fall surveys than 

the spring surveys (Wike et al. 2006). 

In general, the algal community of the middle Savannah River has remained fundamentally 

similar through the ANS surveys since 1951. Algal growth in recent years has been light to 

moderate at all stations. The dominant algae are species characteristic of moderate to high 

nutrient levels and typical of southeastern coastal plain rivers. Algae at the upstream station 

and stations downstream of SRS and VEGP showed evidence of organic pollution, apparently 

from an upstream source. Study results have showed no evidence of an adverse impact on 

algal community due to SRS or VEGP operations (Wike et al. 2006). 

 2.2.5.2 Beaverdam Creek 

Beaverdam Creek is a 6-mi-long (10 km), blackwater creek that is located just south of the site 

boundary. It drains much of the area south and west of the VEGP facility and enters the 

Savannah River approximately 2 miles downstream of the intake structure. Two studies 

evaluated the fish community of Beaverdam Creek in 1977 and 1978 to assess the effects of 

the construction of VEGP on resident fish populations and on anadromous fish that spawn in the 

creek. The study of resident fish in the creek collected 2435 fish representing 39 species. 

Collections were dominated by minnows, sunfish, and darters, principally the dusky shiner,
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-54 December 2008 

bluegill, mosquitofish, and blackbanded darter (Percina nigrofasciata). These four species 

made up 68 percent of all fish collected during the study. The Savannah darter (Etheostoma 

fricksium) was also observed in smaller numbers (31 individuals in a 2-year period) (Wiltz 

1982a). The study of anadromous fish collected 674 individual fish (including eggs and larvae) 

from 29 species in Beaverdam Creek and concluded that the creek was a minor contributor to 

spawning of blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis). Although the habitat was suitable for hickory 

shad (Alosa mediocris), only 17 individuals were found, and none were observed spawning 

(Wiltz 1982b). No further studies have been conducted on Beaverdam Creek since the late 

1970s.

 2.2.5.3 Water Bodies in Transmission Line ROWs

The transmission lines within the six ROWs associated with the VEGP site cross numerous 

water bodies that provide a variety of aquatic habitats from the Piedmont to the Coastal Plain 

(see Section 2.1.7 and Figure 2-4). The SCE&G line crosses the Savannah River, which is 

discussed in detail above. The Goshen, Augusta Newsprint, and Wilson lines do not cross any 

notable water bodies. The two longest VEGP transmission lines, the Scherer line and the West 

McIntosh (Thalmann) line, cross several major rivers, a lake, and many smaller water bodies, 

and are further discussed below. 

The Scherer transmission line is approximately 154 miles (248 km) long, and its ROW is mainly 

150 ft (46 m) wide but up to 400 ft (122 m) wide in some locations. The Scherer line runs west 

from VEGP and crosses Brier Creek and surrounding forested wetlands (USGS 2007e and 

Trails.com 2007) in Burke County and the Ogeechee River in Jefferson County. It then runs 

northwest and crosses the Oconee River in the area of Lake Sinclair on the border of Hancock 

and Putnam Counties. From there, it runs generally southwest and crosses the Ocmulgee River 

approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 km) south of Zellner Island in Monroe County before terminating at 

Plant Scherer (USGS 2007e).

The West McIntosh (Thalmann) line is nearly 150 miles (241 km) long, and its ROW is 150 ft (46 

m) wide. This line runs south-southeast from VEGP until it nears the Savannah River in 

Screven County. There it turns south and crosses Brier Creek upstream of its confluence with 

the Savannah River and continues southeast to the West McIntosh Substation in Effingham 

County. The Thalmann portion of the line runs southwest as it leaves the substation and 

generally continues in this direction until it terminates at the Thalmann Substation in Glynn 

County. As this line runs southwesterly along the Coastal Plain, it crosses multiple creeks and 

swamps and the Altamaha River near the convergence of McIntosh, Wayne, and Glynn 

Counties. The Altamaha River is the largest river of the Georgia coast (Georgia Rivers LMER 

2007).
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Marcy et al. (2005) compared the aquatic communities of the Savannah River system to the 

Ogeechee-Altamaha River system. The Ogeechee and the Altamaha, like the Savannah, drain 

the Piedmont and Coastal Plain of Georgia. A species similarity index of nearly 71 percent was 

calculated (Marcy et al. 2005), indicating a substantial degree of similarity between the aquatic 

communities of the Ogeechee and Altamaha River systems and the aquatic community of the 

Savannah River described above. 

2.2.5.4 Protected Aquatic Species 

Aquatic species that are Federally listed as endangered or threatened or State-listed and legally 

protected in Georgia or South Carolina and have been recorded as occurring on or in the vicinity 

of the VEGP site are identified in Table 2-8. This table includes Federally listed or Georgia 

State listed species with recorded occurrences in Burke County within approximately 10 miles 

(16 km) of the site (GDNR 2008) and Federally listed or South Carolina State-listed species 

occurring within approximately 10 miles (16 km) of the site in Aiken or Barnwell Counties 

(SCDNR 2008). The Federally or State-listed species with recorded occurrences in the counties 

crossed by the existing transmission line ROWs beyond 10 miles (16 km) of the site are 

identified in Table 2-9, based on the lists for each of the 18 counties (GDNR 2007d, SCDNR 

2007). Omitted from the table are marine species (whales and sea turtles) that would not occur 

in the inland areas where the ROWs are located. Both tables show for each species the 

counties in which the species occurs and the listing status of the species in that state. There 

are no designated or proposed critical habitats for aquatic Federally listed species on or in the 

vicinity of the VEGP site or the transmission line ROWs (SNC 2007b). 

Table 2-8. Federally and State Listed Aquatic Species with Recorded Occurrences 

in the Vicinity of the VEGP Site (a)

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal

Status (b)

State

Status (c) County of Occurrence 

Fish

Acipenser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon FE SE Burke

Moxostoma robustum robust redhorse SE Burke(d)

Invertebrates 

Anodonta couperiana barrel floater SC Barnwell (SC) 

Elliptio congaraea Carolina slabshell SC Barnwell (SC) 

Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe SE Burke

Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel SC Barnwell (SC) 

Lampsilis splendida rayed pink fatmucket SC Barnwell (SC) 

Pyganodon cataracta eastern floater SC Barnwell (SC) 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-56 December 2008 

Toxolasma pullus Savannah lilliput ST, SC Burke, Barnwell (SC)(e)

Utterbackia imbecillis paper pondshell SC Barnwell (SC) 

(a) Occurrences considered in the vicinity are within approximately 10 miles of the VEGP site in Burke 

County, Georgia, or Barnwell or Aiken Counties, South Carolina (SC). State occurrence data and 

distances obtained from GDNR (2008) and SCDNR (2007a, 2008) unless noted otherwise. 

(b) Federal listing status definitions: FE = Endangered (FWS 2004) 

(c) State listing status definitions: SE = State Endangered, ST = State Threatened, SC = Species of 

Concern in South Carolina (GDNR 2008; SCDNR 2007) 

(d) The robust redhorse has been found in the Savannah River near the VEGP site (RRCC 2008). 

(e) The Savannah lilliput has been found in the Savannah River near the VEGP site (ANS 2003). 

Table 2-9. Federally and State Listed Aquatic Species with Recorded Occurrences in the 

Counties Crossed by the Transmission Line ROWs (a)

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal

Status (b)

State

Status (c) County of Occurrence 

Plants

Amphianthus pusillus pool sprite FT ST Hancock, Putnam 

Eleocharis robbinsii Robbins spikerush SC Barnwell (SC) 

Eleocharis tricostata three-angle spikerush SC Barnwell (SC) 

Isoetes tegetiformans mat-forming quillwort FE SE Hancock, Putnam 

Ptilimnium nodosum harperella FE SE Barnwell (SC) 

Utricularia floridana Florida bladderwort SC Barnwell (SC) 

Utricularia olivacea Piedmont bladderwort SC Barnwell (SC) 

Vallisneria americana eelgrass SC Barnwell (SC) 

Mammals

Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee FE SE Bryan, Chatham, 

Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, 

McIntosh 

Fish

Acipenser 

brevirostrum 

shortnose sturgeon FE SE Bryan, Burke, Chatham, 

Glynn, Long, McIntosh, 

Screven 

Cyprinella xaenura Altamaha shiner ST Jones, Monroe, Putnam 

Elassoma okatie bluebarred pygmy sunfish SE Richmond 

Etheostoma parvipinne goldstripe darter SR Jones 

Lucania goodie bluefin killifish SR McIntosh 

Moxostoma robustum robust redhorse SE Baldwin, Hancock, 

Putnam, Washington 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 2-9. (cont’d) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal

Status (b)

State

Status (c) County of Occurrence 

Invertebrates

Alasmidonta arcula Altamaha arcmussel ST Long

Anodonta couperiana barrel floater SC Barnwell (SC) 

Cambarus truncatus Oconee burrowing crayfish ST Washington 

Elliptio congaraea Carolina slabshell SC Barnwell (SC) 

Elliptio spinosa Altamaha spinymussel FC SE Long, McIntosh 

Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe SE Burke, Jefferson, 

Richmond, Screven 

Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel SC Barnwell (SC) 

Lampsilis splendida rayed pink fatmucket SC Barnwell (SC) 

Pyganodon cataracta eastern floater SC Barnwell (SC) 

Utterbackia imbecillis paper pondshell SC Barnwell (SC) 

Villosa delumbis eastern creekshell SC Barnwell (SC) 

Villosa vibex southern rainbow SC Barnwell (SC) 

(a) Counties crossed by ROWs include: Baldwin, Bryan, Burke, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Hancock, 

Jefferson, Jones, Liberty, Long, McIntosh, Monroe, Putnam, Richmond, Screven, and Washington in 

Georgia; and Barnwell in South Carolina (SC). Marine species (whales, sea turtles) that would not 

occur in the inland areas where the ROWs are located were omitted. State occurrence data obtained 

from GDNR (2008) and SCDNR (2007a). Federal occurrence data obtained from FWS (2004) and 

SCDNR (2007a). 

(b) Federal listing status definitions: FE = Endangered, FT = Threatened, FC = Candidate species (FWS 

2004) 

(c) State listing status definitions: SE = State Endangered, ST = State Threatened, SR = State Rare, SC 

= Species of Concern (GDNR 2008; SCDNR 2007) 

 2.2.5.4.1 Site Vicinity

The only Federally listed aquatic species with recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the VEGP 

site is the shortnose sturgeon, which inhabits the Savannah River (NMFS 1998; NRC 2007). In 

addition, there are two aquatic species that are State-listed as endangered or threatened and 

known to occur in the vicinity of VEGP, the robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) and the 

Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus). These three species are described below. 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-58 December 2008 

Shortnose Sturgeon 

The shortnose sturgeon is a member of the Family Acipenseridae, an ancient group of longlived, anadromous and freshwater fishes. The shortnose sturgeon is an anadromous fish that 

spawns in large Atlantic coastal rivers of eastern North America from New Brunswick, Canada, 

to northern Florida. It is the smallest of the three sturgeon species that occur in eastern North 

America, reaching maturity at fork lengths of 18 to 20 in (46 to 51 cm) and having a maximum 

total length of approximately 4 ft (1.2 m) and a weight of up to 50 lbs (23 kg). Shortnose 

sturgeon grow slowly, reach sexual maturity late in life, and most live 15-20 years (longevity 

record was 67 years). The shortnose sturgeon was a species of commercial importance around 

the turn of the century, and it was commonly taken in the fishery for the closely related and 

more commercially valuable Atlantic sturgeon and as bycatch in the shad fishery. The 

substantial decline in shortnose sturgeon populations has been attributed to overfishing as well 

as the impoundment of rivers and water pollution, and the species now is endangered. Natural 

recruitment rates appear to be too low to replenish depleted populations (NMFS 1998, NOAA 

2007, Marcy et al. 2005). 

The shortnose sturgeon was originally listed by FWS as an endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Preservation Act (32 FR 4001) in 1967. That act was the predecessor of 

the ESA of 1973 (16 USC 1531) under which the sturgeon currently is protected. NMFS 

assumed jurisdiction over the shortnose sturgeon in 1974. NMFS is the agency responsible for 

most anadromous and marine species under the ESA. Although the shortnose sturgeon was 

originally listed as endangered throughout its range, NMFS currently recognizes 19 distinct 

populations occurring in 19 different river systems from New Brunswick, Canada, to northern 

Florida. Life history studies indicate that populations from these river systems are substantially 

isolated reproductively and should be considered discrete. NMFS has determined that the loss 

of a single shortnose sturgeon population constitutes the permanent loss of unique genetic 

information that is potentially critical to the survival and recovery of the species. Accordingly, 

the species is managed based on protection of the distinct population segments in each of 

these river systems, including the Savannah River (NMFS 1998). 

Shortnose sturgeon spend most of their lives in their natal river systems and only rarely enter 

the ocean. The species is estuarine anadromous in the southern part of its range. Thus, adult 

shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River forage near the freshwater-saltwater boundary in the 

estuary throughout the year except during spawning runs, when they migrate upstream from 

late January to March. Most adults return to the lower river by early May. Probable spawning 

sites in the Savannah River were identified by monitoring the movement of adult shortnose 

sturgeon and identifying reaches that repeatedly were the destinations of migrating adult fish 

and that were occupied for several days during the spawning season (Meyer et al. 2003). The 

probable spawning sites are in sharp curves of the channel over substrates of rocks, gravel, 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

sand, and logs in two principal reaches: from RM 111 to 118 and from RM 170 to 172 (NMFS 

1998, Meyer et al. 2003). The VEGP site adjoins the Savannah River between RM 150 and 

152, an area that has not been identified as a known or suspected spawning site. 

Spawning occurs usually during peak flood tide in February or March in or adjacent to deep 

areas of the river with significant currents when water temperatures are between 50 and 62°F 

(9.8 and 16.5°C). Adults spawn at 2- to 5-year intervals. Fertilized eggs are heavier than water 

(demersal) and extremely adhesive after fertilization, sinking quickly and adhering to hard 

substrates such as rocks and logs. Eggs hatch in 1 to 2 weeks. Larvae and early juveniles are 

weak swimmers; they stay near the bottom for about 2 weeks drifting with the current, then 

slowly migrate downstream (Marcy et al. 2005). When they reach the estuary, juveniles remain 

in the reach between RM 29 and 19 near the saltwater-freshwater interface, moving into the 

upstream area in summer and the downstream area in winter (Meyer et al. 2003). The age of 

sexual maturity appears to be 8 to 15 years in the north and younger in the south. The diet of 

juvenile shortnose sturgeon is mainly aquatic insects and small crustaceans, while adults feed 

primarily on molluscs but also consume insects and crustaceans (Marcy et al. 2005). 

As part of a state/federal recovery program, over 97,000 hatchery-spawned shortnose sturgeon 

(18 percent of which were tagged) were stocked in the Savannah River between 1984 and 

1992, and many were recaptured (Marcy et al. 2005). Over 35 percent of juvenile shortnose 

sturgeon captured in the Savannah River from 1990 to 1993 were identified as stocked fish 

(Wike 1998). Based on records of marked fish and results from tagging studies, it was 

estimated that 38 percent of the adult population in the Savannah River during the 1997 to 2000 

time frame consisted of stocked fish (Marcy et al. 2005). These findings indicate that 

recruitment into the local population was occurring (Wike 1998). The most recent estimate (in 

1999) of the shortnose sturgeon population of the Savannah River was 3000 fish (NMFS 2006). 

Robust Redhorse

The robust redhorse is a member of the sucker family, Catostomidae. It is State-listed in 

Georgia as endangered and has no legal status in South Carolina. It was first described in 1870 

based on a specimen collected in North Carolina. Subsequently, the species remained 

essentially unknown and was presumed extinct for more than 120 years until a population was 

discovered and identified in 1991 in the Oconee River in central Georgia. Since then, wild 

populations have been found in the Savannah River, the Ocmulgee and Oconee rivers in 

Georgia, and the Pee Dee River in South and North Carolina (Robust Redhorse Conservation 

Committee [RRCC] 2008). The robust redhorse is the largest sucker species in North America 

(FWS 2001a). Its average adult size is 25 in. (64 cm) in length and 9 lbs (4 kg) in weight, 

though it can reach 30 in. (76 cm) and 17 lbs (8 kg). It is long-lived, with a maximum known age 

of 27 years (RRCC 2008). It uses large, molar-like pharyngeal teeth to crush its prey of 

mussels and clams. Its habitat is rivers. Non-spawning adults occur primarily in deep areas 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-60 December 2008 

with moderate current and in association with tree snags and woody debris near shore. 

Spawning takes place in swift current where the substrate is coarse gravel (RRCC 2008; Self 

and Bettinger 2006). Efforts to estimate the size of the Savannah River population of the robust 

redhorse are ongoing, but the population seems to be substantial (Self and Bettinger 2006). In 

1997, a single adult was collected from the Savannah River near VEGP (Hendricks 2000). 

Surveys subsequently found a population in the Savannah River near Augusta, Georgia, and at 

numerous locations between Augusta and U.S. Highway 301, which crosses the river 

approximately 20 mi southeast of VEGP. Spawning locations have been identified near 

Augusta (Hendricks 2002). A study in the Savannah River found that the robust redhorse 

moved an average of at least 24 km (15 mi) per season. These migrations generally were 

downstream except in the spring and were related to seasonal changes in water temperature. 

The upstream migrations to spawning areas in spring began when the water temperature 

reached about 12°C (54°F). Tracking of daily movements found that the robust redhorse is 

active mainly during the day and uses a limited area within approximately a 1 km (0.6 mi) reach 

of the river (Grabowski and Isely 2006). 

Savannah Lilliput

The Savannah lilliput is State-listed as threatened in Georgia and as a species of concern in 

South Carolina. It is a small mussel that occurs in shallow water habitats, usually in silty sand 

or mud near the margins of rivers, streams, and lakes. Occurrences have been reported from 

the Neuse River in North Carolina to the Altamaha in Georgia, but only a few disjunct 

populations remain within this range. The Savannah River population extends several miles 

along the river and may be the largest population (NatureServe 2007). Its presence has been 

documented in the reach of the river adjacent to VEGP and SRS (ANS 2003). 

 2.2.5.4.2 Transmission Line ROWs

The Federally listed aquatic species with recorded occurrences in at least one of the 18 

counties crossed by the transmission line ROWs include three plants, one mammal, and the 

shortnose sturgeon. The listed aquatic plants are the threatened pool sprite (Amphianthus 

pusillus) and the endangered mat-forming quillwort (Isoetes tegetiformans) and harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum). The aquatic mammal is the endangered West Indian manatee 

(Trichechus manatus). The endangered shortnose sturgeon, which is discussed above based 

on its occurrence in the Savannah River near the VEGP site, also occurs in other rivers that are 

crossed by the West McIntosh (Thalmann) line, the Ogeechee and Altamaha Rivers (NMFS 

1998).

In addition, a mussel occurring in two of the counties is a candidate for listing. The Altamaha 

spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa) occurs in the Altamaha River in Long and McIntosh Counties, 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

which are crossed by the West McIntosh (Thalmann) line. The southern borders of these 

counties follow the channel of the river. 

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources 

 2.2.6.1 Terrestrial Resources at the VEGP site 

The VEGP site (and its associated transmission lines) is within the Atlantic Coastal Plain, 25 mi 

(40 km) east of the Piedmont and 30 mi (48 km) south of the Fall Line. The overall terrain of the 

VEGP site consists of low, rolling, mostly sandy hills with the minimum elevation occurring along 

the Savannah River at 80 ft (24 m) above msl and a maximum elevation of 280 ft (85 m) above 

msl along the hilltops (SNC 2007a). The entire VEGP site encompasses 3169 ac (1282 ha) 

(SNC 2007a). The buildings associated with generation and maintenance, parking lots, and onsite roads, occupy approximately 1400 ac (567 ha) of the overall site. The remaining 1769 ac 

(716 ha) are covered mainly by pine and hardwood dominated forests (SNC 2007a). Terrestrial 

resources found within the VEGP site and associated transmission line ROWs include the 

upland, riparian, and bottomland forest communities, as well as ponds, streams, and wetlands. 

Included are descriptions of the characteristic flora and fauna of these communities as well as 

the rare species that may occur there. 

GPC manages several wildlife strategies at the VEGP site. These strategies seek to promote 

diverse habitats, manage pine tree species populations through thinning and burning, and 

maintain wildlife food plots. The VEGP has been designated a Certified Wildlife Habitat by the 

Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC), a non-profit organization. To maintain this designation, GPC 

employs a continuous wildlife habitat maintenance program that is certified by the WHC every 3 

years (SNC 2007a). GPC also manages wildlife habitat within some of the transmission line 

ROWs by employing a GDNR program called Wildlife Incentive for Non-Game and Game 

Species (WINGS). This program aims to assist private land owners in the conversion of 

transmission line ROWs into wildlife habitat areas. 

Pre-settlement vegetation at the VEGP site and its associated transmission lines consisted of 

pine and oak forested land with isolated streams, ponds, and wetlands. After the construction of 

the VEGP site, much of the forested areas were disturbed to provide room for the plant facilities. 

Some of the site has returned to forested areas while the transmission line ROWs require 

continual maintenance to prevent damage to the lines. 

Upland areas of the VEGP site support terrestrial forests of pine, oak, hickory, and other 

hardwoods, as well as harvesting pine plantations. The Bluffs on the VEGP site separate the 

upland forested areas from the areas in the floodplain of the Savannah River. The low areas of 

the VEGP site along the streams and the Savannah River floodplain support bottomland 

hardwood forests and wetlands (NRC 2007). Most wetlands occur in conjunction with 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-62 December 2008 

waterbodies such as streams, rivers, and ponds. In some open areas disturbed by the removal 

of forest and construction of the VEGP site, grasses and the herb sericea lespedeza 

(Lespedeza cuneata) were planted to prevent erosion (SNC 2006e). Figure 2-8 is a map of the 

terrestrial plant communities and ponds on the site. 

The two main types of upland forest communities on the VEGP site are identified by their 

dominant species; the longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) - scrub oak community and the oak - 

hickory community. The longleaf pine - scrub oak community is found on ridge tops as well as 

slopes to the south and west in undisturbed areas. Common canopy species in addition to 

longleaf pine are scrub oaks such as turkey oak (Quercus laevis) and bluejack oak (Quercus

incana). The shrub layer in the longleaf pine - scrub oak community include sparkleberry 

(Vaccinium arboreum), dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia dumosa), and yellow jessamine 

(Gelsemium sempervirens). Herbaceous ground cover diversity varies with canopy closure. In 

the most shaded region of the community, only clumps of slender woodoats (Chasmanthium 

laxum) are present. In the communities more open areas, gopher weed (Baptisia perfoliata), 

jointweed (Polygonella americana), tread-softly (Cnidoscolus stimulosus), and reindeer lichen 

(Cladina rangiferina) are present. The oak – hickory community is found on both the north and 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Figure 2-8. Vegetation Communities and Ponds on the VEGP Site 

Source: SNC 2007a 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-64 December 2008 

east slopes in the undisturbed uplands. The canopy of this community is comprised mainly of 

white oak (Quercus alba) and mockernut hickory (Carya alba). White ash (Fraxinus americana),

flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and a few turkey oaks and shortleaf pines (Pinus echinata) 

are also present (TRC 2006). 

The VEGP site allocates 350 ac (142 ha) of land to the Georgia Power Company (GPC) to the 

development of pine plantations. The GPC is solely responsible for the management and 

maintenance of the VEGP pine plantations. There are many plantations within the land allotted 

to pine tree development that are varied in both number of trees and tree density to land ratio. In 

addition, the plantations vary in pine tree species. The primary pine species include: slash pine 

(Pinus elliottii), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and longleaf pine. The ground cover within the 

plantations is largely grasses and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). Where plantations are 

less densely populated with pines, there are vast open areas that contain: dog fennel 

(Eupatorium capillifolium), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), and blackberry bushes (Rubus

spp.). The plantations populated by longleaf pine are neither cut nor burned so that they may 

be similar to the 60 to 100 year old native longleaf pines that once grew at this location. The 

remaining plantations are managed through prescribed burns, cutting, and trimming. Burning 

occurs on a 3 to 5 year cycle and is limited to 25 to 30 percent of the total remaining pine 

population (not to include longleaf pines) (TRC 2006; SNC 2006e). 

On the VEGP site, river bluff forests separate the upland forest areas from the intermittently 

flooded lowland and riparian forested areas. The bluff forests have some of the largest trees on 

site, with diameters exceeding 3 ft (0.9 m). Common larger trees are oaks, mockernut hickory,

American elm (Ulmus americana), basswood (Tilia americana), and Florida maple (Acer

barbatum). Smaller trees common to bluff forests are tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera),

sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and pawpaw (Asimina triloba). The common shrubs, vines 

and bushes are hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), American beautyberry (Callicarpa

americana), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), crossvine (Bignonia capreolata), and poison ivy 

(Toxicodendron radicans). Herbaceous ground cover varies with the soil of the moisture. 

Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides) and white snakeroot (Ageratina altissima) are 

common in the drier areas while mottled trillium (Trillium maculatum), wild ginger (Asarum 

canadense), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) are 

common in steeps and other wetter areas (TRC 2006). 

Riparian forests on the VEGP site lie along the Savannah River on the eastern side of the 

property boundary. Due to the proximity of the forest to the river, riparian forests have large 

variations in wetness and soil moisture. Water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) and bald cypress 

(Taxodium distichum) are common in the wetter areas, usually closer to the Savannah River. 

American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), boxelder (Acer negundo), sugarberry (Celtis 

laevigata), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) occupy the drier areas, usually further 

from the Savannah River. Common bushes and shrubs include American holly (Ilex opaca),
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), water locust (Gleditsia aquatica), giant cane (Arundinaria

gigantea), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). Herbaceous ground cover is sparse 

and common species include richweed (Pilea pumila), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), sensitive

fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and Virginia dayflower (Cornmelina virginica). These species tend to 

be very water tolerant and can survive in shaded areas (TRC 2006). 

There are six perennial streams, 13 intermittent streams, three ephemeral streams, and several 

ponds on the VEGP site (Eco-Sciences 2007). Mallard Pond is a 5-ac (2-ha) pond in a 

hardwood cove on the site just northwest of the switchyard. It was on the VEGP site prior to 

construction and is man-made. The small, unnamed creek that drains Mallard Pond flows north 

then east into the Savannah River at Hancock Landing, approximately 0.6 mi (1 km) upstream 

of the intake structure. The creek is approximately 2 to 4 feet (0.6 to 1.2 m) wide and less than 

1 foot (0.3 m) deep, except in two known locations where beavers (Castor canadensis) have

created additional dams and ponds. Another creek, draining the northwest corner of the site, 

joins this creek and flows from Mallard Pond approximately one-third of the way to the 

Savannah River (SNC 2007b). 

Two stormwater retention ponds, referred to as Debris Basin #1 and #2, were created in the 

early stages of the construction of VEGP. The ponds were built south of the developed area of 

the site to retain sediment from stormwater. Debris Basin #1 drains south via a small creek to 

Beaverdam Creek south of the site boundary and halfway between an offsite pond (Telfair 

Pond) and the Savannah River. Debris Basin #2 drains via a small creek into Daniels Branch 

and then into Telfair Pond. Debris Basin #1 is about 6 ac (2.4 ha) in area, and Debris Basin #2 

has an area of about 5 ac (2 ha). There is also a smaller runoff catch pond between these two 

ponds that was formed from a depression left after the construction of VEGP. The runoff pond 

is about 3 ac (1.2 ha) in size and retains water throughout the year (SNC 2007b). 

The US Army Corps of Engineers issues guidance for jurisdictional delineations based on three 

wetland characteristics: hydrophilic vegetation, hydric soils, and overall hydrology. In 

December 2006, SNC surveyed the VEGP site and delineated 48 distinct, on-site wetlands 

totaling approximately 170 ac (69 ha). The majority of the wetlands on the VEGP site are along 

or near the Savannah River, with some wetlands occurring near the ponds and associated 

streams. On-site wetlands vary in surface water depth and vegetation canopy. Common trees 

occurring in the on-site wetlands are bald cypress, water oak, red maple, sweetgum, black 

willow (Salix nigra), and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica). Vines and shrubs are commonly found in 

wetlands on-site and consist primarily of giant cane, trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans),

muscadine, and American holly. Ground cover includes a herbaceous layer consisting primarily 

of cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) and royal fern (Osmunda regalis) (TRC 2006, EcoSciences 2007). 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-66 December 2008 

The terrestrial fauna of the VEGP site consists mainly of wildlife species commonly found in 

eastern Georgia, including mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Mammals common to the 

VEGP site include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia

opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail 

(Sylvilagus floridanus), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), small 

insectivores (moles, shrews, and bats) and rodents (mice and voles) (SNC 2007b). 

The VEGP site has a variety of songbirds, upland game birds, waterfowl, and raptors that are 

located on and in the vicinity of the site. At least 143 species of birds were identified on the 

VEGP site during 2007. Common birds at the site include the northern bobwhite (Colinus

virginianus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), mourning 

dove (Zenaida macroura), black vulture (Coragyps atratus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia),

dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), eastern bluebird 

(Sialia sialis), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), American woodcock (Scolopax

minor), wood duck (Aix sponsa), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) (SNC 2006e, SNC 

2007b).

Several bird species including the wood duck and bluebird have monitoring programs developed 

by the GPC for the VEGP site. Wood duck and bluebird boxes are located throughout the site 

and wood duck fledglings have been recorded annually (SNC 2007a). 

Sixty species of reptiles and amphibians have been identified onsite, including the American 

alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), green anole (Anolis carolinensis carolinensis), bullfrog 

(Rana catesbeiana), snakes, turtles, lizards, salamanders, and toads (SNC 2006e). 

2.2.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species

Seven federally listed threatened or endangered species have been found to potentially occur in 

the vicinity of the VEGP site and associated transmission lines: the smooth coneflower 

(Echinacea laevigata), the Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi), the relict trillium (Trillium 

reliquum), the wood stork (Mycteria americana), the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides

borealis), the flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), and the American alligator 

(Alligator mississippiensis). Five state listed threatened or endangered species have been 

found to potentially inhabit the VEGP site and associated transmission lines: the bay star-vine 

(Schisandra glabra), the pond spice (Litsea aestivalis), the gopher tortoises (Gopherus

polyphemus), the spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), and the hooded pitcher plants (Sarracenia

minor) (TRC 2006; SNC 2007a). Table 2-10 shows the federally listed species known to 

potentially occur on the VEGP site, Table 2-11 shows the Federally listed species with 

occurrence in the counties that are crossed by transmission lines, Table 2-12 shows the rare 

terrestrial species that are State listed as either threatened or endangered and have potential to 

occur in the vicinity of the site, and Table 2-13 shows the rare terrestrial species that are State 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

listed as either threatened or endangered and have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the 

associated transmission line ROWs. 

Federally Protected Species 

On July 9, 2007, the FWS issued a Federal Register Notice announcing the removal of the bald 

eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(72 FR 37346). The bald eagle has been known to nest along the Savannah River. The eagle 

is a large bird, and can weigh more than 6 kg (13 lb.) as an adult. Juvenile eagles are 

completely brown and remain so until 5 to 6 years old, when they develop a white head. The 

species feed primarily on fish, as well as other small animals. There are no designated or 

proposed critical habitats for eagles on or in the vicinity of the VEGP site.

Table 2-10. Federally Listed Terrestrial Species with Recorded Occurrences or 

Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the VEGP Site (a)

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 

Status (b) County of 

Occurrence 

Distance from 

the VEGP Site (c) Habitat (d)

Plants 

Echinacea 

laevigata 

smooth coneflower FE Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

< 10 mi (16 km) Wooded upland 

areas on crystalline 

mineral soils 

Oxypolis canbyi Canby’s dropwort FE Burke >10 mi (16 km) Cypress pond peat 

and muck, sinkhole 

depressions, and 

wet pine savannas 

Trillium reliquum relict trillium FE Aiken (SC) >10 mi (16 km) (e) Moist hardwood 

forests and forested 

sinkholes

Birds 

Mycteria

Americana 

wood stork FE Burke, Barnwell 

(SC), Aiken (SC) 

<3.2 km (2 mi) Marshes, river 

swamps, and 

cypress/gum ponds 

Picoides borealis red-cockaded 

woodpecker 

FE Burke, Barnwell 

(SC), Aiken (SC) 

10 mi (16 km) Open longleaf pine 

savannas and 

flatwoods with 

mixed understory 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-68 December 2008 

Table 2-10. (cont’d)

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 

Status (b) County of 

Occurrence 

Distance from 

the VEGP Site (c) Habitat (d)

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Alligator 

mississippiensis (f) American alligator FT(S/A) Burke, Barnwell 

(SC), Aiken (SC) 

Occurs onsite (g) Lakes, rivers, 

swamps, marshes, 

and ponds 

Ambystoma 

cingulatum 

flatwoods 

salamander 

FT Burke >10 mi (16 km) Isolated 

cypress/gum 

wetlands, wet pine 

flatwoods, moist 

savannas, and 

longleaf pine 

wetlands 

(a) Species included in this table have suitable habitat on the VEGP site and satisfy at least one of the following 

criteria:

 - species has been recorded on the VEGP site 

 - species has been recorded within 10 miles (16 km) of the VEGP site in Aiken or Barnwell Counties, South 

Carolina (SC) (SCDNR 2007, 2008) 

 - species is listed by FWS (2004) as occurring or having the potential to occur in Burke County, Georgia 

(b) Federal status rankings determined by the FWS under the Endangered Species Act, FE = Endangered, FT = 

Threatened, FT(S/A) = Threatened (similarity of appearance) (FWS 2004, SCDNR 2007) 

(c) NRC 2007 

(d) GDNR 2008 

(e) Suitable habitat exists for the relict trillium onsite (NRC 2007) 

(f) The alligator is Federally listed for protection of the similar, endangered American crocodile. The alligator is not 

State-listed in Georgia or SC and is not tracked by county. Based on its range (Conant and Collins 1998), the 

alligator is expected to occur in all three counties. 

(g) SNC 2007a 

Table 2-11. Federally Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially Occurring in Counties 

Crossed by the Transmission Line ROWs (a)

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 

Status (b) Counties of Occurrence (a) Habitat (c)

Plants

Echinacea laevigata smooth coneflower FE Barnwell (SC) Wooded upland areas 

on crystalline mineral 

soils

Lindera melissifolia pond spicebush FE Chatham, Effingham, Screven Wet savannas and on 

the margins of 

standing water bodies 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 2-11. (cont’d)

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 

Status (b) Counties of Occurrence (a) Habitat (c)

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort FE Burke, Screven, Barnwell (SC) Cypress pond peat 

and muck, sinkhole 

depressions, and wet 

pine savannas

Trillium reliquum relict trillium FE Jones Moist hardwood 

forests and forested 

sinkholes

Birds

Charadrius 

melodus 

piping plover FT Bryan, Chatham, Glynn, 

Liberty, McIntosh 

Sandy beaches and 

tidal flats 

Dendroica 

kirtlandii 

Kirtland’s warbler FE Glynn Species present on a 

temporary seasonal 

basis in spring and 

fall, multiple habitats 

Mycteria

americana

wood stork FE Bryan, Burke, Chatham, 

Effingham, Glynn, Jefferson, 

Liberty, Long, McIntosh, 

Richmond, Screven 

Marshes, river 

swamps, and 

cypress/gum ponds 

Picoides borealis red-cockaded 

woodpecker 

FE Bryan, Burke, Chatham, 

Effingham, Glynn, Jefferson, 

Jones, Liberty, Long, 

McIntosh, Putnam, Richmond, 

Screven, Washington, 

Barnwell (SC) 

Open longleaf pine 

savannas and 

flatwoods with mixed 

understory 

Vermivora

bachmanii 

Bachman’s

warbler 

FE Bryan, Chatham, Glynn, 

Liberty, Long, McIntosh 

Canebrake swamps, 

hardwood 

bottomlands, and wet 

hardwood forests 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-70 December 2008 

Table 2-11. (cont’d)

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Federal 

Status (b) Counties of Occurrence (a) Habitat (c)

Amphibians and Reptiles

Alligator 

mississippiensis (d)

American

alligator 

FT(S/A) All Lakes, rivers, 

swamps, marshes, 

and ponds 

Ambystoma 

cingulatum 

flatwoods 

salamander 

FT Bryan, Burke, Chatham, 

Effingham, Jefferson, Liberty, 

Long, McIntosh, Screven 

Isolated cypress/gum 

wetlands, wet pine 

flatwoods, moist 

savannas, and 

longleaf pine 

wetlands 

Drymarchon couperi eastern indigo 

snake

FT Bryan, Chatham, Glynn, 

Liberty, Long, McIntosh, 

Screven

Longleaf pine forests 

and pine flatwoods in 

the sandhills 

(a) Counties crossed by ROWs include: Baldwin, Bryan, Burke, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Hancock, 

Jefferson, Jones, Liberty, Long, McIntosh, Monroe, Putnam, Richmond, Screven, and Washington in 

Georgia; and Barnwell in South Carolina. Federal occurrence data obtained from FWS (2004), GDNR 

(2008), and SCDNR (2007a). 

(b) Federal listing status definitions: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, FT(S/A) = Threatened (similarity of 

appearance) FWS 2004) 

(c) GDNR 2008 

(d) The alligator is Federally listed for protection of the similar, endangered American crocodile. The alligator is 

not State listed in Georgia or SC and is not tracked by county. Based on its range (Conant and Collins 

1998), the alligator is expected to occur in all 18 counties. 

The smooth coneflower was listed by FWS as endangered in 1992 (57 FR 46340). There are 

24 known populations of smooth coneflower in four southeastern states: three in Georgia (FWS 

1995). The smooth coneflower prefers dry habitats such as open woods, roadsides, and 

limestone bluffs which have lots of sunlight and little competition from other herbaceous plant 

species, as wells as areas in post-burn succession stages (FWS 1995). Smooth coneflower 

prefers soils that have a neutral or basic pH and are rich in calcium and/or magnesium (NRC 

2007). There is no known historical documentation of smooth coneflower on the VEGP site or 

in the associated transmission line ROWs, and suitable habitat for the species on the VEGP site 

is unlikely (NRC 2007; TRC 2006). 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-71 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Canby's dropwort was listed as endangered by FWS in 1986 (51 FR 6690). Canby's dropwort is 

a perennial plant with quill-like leaves and small white or pink-tinged flowers and thick, corky 

wings extending from the margins of the plant’s fruit (SCDNR undated). It occurs in a variety of 

wetland habitats, including cypress-dominated ponds. Canby’s dropwort is generally found in 

areas with shallow and infrequent inundations [2 to 12 in. (5 to 30 cm)], and hydric soils (FWS 

1990a). There have been no historical occurrences of Canby's dropwort recorded within 10 mi 

(16 km) of the site, and suitable habitat for the species on the VEGP site is unlikely (TRC 2006). 

The relict trillium was listed as endangered by FWS in 1988 (53 FR 10879). This perennial 

species has three green leaves growing from the stem that is 2 to 10 in. (5 to 25 cm) long 

(USACE 2008). The purple to greenish yellow flower has no stalk and arises from the top of the 

stem (USACE updated). The species prefers moist hardwood forest habitats with sandy soils 

(FWS 1990b). There have been no known historical occurrences of relict trillium on the VEGP 

site or associated transmission lines. (SNC 2006f; TRC 2006). 

The wood stork was listed as an endangered species in 1984 (49 CFR 7332). The species 

stands 2 to 4 ft (0.6 to 1.2 m) tall, weighs 7 to 10 lbs (3 to 4.5 kg), and can have a wingspan of 5 

to 6 ft (1.5 to 1.8 m). The stork has a long, curved beak, no feathers on its neck, white feathers 

throughout the body and wings, and a black feathered tail. Since the species has no muscles 

attached to its vocal box, the bird is very quiet and croaks instead of sings. The wood stork is 

highly colonial and often remains in the same location for years. The wood stork generally 

selects groves of medium to tall trees that are either in standing water or are located on islands 

surrounded by open water. In Georgia, nesting sites are often in blackgum, willow (Salix spp.),

and button bush. Colonies located in areas of standing water must remain inundated until the 

nesting period is complete to protect the young against predators and nest abandonment. In 

Georgia and South Carolina, wood storks lay eggs from March to late May, with fledging 

occurring in July and August (FWS 1997). The wood stork’s diet consists almost entirely of fish 

(FWS 2007b).

The closest known stork colony is 28 mi (45 km) from the VEGP site. Individuals have been 

spotted within 2 mi (3.2 km) of the site (Wike et al. 2006). Additionally, there are two locations 

along the Scherer line ROW where wood storks have been sighted (TRC 2006). There are no 

known sightings of wood storks on the VEGP site (TRC 2006). However, it is a potential 

foraging habitat for the species from June to September in wetlands along streams, man-made 

ponds, drainage ditches, and the cypress wetlands along the Savannah River near the VEGP 

site (NRC 2007). 

Potential habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker is located within the VEGP site. 

The woodpecker prefers to nest in mature pine forests, especially longleaf pine. The bird’s diet 

is composed mainly of insects, which include ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, caterpillars, 

and worms. The diet may also be supplemented with wild fruit. Red-cockaded woodpeckers 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-72 December 2008 

use a cooperative breeding system, called a group. Groups typically consist of a breeding pair 

and potentially non-breeding helpers, which usually are males and non-breeders (FWS 2003a). 

Although there have been no known historical occurrences on the VEGP site (SNC 2006e, SNC 

2007b, TRC 2006), SNC is in the process of enrolling the VEGP site in the GDNR Safe Harbor 

Program. Safe Harbor Agreements are arrangements that encourage voluntary management 

for red-cockaded woodpeckers while protecting the participating landowners and their rights for 

development in the event these woodpeckers become established on the private property. 

The flatwoods salamander was listed by FWS as threatened in 1999 (64 FR 15691). The 

relatively small salamander is black or dark grey, with white, net-like streaks covering the top of 

the species from head to tail. The species prefers open woodlands dominated by longleaf or 

slash pine with herbaceous ground cover and wetland areas (72 FR 5856). The salamander 

breeds from October to December, and burrows during the remainder of the year. There have 

been no known historical occurrences of the species within 10 mi (16 km) of the VEGP site or 

associated transmission line ROWs, however, suitable habitat may exist (TRC 2006). 

The American alligator is a large, semi-aquatic reptile that is similar in size and appearance and 

related to the Federally endangered American crocodile. Adults can grow to over 10 ft (3 m) in 

length. The alligator uses a variety of fresh and brackish water habitats, including marshes, 

ponds, lakes, rivers, swamps, and bayous. It digs dens below water where it retreats during 

cold weather or periods of drought. Eggs are laid in large mounded nests of leaves and other 

rotting vegetation, mud, rocks, and debris located in marshes or near the water’s edge. The 

alligator feeds opportunistically on invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals 

(NatureServe 2007). The American alligator occurs on the VEGP site in regularity. Its 

populations have recovered with legislative protection and are stable or increasing in most of its 

range. It is no longer endangered or threatened (NatureServe 2007). However, it has been 

listed by FWS since 1987 as threatened throughout its entire range due to its similarity in 

appearance to the endangered American crocodile, which is in greater need of protection (52 

FR 21059).

State-Protected Species 

One species, listed by the State of Georgia as threatened, the bay star-vine (Schisandra

glabra), was found on the VEGP site (TRC 2006). Bay star-vine grows on understory trees in 

rich forested areas, especially bottomlands and slopes. Older vines may grow on the trunks of 

overstory trees or may be rooted while growing along the ground, especially near thickets of 

mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). The bay star-vine was found at several locations along the 

wooded bluff bordering the Savannah River and in a wooded wetland in the southern portion of 

the VEGP site (SNC 2007b; TRC 2006). 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-73 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Four Georgia State-listed species were found to occur within the associated transmission line 

ROWs. All occurrences were on the West McIntosh (Thalmann) ROW. Pond spice (Litsea

aestivalis), State listed as rare in Georgia, was found at one location near the Altamaha River in 

McIntosh County. Gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), State listed as threatened, were 

found at three locations, two areas near the Altamaha River in McIntosh County and one area in 

Effingham County. A spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), State listed as unusual, was found at 

one location near Brier Creek in Screven County. Hooded pitcher plants (Sarracenia minor),

State listed as unusual, were found at five locations in Chatham, Liberty, and McIntosh Counties 

(TRC 2006). 

Table 2-12. State Listed Terrestrial Species with Recorded Occurrences in the 

Vicinity of the VEGP Site (a) 

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Georgia 

State

Status (b)

South

Carolina

State

Status (b) County of 

Occurrence (a) Habitat (d)

Plants

Agalinis linifolia flaxleaf false 

foxglove 

SC Aiken (SC) Wetlands (3)

Allium cuthbertii striped garlic SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Sandy coastal plains and 

granite outcrop areas of the 

Piedmont (5)

Astragalus 

michauxii 

sandhills 

milk-vetch

SC Barnwell (SC) Turkey-oak sandhill scrub and 

longleaf pine-wiregrass 

savannas (1)

Astragalus 

villosus 

bearded 

milk-vetch

SC Barnwell (SC) Understory of scrub-oak 

sandhills and in dry open 

pinelands (4)

Baptisia 

lanceolata 

lance-leaf 

wild-indigo 

SC Barnwell (SC) Scrub oak barrens, coarse sand 

ridges, and turkey oak sandhills 

(4)

Carex

cherokeensis 

Cherokee 

sedge 

SC Barnwell (SC) Riparian forests, bottomland 

hardwoods, wet seeps, swamp 

forests, and stream banks (5)

Carex

decomposita 

cypressknee sedge SC Barnwell (SC) On rafted wood debris and 

floating logs in swamps and 

along lake margins (1)

Carex socialis social sedge SC Barnwell (SC) Floodplain forests of rivers and 

streams (1)

Coreopsis rosea rose

coreopsis

RC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Damp depressions with sandy 

organic substrates (6)
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-74 December 2008 

Table 2-12. (cont’d)

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Georgia 

State

Status (b)

South

Carolina

State

Status (b) County of 

Occurrence (a) Habitat (d)

Croton elliottii Elliott’s

croton

SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Wet savannas, swamps, and 

pond margins (1)

Echinacea 

laevigata 

smooth

coneflower 

SE SE Burke,

Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Wooded upland areas on 

crystalline mineral soils (1)

Echinodorus 

parvulus

dwarf 

burhead 

SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Sinkhole ponds, depressions, 

and shallow inundated areas (1)

Elliottia racemosa Georgia 

plume 

ST Burke Forested scrub, open forests 

with shallow rock, and rock 

outcrops (1)

Epidendrum 

conopseum 

greenfly 

orchid

SC Barnwell (SC) Typically growing on limbs of 

evergreen hardwoods, also in 

cracks and crevices of rock 

outcrops (1)

Gaura biennis biennial 

gaura 

SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Dry open woods and prairies (7)

Ilex amelanchier sarvis holly SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Cypress-gum swamps and 

densely vegetated wet sands (1)

Lindera 

subcoriacea 

bog

spicebush 

RC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Forested seeps, wet slopes, 

and forested depressions (1)

Ludwigia 

spathulata 

spatulate 

seedbox 

SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Wooded bogs, cypress-gum 

ponds, sinkhole ponds, and 

pools on granite outcrops (1)

Macbridea

caroliniana 

Carolina 

bird-in-anest

SC Barnwell (SC) Riparian woodlands, marshes, 

and swamps (1)

Monarda didyma Oswego tea SC Barnwell (SC) Moist open woods, riparian 

woodlands, and stream banks 

(3,6)

Nestronia 

umbellula 

Indian olive SR SC Burke,

Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Along ecotones between 

flatwoods and uplands, in 

shrubby areas of mixed pinehardwoods (1)

Nolina georgiana Georgia 

beargrass 

SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Open sandy pine savannas and 

turkey-oak forests (5)

Paronychia 

americana 

American

nailwort 

SC Barnwell (SC) Open areas and open pinehardwoods and mixed forests (5)

Quercus sinuata Durand’s 

white oak 

SC Barnwell (SC) Limestone slopes adjacent to 

streams and in bluff forests (1)
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-75 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 2-12. (cont’d)

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Georgia 

State

Status (b)

South

Carolina

State

Status (b) County of 

Occurrence (a) Habitat (d)

Rhododendron 

flammeum 

Piedmont 

azalea 

SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Dry oak-hickory woodlands on 

well-drained rocky or sandy 

soils (2)

Rhynchospora 

inundata 

drowned 

hornedrush 

SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Terraces within lower coastal 

plain wetlands (5)

Rorippa 

sessiliflora 

stalkless

yellowcress 

SC Barnwell (SC) Inundated shallow depressions, 

wetlands, and marshes (7)

Sagittaria 

isoetiformis 

slender 

arrowhead 

SC Barnwell (SC) Shores of sandy-bottomed 

lakes in the Coastal Plain (5)

Sarracenia rubra sweet 

pitcherplant 

ST Burke Wet meadows and sphagnum 

moss cedar swamps (1)

Scutellaria 

ocmulgee 

Ocmulgee

skullcap

ST Burke Bluff forests and moist 

hardwood forests (1)

Trepocarpus 

aethusae 

Aethusa-like 

trepocarpus 

SC Barnwell (SC) Alluvial forests and woodlands 

(1)

Mammals

Condylura 

cristata

star-nosed 

mole

SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Wet soils in flood plains, 

swamps, meadows, and other 

openings near water (2)

Corynorhinus

rafinesquii 

Rafinesque’s 

big-eared 

bat

SR SE Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Mixed forests, abandoned 

buildings, caves, and cavity 

snags (1)

Neotoma 

floridana 

eastern

woodrat 

SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Rock ledges and high-elevation 

forests (1)

Spilogale putorius eastern

spotted

skunk

SC Aiken (SC) Rock outcrops in densely 

forested areas or habitats with 

significant cover and brushy 

areas (2)

Birds (c)

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

bald eagle ST SE Burke,

Barnwell (SC) 

Shorelines of large water 

bodies, marshes, and 

seacoasts (1)

Mycteria

americana 

wood stork SE SE Burke,

Barnwell (SC) 

Marshes, river swamps, and 

cypress/gum ponds (1)
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-76 December 2008 

Table 2-12. (cont’d)

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Georgia 

State

Status (b)

South

Carolina

State

Status (b) County of 

Occurrence (a) Habitat (d)

Picoides borealis red-cockaded 

woodpecker 

SE SE Burke,

Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Open longleaf pine savannas 

and flatwoods with mixed 

understory (1)

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Ambystoma 

tigrinum 

tigrinum

eastern tiger 

salamander 

SC Barnwell (SC) Upland pine forests, open 

fields, and isolated wetlands (1)

Heterodon simus southern 

hognose 

snake

ST SC Burke,

Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Fallow fields and longleaf pineturkey oak forests in the 

Sandhills (1)

Hyla avivoca bird-voiced

treefrog

SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Densely wooded swamps and 

floodplain forests (2)

Micrurus fulvius eastern coral 

snake

SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Under cover in pine-oak 

woodlands, pine flatwoods, and 

mixed hardwoods with sandy 

soils (2)

Pituophis 

melanoleucus 

pine snake SC Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Dry pine forests or pinehardwood forests (1)

Rana capito gopher frog SR SE Burke,

Barnwell (SC), 

Aiken (SC) 

Isolated wetlands and adjacent 

areas in dry pine flatwoods on 

sandy soils (1)

(a) Occurrences considered in the vicinity are within approximately 10 miles of the VEGP site in Burke County, 

Georgia, or Barnwell or Aiken Counties, South Carolina (SC). State occurrence data and distances obtained 

from (GDNR 2007d, 2008) and (SCDNR 2007, 2008). 

(b) State status determined by the GDNR and SCDNR: SE = State Endangered, ST = State Threatened, SR = 

State Rare, SU = State Unusual, RC = Of Concern Regionally, SC = Species of Concern (GDNR 2007d; 

SCDNR 2007) 

(c) The bald eagle, wood stork, and red-cockaded woodpecker are listed as occurring in Burke County (FWS 

2004). However, there are no records of these species in Burke Country within 10 miles of the VEGP site. 

(d) Habitat information sources: 

 1 GDNR 2008 2 NatureServe 2007 3 NRCS 2008 4 USF 2008 5 FNA Editorial Committee 1993+ 6 Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center NPIN 2008 7 Robert W. Freckmann Herbarium 2008 
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-77 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 2-13. State Listed Terrestrial Species with Recorded Occurrences in the Counties 

Crossed by the Transmission Line ROWs (a)

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Georgia 

State

Status (b)

South

Carolina

State

Status (b)

Counties of 

Occurrence (a) Habitat (c)

Plants

 

Allium cuthbertii striped garlic SC Barnwell (SC) Sandy coastal plains and granite 

outcrop areas of the Piedmont (5)

Amphicarpum 

muehlenbergianum 

blue maiden 

cane

 SC Barnwell (SC) Open areas within wet flatwoods 

on the outer margins of herbdominated marshes (4)

Astragalus 

michauxii 

sandhill milkvetchST SC Richmond, 

Screven,

Washington, 

Barnwell (SC) 

Turkey-oak sandhill scrub and 

longleaf pine-wiregrass savannas 

(1)

Astragalus villosus bearded 

milk-vetch

 SC Barnwell (SC) Understory of scrub-oak sandhills 

and in dry open pinelands (4)

Balduina

atropurpurea 

purple 

honeycomb 

head 

SR Liberty, Long Pocosins, pitcherplant bogs, and 

wet savannas (1)

Baptisia lanceolata lance-leaf 

wild indigo 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Scrub oak barrens, coarse sand 

ridge, and turkey oak sandhills (4)

Carex dasycarpa velvet sedge SR Liberty, Long, 

McIntosh

Moist hardwood forests and 

evergreen hammocks (1)

Carex decomposita cypressknee sedge 

 SC Barnwell (SC) On rafted wood debris and floating 

logs in swamps and along lake 

margins (1)

Carya

myristiciformis 

nutmeg

hickory 

 RC Barnwell (SC) Flatwoods with calcareous soils (1)

Ceratiola ericoides sandhill 

rosemary 

ST Burke Sandy, well-drained, acidic soils in 

dry open pinelands, scrub oak 

woods,and scrubby flatwoods (6,10)

Chamaecyparis 

thyoides

Atlantic

white cedar 

SR Richmond Within the sandhills region in 

clearwater streams and swamps 

(1)

Coreopsis 

integrifolia 

floodplain 

tickseed

ST Glynn Along streambanks and in riparian 

areas and alluvial forests (1)
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-78 December 2008 

Table 2-13. (cont’d) 

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Georgia 

State

Status (b)

South

Carolina

State

Status (b)

Counties of 

Occurrence (a) Habitat (c)

Croton elliottii Elliot’s

croton

 SC Barnwell (SC) Wet savannas, swamps, and pond 

margins (1)

Cuscuta harperi Harper’s 

dodder 

SE Washington Herbaceous communities on rock 

outcrops, often with dwarf blazing 

star as a host species (1)

Cypripedium 

acaule 

pink

ladyslipper 

SU Richmond Upland pine forests and mixed 

oak-hickory-pine forests (1)

Dicerandra 

radfordiana 

Radford’s 

mint

SE McIntosh Sand ridges (1)

Echinacea 

laevigata 

smooth

coneflower 

 SE Barnwell (SC) Wooded upland areas on 

crystalline mineral soils (1)

Echinodorus 

parvulus

dwarf 

burhead 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Sinkhole ponds, depressions, and 

shallow inundated areas (1)

Elliottia racemosa Georgia 

plume 

ST Bryan, Burke, 

Long 

Forested scrub, open forests with 

shallow rock, and rock outcrops (1)

Epidendum 

conopseum 

greenfly 

orchid

SU Bryan, 

Effingham,

Glynn, Liberty, 

Long, 

McIntosh

Typically growing on limbs of 

evergreen hardwoods, also in 

cracks and crevices of rock 

outcrops (1) 

Eriocaulon

koernickianum 

dwarf 

hatpins 

SE Hancock Rock outcrops (1)

Forestiera

segregata 

Florida wild 

privet

SR Chatham, 

Glynn, 

McIntosh

Coastal scrub forest shell mounds 

and barrier islands (1)

Fothergilla 

gardenia 

dwarf witch 

alder 

ST Long Swamps and open wooded areas 

in topographic depressions (1)

Gaura biennis biennial 

gaura 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Dry open woods and prairies (7)

Halesia parviflora smallflowered 

silverbell 

tree

 SC Barnwell (SC) Moist acidic organic soils, typically 

in partial shade (9)
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-79 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 2-13. (cont’d) 

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Georgia 

State

Status (b)

South

Carolina

State

Status (b)

Counties of 

Occurrence (a) Habitat (c)

Helenium 

brevifolium 

shortleaf

sneezeweed 

 RC Barnwell (SC) Pitcher plant bogs and seepage 

depressions (1)

Helenium 

pinnatifidum 

southeastern 

sneezeweed 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Wetlands and open swamps (4)

Hypericum 

adpressum 

creeping St. 

John’s wort 

 RC Barnwell (SC) Swamps and sparsely wooded 

wetlands (1)

Ipomopsis rubra standing 

cypress 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Dry soils with sand, gravel, or 

rocky composition (6)

Leitneria floridana corkwood ST Glynn, 

McIntosh

Saw palmetto marshes, pocosins, 

and cabbage palm wetlands (1)

Lindera melissifolia pond 

spicebush 

SE Chatham, 

Effingham,

Screven

Wet savannas and on the margins 

of standing water bodies (1)

Lindera 

subcoriacea 

bog

spicebush 

 RC Barnwell (SC) Forested seeps, wet slopes, and 

forested depressions (1)

Litsea aestivalis pond spice SR Bryan, 

Effingham,

Glynn, Long, 

McIntosh

Swamp margins, pocosins, and 

cypress ponds (1)

Lobelia boykinii Boykin’s 

lobelia 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Cypress pond peat and muck, 

sinkhole depressions, and wet 

pine savannas, often with Canby’s 

dropwort (1)

Ludwigia 

spathulata 

spatulate 

seedbox 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Wooded bogs, cypress-gum 

ponds, sinkhole ponds, and pools 

on granite outcrops (1)

Macbridea

caroliniana 

Carolina 

bird-in-anest

 SC Barnwell (SC) Riparian woodlands, marshes, 

and swamps (1)

Marshallia ramose pineland 

Barbara 

buttons

SR Washington Open forests overlying shallow 

rock and rock outcrops (1)
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-80 December 2008 

Table 2-13. (cont’d) 

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Georgia 

State

Status (b)

South

Carolina

State

Status (b)

Counties of 

Occurrence (a) Habitat (c)

Matelea pubiflora trailing 

milkvine

SR Long, 

McIntosh

Sandridge areas and on exposed 

sandy soils (1)

Menispermum 

canadense 

Canada 

moonseed 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Alluvial hardwood forests and bluff 

forests (5)

Monarda didyma Oswego tea SC Barnwell (SC) Moist open woods, riparian 

woodlands, and stream banks (3,6)

Nolina georgiana Georgia 

beargrass 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Open sandy pine savannas and 

turkey-oak forests (5)

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's 

dropwort 

SE SE Burke, 

Screven,

Barnwell (SC) 

Cypress pond peat and muck, 

sinkhole depressions, and wet 

pine savannas, often found with 

Boykin’s lobelia (1)

Paronychia 

americana 

American

nailwort 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Open areas and open mixed pinehardwoods (5)

Penstemon 

dissectus

cutleaf

beardtongue

SR Jefferson,

Long

Rock outcrops and pine savannas 

near shallow rock outcrops (1)

Platanthera lacera greenfringed 

orchid

 SC Barnwell (SC) Wet depressions, bogs, riparian 

meadows, hydric sand flats, 

alluvial forests, swamps, stream 

banks, and wet prairies (5)

Pteroglossaspis 

ecristata

crestless

plume orchid 

ST Liberty, Long, 

McIntosh

Longleaf pine savannas, pine 

grasslands, and grassy saw 

palmetto barrens (1)

Quercus sinuata Durand’s 

white oak 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Limestone slopes adjacent to 

streams and in bluff forests (1)

Rhexia aristosa awned 

meadowbea

uty 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Grass-sedge dominated Carolina 

bays, wet savannas, depression 

meadows, sinkhole ponds, and 

cypress bays (8)

Rhododendron 

flammeum 

Piedmont 

azalea 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Dry oak-hickory woodlands on 

well-drained rocky or sandy soils 

(2)

Rhynchospora 

inundata 

drowned 

hornedrush 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Terraces within lower coastal plain 

wetlands (5)
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-81 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 2-13. (cont’d) 

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Georgia 

State

Status (b)

South

Carolina

State

Status (b)

Counties of 

Occurrence (a) Habitat (c)

Rhynchospora 

tracyi

Tracy’s 

beakrush 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Emergent in freshwater marshes, 

ditches and swales, or in cypress 

dome shallows (5)

Sageretia 

minutiflora 

climbing 

buckthorn 

ST Bryan, Glynn, 

McIntosh

Maritime forests over shell 

mounds and calcareous bluff 

forests (1)

Sagittaria 

isoetiformis 

slender 

arrowhead 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Shores of sandy-bottomed lakes 

in the Coastal Plain (5)

Sarracenia flava yellow flytrap SU Effingham, 

Long 

Wet savannas and pitcher plant 

bogs (1)

Sarracenia minor hooded 

pitcherplant 

SU Bryan, Burke, 

Chatham, 

Glynn, Liberty, 

Long, 

McIntosh,

Screven

Wet savannas and pitcher plant 

bogs (1)

Sarracenia rubra sweet 

pitcherplant 

ST Burke, 

Jefferson,

Richmond 

Wet meadows and sphagnum 

moss cedar swamps (1)

Schisandra glabra bay star vine ST Washington Stream terraces and lower slopes 

within rich woodlands (1)

Scleria reticularis reticulated

nutrush

 SC Barnwell (SC) Wet savannas and swales, and 

pond and lake margins (5)

Scutellaria 

ocmulgee 

Ocmulgee

skullcap

ST Burke, 

Richmond 

Bluff forests and moist hardwood 

forests (1)

Sideroxylon 

macrocarpum 

Ohoopee 

bumelia 

SR Long Dry pine flatwoods and savanna 

with oak understory, often hidden 

in wiregrass (1)

Sideroxylon thornei swamp 

buckthorn 

SR Liberty Calcareous swamps and forested 

sinkhole depressions (1)
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-82 December 2008 

Table 2-13. (cont’d) 

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Georgia 

State

Status (b)

South

Carolina

State

Status (b)

Counties of 

Occurrence (a) Habitat (c)

Stewartia 

malacodendron 

silky 

camellia 

SR Bryan, Burke, 

Effingham,

Hancock, 

Liberty, 

Richmond, 

Screven,

Washington 

Beech hardwood forests along 

streams and on lower slopes (1)

Stillingia aquatica corkwood SC Barnwell (SC) Old-growth pond cypress 

depressions (4)

Stylisma pickeringii 

var. pickeringii 

Pickering’s

morning

glory 

ST Richmond Sandhill oak scrub (1)

Symphyotrichum 

georgianum 

Georgia 

aster

ST Richmond Open areas of mixed upland 

forests with mineral soils, 

sometimes with smooth purple 

coneflower (1) 

Trautvetteria 

caroliniensis 

Carolina 

tassel rue 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Wet meadows, stream banks, 

bogs, and wooded seepage 

slopes (5)

Trillium reliquum relict trillium SE Jones Moist hardwood forests and 

forested sinkholes (1)

Birds 

Aimophila aestivalis Bachman’s

sparrow 

SR Bryan, Liberty, 

Long, 

McIntosh

Open woods, brushy areas, and 

old fields (1)

Ammodramus 

henslowii 

Henslow’s 

sparrow 

SR Glynn Wet grasslands (1)

Charadrius 

melodus 

piping plover ST Chatham, 

Glynn, Liberty, 

McIntosh

Sandy beaches and tidal flats (1)

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson’s

plover 

ST Chatham, 

Glynn, Liberty, 

McIntosh

Sandy beaches and tidal flats (1)

Egretta caerulea little blue 

heron 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Marshes, lakes, and ponds (1)
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-83 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 2-13. (cont’d) 

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Georgia 

State

Status (b)

South

Carolina

State

Status (b)

Counties of 

Occurrence (a) Habitat (c)

Elanoides forficatus swallow-tailed 

kite

SR Bryan, 

Effingham,

Glynn, Long, 

McIntosh,

Screven

Marshes and floodplain swamps 

(1)

Falco sparverius 

paulus 

southeastern 

American

kestrel

SR Long Open pine grasslands with snags (1)

Haematopus 

palliates 

American

oystercatcher 

SR Chatham, 

Glynn, 

McIntosh

Salt marshes, tidal flats, and 

sandy beaches (1)

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

bald eagle ST ST Baldwin, 

Bryan, 

Chatham, 

Glynn, 

Hancock, 

Jefferson,

Jones, Liberty, 

Long, 

McIntosh,

Monroe, 

Barnwell (SC) 

Shorelines of large water bodies, 

marshes, and seacoasts (1)

Picoides borealis red-cockaded 

woodpecker 

SE SE Bryan, 

Chatham, 

Effingham,

Jones, Liberty, 

Long, Putnam, 

Washington, 

Barnwell (SC) 

Open longleaf pine savannas and 

flatwoods with mixed understory 

(1)

Rynchops niger black skimmer SR Chatham, 

Glynn, 

McIntosh

Tidal ponds and sandy beaches (1)

Sterna antillarum least tern SR Chatham, 

McIntosh

Sandy beaches and sandbars (1)

Sterna nilotica gull-billed tern ST Glynn, 

McIntosh

Salt marshes and sandy beaches 

(1)

Vermivora

bachmanii 

Bachman’s

warbler 

SE Long Canebrake swamps and 

bottomland hardwoods (1)
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-84 December 2008 

Table 2-13. (cont’d) 

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Georgia 

State

Status (b)

South

Carolina

State

Status (b)

Counties of 

Occurrence (a) Habitat (c)

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Ambystoma 

cingulatum

flatwoods 

salamander 

ST Bryan, Burke, 

Chatham, 

Liberty, Long, 

McIntosh,

Screven

Isolated cypress/gum wetlands, 

wet pine flatwoods, moist 

savannas, and longleaf pine 

wetlands (1)

Clemmys guttata spotted turtle SU ST Bryan, Burke, 

Chatham, 

Effingham,

Jefferson,

Liberty, Long, 

McIntosh,

Screven,

Washington, 

Barnwell (SC) 

Small ponds, marshes, bogs, and 

heavily vegetated swamps (1)

Drymarchon

couperi 

eastern indigo 

snake

ST Bryan, Glynn, 

Long, 

McIntosh

Longleaf pine forests and pine 

flatwoods in the sandhills (1)

Gopherus 

polyphemus 

gopher 

tortoise

ST Bryan, 

Chatham, 

Effingham,

Glynn, Liberty, 

Long, 

McIntosh,

Screven,

Washington 

Longleaf pine-turkey oak woods 

and pine flatwoods in sandy soils 

with rich herbaceous communities 

(1)

Heterodon simus southern 

hognose 

snake

ST Bryan, Burke, 

Effingham,

Jefferson,

Liberty, Long, 

Richmond, 

Screven

Fallow fields and longleaf pineturkey oak forests in the Sandhills 

(1)

Hyla avivoca bird-voiced

treefrog

 SC Barnwell (SC) Densely wooded swamps and 

floodplain forests (2)

Notophthalmus

perstriatus

striped newt ST Bryan, Liberty, 

Long, Screven 

Isolated wetlands in pine 

savannas and flatwoods (1)

Ophisaurus 

mimicus 

mimic glass 

lizard

SR Effingham, 

Liberty, Long, 

McIntosh

Seepage bogs, wet pine 

savannas, and wet flatwoods (1)
 Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-85 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 2-13. (cont’d) 

Scientific Name 

Common

Name 

Georgia 

State

Status (b)

South

Carolina

State

Status (b)

Counties of 

Occurrence (a) Habitat (c)

Rana capito gopher frog SR SE Bryan, Burke, 

Chatham, 

Liberty, Long, 

McIntosh,

Richmond, 

Screven,

Barnwell (SC) 

Isolated wetlands and adjacent 

areas in dry pine flatwoods on 

sandy soils (1)

Insects 

Cordulegaster sayi Say’s 

spiketail 

ST Effingham, 

Liberty 

Silty-mucky seepage areas and 

pools of first-order, spring-fed 

streams (1)

Mammals 

Condylura cristata star-nosed 

mole

 SC Barnwell (SC) Wet soils in flood plains, swamps, 

meadows, and other openings 

near water (2)

Corynorhinus

rafinesquii 

Rafinesque’s 

big-eared 

bat

SR SE Liberty, 

McIntosh,

Barnwell (SC) 

Mixed forests, abandoned 

buildings, caves, and cavity snags 

(1)

 Neotoma floridana eastern

woodrat 

 SC Barnwell (SC) Rock ledges and high-elevation 

forests (1)

(a) Counties crossed by ROWs include: Baldwin, Bryan, Burke, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Hancock, Jefferson, 

Jones, Liberty, Long, McIntosh, Monroe, Putnam, Richmond, Screven, and Washington in Georgia; and Barnwell 

in South Carolina. State occurrence data and distances obtained from GDNR (2008) and SCDNR (2007a). 

(b) State status determined by the GDNR and SCDNR: SE = State Endangered, ST = State Threatened, SR = State 

Rare, SU = State Unusual, SC = Species of Concern (GDNR 2008; SCDNR 2007). 

(c) Habitat information sources: 

 1 GDNR 2008 2 NatureServe 2007 3 NRCS 2008 4 USF 2008 5 FNA Editorial Committee 1993+ 6 Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center NPIN 2008 7 Robert W. Freckmann Herbarium 2008 8 The Center for Plant Conservation 2008 9 Kemper Center for Home Gardening 2008 10 USDA 2008 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-86 December 2008 

1 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts 

2

3 Radiological releases, doses to members of the public, and the resultant environmental impacts, 

4 are summarized in two VEGP reports: the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report and the 

5 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Limits for all radiological releases are 

6 specified in the VEGP ODCM and are used to meet Federal radiation protection limits and 

7 standards. The following discussion focuses on 1) the radiological environmental impacts and 

8 2) the dose impacts to the public and the environment, in and around the VEGP site. 

9

10 1) Radiological Environmental Impacts: 

11

12 VEGP conducts a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) in which radiological 

13 impacts to the environment and the public around the VEGP site are monitored, documented, 

14 and compared to NRC standards. VEGP summarizes the results of their REMP in an Annual

15 Radiological Environmental Operating Report. The NRC staff performed a historical review of 

16 the environmental monitoring data from 2002 to 2006 (SNC 2003b, 2004b, 2005c, 2006g, 

17 2007m). The pre-operational stage of the VEGP’s REMP began with initial sample collections 

18 in August of 1981. The transition from pre-operational to operational stage of VEGP’s REMP 

19 occurred as Unit 1 reached initial criticality on March 9, 1987. The objectives of the VEGP’s 

20 REMP are to: 

21

22 • Measure and evaluate the effects of facility operation on the environs and verify the 

23 effectiveness of the controls on radioactive effluents; 

24 • Monitor natural radiation levels in the environs of the VEGP site; and 

25 • Demonstrate compliance with the requirements of applicable Federal regulatory agencies, 

26 including technical specifications and the ODCM. 

27

28 The REMP at VEGP samples environmental media in the environs around the site to analyze 

29 and measure the radioactivity levels that may be present. The media samples are 

30 representative of the radiation exposure pathways to the public from all plant radioactive 

31 effluents. The REMP measures direct radiation, the airborne, and the waterborne pathways for 

32 radioactivity in the vicinity of the VEGP site. Direct radiation pathways include radiation from 

33 buildings and plant structures and airborne material that may be released from the plant. In 

34 addition, the REMP also measures background radiation (i.e., cosmic sources, naturally 

35 occurring radioactive material, including radon and global fallout). Thermoluminescent 

36 dosimeters (TLDs) are used to measure direct radiation. The airborne pathway includes 

37 measurements of radioiodine and particulates in air samples. The waterborne pathway consists 

38 of measurements of surface water, drinking water, and sediment from the Savannah River.
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-87 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

During 2006, there were no plant-related activation or fission products detected in airborne 

samples, milk, and grassy or broadleaf vegetation. Radionuclides attributable to plant operation 

were detected during 2006 in samples of surface water, fish, drinking water, and shoreline 

sediment (SNC 2007m). However, the reported data on the radionuclides detected in 

environmental samples were below applicable NRC reporting levels and showed no significant 

or measurable impact on the environment from the operation of VEGP. 

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) has an extensive environmental 

radiation monitoring program that routinely conducts sampling and analysis of selected 

environmental media in conjunction with VEGP. The GEPD’s environmental radiation 

monitoring program includes TLDs for monitoring direct radiation, samples of air, precipitation, 

soil, vegetation, milk, assorted crops, surface (river) water, groundwater, fish, seafood, and river 

sediment. The results of the GEPD’s 2000 to 2002 environmental radiation monitoring report 

showed that the levels of radionuclides detected in environmental samples were below 

applicable NRC reporting levels and showed no significant or measurable impact on the 

environment from the operation of VEGP (GEPD 2004). 

In addition to the routine REMP, the applicant established an on-site groundwater protection 

program in 2006. The program is designed to monitor the on-site environment for indication of 

leaks from plant systems and pipes carrying liquids with radioactive material. The results were 

reported in the VEGP 2006 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (SNC 2007g). 

The report stated that, in 2006, VEGP sampled onsite drinking water deep wells and onsite 

makeup water deep wells for tritium and gamma isotopic activity. No detectable activity was 

found in the water samples. The applicant plans to implement a more extensive radiological 

groundwater monitoring program that may include additional monitoring wells based on site 

hydrology information. The results of the monitoring program will be reported each year in the 

Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report.

2) Radiological Dose Impacts: 

A review of historical data on radiological releases from VEGP during the period from 2002 

through 2006 and the resultant dose calculations demonstrate that the dose to a maximally 

exposed individual in the vicinity of VEGP was a small fraction of the limits and standards 

specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and 40 CFR Part 190. VEGP 

summarizes the results of their radiological releases and the resultant doses in the Annual 

Radioactive Effluent Release Report (SNC 2003a, 2004a, 2005a, 2006b, 2007c). A summary of 

the calculated maximum dose to an individual located at the VEGP site boundary from liquid 

and gaseous effluents released during 2006 is as follows: 

For 2006, dose values for each reactor unit were calculated based on actual liquid and gaseous 

effluent release data and conservative models to simulate the transport mechanisms. The 

results are described in the 2006 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (SNC 2007c). 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-88 December 2008

The 2006 calculated maximum whole-body dose to an offsite member of the general public from 

liquid effluents was 3.01 E-02 millirem (mrem) (3.01 E-04 millisievert [mSv]) for Unit 1 and 2.20 

E-02 mrem (2.20 E-04 mSv) for Unit 2. These doses are well below the 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) per 

reactor dose design objective in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

The 2006 calculated maximum organ dose to an offsite member of the general public from liquid 

effluents was 3.40 E-02 mrem (3.40 E-04 mSv) to the liver for Unit 1 and 2.36 E-02 mrem (2.36 

E-04 mSv) to the lung for Unit 2, These doses are well below the 10 mrem (0.10 mSv) dose 

design objective in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

The 2006 calculated maximum gamma air dose at the site boundary from noble gas discharges 

was 3.14 E-05 millirad (mrad) (3.14 E-07 milligray [mGy]) for Unit 1 and 6.89 E-05 mrad (6.89 E07 mGy) for Unit 2. These doses are well below the 10 mrad (0.10 mGy) dose design objective 

in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

The 2006 calculated maximum beta air dose at the site boundary from noble gas discharges 

was 1.79 E-05 mrad (1.79 E-07 mGy) for Unit 1 and 6.14 E-05 mrad (6.14 E-07 mGy) for Unit 2.

These doses are well below the 20 mrad (0.20 mGy) dose design objective in Appendix I to 10 

CFR Part 50. 

The 2006 calculated maximum organ dose to an offsite member of the general public from 

gaseous radioiodine, tritium, and particulate effluents was 3.85 E-04 mrem (3.85 E-06 mSv) for 

Unit 1 and 1.40 E-04 mrem (1.40 E-06 mSv) for Unit 2. These doses are well below the 15 

mrem (0.15 mSv) dose design objective in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

The NRC staff found that the 2006 radiological data are consistent, with reasonable variation 

due to operating conditions and outages, with the five year historical radiological effluent 

releases and resultant doses. These results confirm that VEGP is operating in compliance with 

Federal radiation protection standards contained in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 

20, and 40 CFR Part 190. 

The applicant does not anticipate any significant changes to the radioactive effluent releases or 

exposure pathways from VEGP operations during the license renewal term and the impacts to 

the environment are, therefore, not expected to change. Based on the applicant’s assertion that 

there are no refurbishment activities planned, similar small doses to members of the public and 

small impacts to the environment are expected over the license renewal term. 

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors 

This section describes current socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or 

indirectly affected by changes in operations at VEGP. VEGP and the communities that support 

it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The communities provide the people, 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-89 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

goods, and services required by VEGP operations. VEGP operations, in turn, create the 

demand and pay for the people, goods, and services in the form of wages, salaries, and 

benefits for jobs and dollar expenditures for goods and services. The measure of the 

communities’ ability to support the demands of VEGP depends on their ability to respond to 

changing environmental, social, economic, and demographic conditions. 

The socioeconomics region of influence (ROI) is defined by the areas where VEGP employees 

and their families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby affecting the 

economic conditions of the region. The ROI consists of a three-county area, which is where 

approximately 80 percent of VEGP employees reside: Columbia (34 percent), Richmond (26 

percent), and Burke (20 percent). The following sections describe the housing, public services, 

off-site land use, visual aesthetics and noise, population demography, and the economy in the 

ROI surrounding the VEGP site. 

VEGP employs a permanent workforce of around 860 employees (SNC 2007a). Approximately 

90 percent live in Burke, Columbia, Richmond, and Screven Counties, Georgia and Aiken 

County, South Carolina (Table 2-14). The remaining 10 percent are divided among 15 counties 

in Georgia and 6 counties in South Carolina with numbers ranging from 1 to 16 employees per 

county. Given the location of VEGP and the residential locations of VEGP employees, the most 

significant impacts of plant operations are likely to occur in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond 

counties, Georgia, where approximately 80 percent of the VEGP employees reside. The focus 

of the analysis in this SEIS is therefore on the impacts of VEGP in these three counties. 

VEGP schedules refueling outages at 18-month intervals. During refueling outages, site 

employment increases by as many as 800 workers for approximately 30 days of temporary duty.

Most of these workers are assumed to be located in the same geographic areas as the 

permanent VEGP staff. 

Table 2-14. VEGP Permanent Employee Residence by County in 2005 

County (a) Workforce 

Number 

Percent of 

Workforce 

County 

Population (b)

Columbia 289 34 103,490 

Richmond 224 26 194,135 

Burke 170 20 23,154 

Screven 58 7 15,288 

Aiken 37 4 150,053 

Jenkins 16 2 8,715 

Jefferson 13 2 16,783 

Emanuel 12 1 22,186 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-90 December 2008

Table 2-14. (cont’d) 

County (a) Workforce 

Number 

Percent of 

Workforce 

County 

Population (b)

Bulloch 10 1 62,011 

Other Counties 33 3 -- 

Total 862 100 -- 

(a) Listed counties are located in Georgia except for Aiken, which is in South 

 Carolina. 

(b) Estimated 2005 population. 

Source: SNC 2007a and USCB 2007a 

2.2.8.1 Housing 

Table 2–15 lists the total number of occupied housing units, vacancy rates, and median value in 

the three-county ROI. According to the 2000 Census, there were nearly 124,500 housing units 

in the ROI, of which approximately 113,000 were occupied; the median value of owner-occupied 

units was $84,900. The vacancy rate was higher in Burke and Richmond Counties (10 percent) 

and lower in Columbia County (7 percent). The median value was highest in Columbia County 

($118,000).

In 2005, the total number of housing units in Burke County had grown by more than 330 units to 

9178 (USCB 2007b). 

Table 2-15. Housing in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties, Georgia, in 2000 

Burke Columbia Richmond ROI 

Total housing units 8,842 33,321 82,312 124,475 

Occupied housing units 7,934 31,120 73,920 112,974 

Vacant units 908 2,201 8,392 11,501 

Vacancy rate (percent) 10 7 10 9 

Median value (dollars) 59,800 118,000 76,800 84,900 

Source: USCB 2000a 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-91 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

2.2.8.2 Public Services

2.2.8.2.1 Water Supply 

Approximately 80 percent of the VEGP employees reside in Columbia (34 percent), Richmond 

(26 percent), and Burke (20 percent) Counties (SNC 2007a). The major public water suppliers 

in the three counties, including municipalities, obtain their drinking water supply from surface 

water and/or groundwater sources. Columbia County lies north of the Fall Line, a geomorphic 

boundary between the Piedmont and the Coastal Plain. It is characterized by a limited 

groundwater supply because of the dense, crystalline rock underlying the area. Like most of the 

large municipal systems above the Fall Line, Columbia County obtains its water from the 

Savannah River or one of its impoundments (USCB 2000a). 

In the Coastal Plains of Georgia and South Carolina, two major regional aquifer systems, the 

Cretaceous and the Tertiary can supply about 5 billion gallons per day of water. Most counties 

in the Coastal Plain, including Burke and Richmond, obtain their water from these aquifers; 

some municipalities use the Savannah River to supplement their supply (CSRARDC 2005). 

Tables 2-16 and 2-17 provide public water supply information for the Burke, Columbia, and 

Richmond County community water systems, including permitted capacity and average daily 

production. Table 2-16 presents information for groundwater withdrawals and Table 2-17 

addresses surface water withdrawals. The population served by each system, by water source, 

is also provided. 

Table 2-16. Public Water Supply System Capacity and Usage for Groundwater Withdrawals

System Name 

Permitted Annual 

Average Withdrawal 

(MGD) 

Reported Annual 

Average Withdrawal 

(MGD) 

Population

Served 

Burke County 

 Waynesboro 3.50 0.79 5,813 

 Sardis 0.40 0.07 1,152 

Columbia County 

 Columbia County(a) 0.58 0.00 77,280 

 Grovetown 0.90 0.13 6,089 

 Harlem 0.25 0.02 4,290 

Richmond County 

 Augusta-Richmond 17.40 8.40 180,000 

 County Water System 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-92 December 2008

Table 2-16. (cont’d)

System Name 

Permitted Annual 

Average Withdrawal 

(MGD) 

Reported Annual 

Average Withdrawal 

(MGD) 

Population

Served 

 Hephzibah 1.20 0.34 3,011 

(a) Columbia County system is withdrawn primarily from surface-water systems 

Sources: GEPD 2005 (permitted withdrawal), SNC 2007a (reported withdrawal), 

and EPA 2007 (population). 

Table 2-17. Public Water Supply System Capacity and Usage for Surface Water Withdrawals

System Name Permitted Monthly Average 

Withdrawal (MGD) 

Reported Monthly Average 

Withdrawal (MGD) 

Population

Served 

Burke County 

 Waynesboro 1.0 0.10 - 0.19 5,813 

 Sardis(a) -- -- -- 

Columbia County 

 Columbia County 39.0 8.35 - 17.78 77,280 

 Grovetown(a) -- -- -- 

 Harlem(a) -- -- -- 

Richmond County 

 Augusta-Richmond 60.0 24.40 - 44.34 180,000 

 County Water System 

 Hephzibah(a) -- -- -- 

(a) System does not withdraw surface water. 

Sources: GEPD 2007(permitted withdrawal), SNC 2007a (reported withdrawal), and EPA 2007 

(population). 

According to the regional planning agency for the central Savannah River area, Burke, 

Columbia, and Richmond Counties are adequately served by the existing water supply and it is 

estimated that the region will have sufficient supply through the planning period (that is, 2005 to 

2025) (CSRARDC 2005). 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-93 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

2.2.8.2.2 Education

Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties have a total of 96 public primary and secondary 

schools, with a 2006 to 2007 student enrollment of 58,544 (GOSA 2007). The public school 

systems in the three-county ROI surrounding the VEGP site are organized by county. The 

largest of these school districts is Richmond County School District, which has a student 

enrollment of more than 32,000. Although it has had over-crowding issues for several years, 

the district now meets the student-teacher ratios mandated by the Georgia Department of 

Education. The Columbia County School District, with a student enrollment of over 20,000, is 

the second largest of the three districts. It has had the highest rate of growth of the three 

districts in recent years. Enrollment grew by more than 1000 students during the 2005 to 2006 

school year and an increase of approximately 800 is expected for the 2007 to 2008 year. The 

district provides educational services to high growth residential areas near the city of Augusta 

and struggles to meet State-mandated student-teacher ratios. The Columbia County Board of 

Education has given high priority to new school construction. Burke County School District, the 

smallest of the three, differs from the two larger districts in that it has excess capacity. The 

Burke County School District office estimates that it has excess capacity of approximately 17 

percent as of the 2006 to 2007 school year, and that their schools could serve 700 to 800 

additional students (NRC 2007). 

2.2.8.2.3 Transportation

Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show the VEGP site and highways within a 50-mi radius and a 6-mi radius 

of VEGP. At the larger regional scale, the major highways serving VEGP are: 

(1) Interstate 20 (I-20), located approximately 25 miles north of VEGP, which runs eastwest through Augusta and connects Columbia, South Carolina, and Atlanta, Georgia; 

(2) I-520, which is a beltway that partly encircles Augusta to the west and south; 

(3) U.S. Route 25, a major north-south highway which is located approximately 15 miles 

west of VEGP and runs through the city of Waynesboro; 

(4) The Savannah River Parkway, a new four-lane connector under construction between 

Augusta and Savannah, which follows U.S. Route 25 in its route through the county 

(Burke County portion is open to traffic (Burke County 2007); and 

(4) State Route 56, which connects rural towns in Burke County with Augusta to the north, 

and State Route 23, located approximately 4 miles west of VEGP, which connects with 

State Route 56 north of VEGP. 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-94 December 2008

Local road access to VEGP is via County Road 59, also known as River Road, which forks off 

from State Route 56 north of the site and intersects with the VEGP access road. Employees 

who live to the north of VEGP in Columbia and Richmond Counties travel south on State Route 

56 and then take River Road to reach the site. Employees living to the west in Richmond 

County would either connect directly to State Route 56 or use U.S. Route 25 and then take a 

county road to connect to State Route 56 and from there to River Road. Workers who live in 

Burke County can use a number of State highways to reach VEGP, including State Routes 56, 

24, and 80 to State Route 23, which connects to River Road (SNC 2007a). 

The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), 

NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996; 1999)(a) uses the Transportation Research Board’s 

level of service (LOS) classification system, which characterizes operational conditions on a 

roadway, to describe existing conditions for local transportation networks. The Georgia 

Department of Transportation makes LOS determinations for roadways involved in specific 

projects. However, there are no current LOS determinations for the roadways used by VEGP 

employees residing in Burke, Columbia, or Richmond Counties (SNC 2007a). In Columbia and 

Richmond Counties, most of the roads have been assigned an “urban” designation, while in 

Burke County the roads are all designated “rural.” Within the three-county area, traffic volumes 

are highest on roadways in and around the city of Augusta, with annual average daily traffic 

counts (two-way) of over 62,000 on I-20 and nearly 80,000 on I-520. Traffic volumes in Burke 

County are highest around Waynesboro, where annual average daily traffic counts range from 

nearly 3,500 to over 14,000. In the rest of Burke County, annual average daily traffic counts are 

generally less than 5000. The traffic count locations closest to VEGP are located on State 

Route 23 west of the site (2570 to 3020) and on River Road to the north (1370) (GDOT 2007).

The three-county region is served by two primary railroads, CSX and Norfolk Southern. Within 

Burke County, a Norfolk Southern rail line runs from Augusta through Waynesboro. There is rail 

service to VEGP via a 20-mi spur from that Norfolk Southern line, connecting north of 

Waynesboro (NRC 2007). 

2.2.8.3 Off-site Land Use 

VEGP is located in eastern Burke County adjacent to the Savannah River, which is the border 

between Georgia and South Carolina. Current land use surrounding the VEGP property is 

primarily forest and agricultural (with a few homes and small farms), including a mixture of row 

crops and pasture, pine plantations, unused fields, and second-growth forests of hardwoods 

and mixed pine-hardwoods (SNC 2007a). The nearest permanent residence is located 1.2 

miles west-southwest of VEGP (SNC 2007m). Features within the vicinity of VEGP (that is, 

within a 6-mi radius of the site) are shown in Figure 2-2. The crossroads community of Telfair 

Woods is approximately 5 miles southwest of VEGP. Nearby population centers are the 

communities of Girard (population 227) and Sardis (population 1171), which are approximately 

(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. 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-95 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

8 and 12 miles to the south, respectively (USCB 2000b). Waynesboro, 15 miles to the west, is 

the principal city and county seat of Burke County. The SRS is located directly across the 

Savannah River from VEGP, in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina. It is a large DOE 

facility with restricted access. The portion of SRS within the VEGP 6-mi radius contains two 

remediated industrial areas and one fossil-fueled power plant, with the balance of the area 

forested (SNC 2007a). 

Approximately 80 percent of current VEGP employees reside in Burke, Columbia, and 

Richmond Counties, Georgia. Table 2-18 identifies, for each of the three counties, the acres in 

each land use category and the percent of the total land area that each category occupies. 

Table 2-18. Land Use in Burke, Columbia and Richmond Counties, Georgia 

Burke County (a) 

(2007) 

Columbia County (b) 

(2005) 

Richmond County (c) 

(2003) 

Land Uses ac % of Total ac % of Total ac % of Total 

Residential 6,877 1.3 110,529 58.3 54,328 25.8 

Commercial 997 0.2 2,142 1.1 5,772 2.7 

Industrial 545 0.1 2,103 1.1 9,402 4.5 

Transportation / Communications / 

Utilities 3,970 0.8 331 0.2 11,893 5.7 

Public / Institutional 2,955 0.6 1,688 0.9 52,890(e) 25.2 

Parks / Open Spaces / 

Conservation 17,063 3.2 2,936 1.6 5,903 2.8 

Agriculture / Forestry / 

Undeveloped (d) 489,845 93.8 69,813 36.8 70,020 33.3 

 Total 522,352 100 189,542 100 210,208 100.0 

(a) Burke County 2007, Figure 3-2 

(b) Columbia County 2005 

(c) ARCPC 2004, Table L-1 

(d) For Burke County only, this category also includes rural residential and “no data”. 

(e) Includes 44,286 acres at Fort Gordon. 

Agriculture/forestry/undeveloped is the primary land use category in each county, in particular 

Burke County where it occupies 93.8 percent of the total land area. 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-96 December 2008

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise 

Some of the VEGP facility structures can be seen from the immediate surrounding area, which 

has gently rolling topography. The main vertical components of the VEGP building complex are 

the natural draft cooling towers (500 feet tall) and the domed reactor containment buildings (180 

feet tall). In the vicinity of the site, the cooling towers and the upper portion of the reactor 

containment can be seen from State Route 56, River Road, and portions of the Savannah River. 

The plumes, and in some cases the towers themselves, can be seen from across the river in 

South Carolina in the southern part of Aiken County, in the vicinity of State Highway 125 in 

Allendale and Barnwell Counties, and along some parts of I-520. The visibility of the plumes is 

affected by the weather and wind patterns as well as the location of the viewer in relation to 

local topography (SNC 2007b). Portions of overhead transmission lines are visible, especially 

as they pass over local roads as well as numerous county, State and U.S. highways on their 

way to connect to the regional electric power grid. As described in Section 2.1.7 of this SEIS, 

these lines are contained within approximately 360 miles of ROWs that include a total area of 

approximately 6395 acres. 

The VEGP site generates noise, in particular from the cooling towers, transformers and other 

electrical equipment, circulating water pumps, and public address system. Noise levels 

produced by VEGP operations have not been directly measured. However, background noise 

levels were measured at several locations along the site property line in conjunction with the 

application for the original operating license, and noise emission levels for operating plant 

conditions have been predicted at those locations. The predicted total noise levels, including 

background and operational noise, are in the range of 25 to 40 decibels (dBa), which is similar 

to the average background noise levels of 22 to 39 dBa. Therefore, the noise generated by 

VEGP operations is expected to decrease to near ambient levels by the time it reaches 

receptors outside the property boundary (SNC 2007a). 

2.2.8.5 Demography 

According to the 2000 Census, approximately 43,857 people lived within a 20-mi radius of 

VEGP, which equates to a population density of 46 persons per square mile (SNC 2007a). This

density translates to sparseness Category 2 (40 to 60 persons per square mile and no 

community with 25,000 or more persons within 20 miles) using the GEIS measure of 

sparseness.

Approximately 670,000 people live within a 50-mi radius of VEGP (SNC 2007a). This equates 

to a population density of 89 persons per square mile. Applying the GEIS proximity measures, 

VEGP is classified as proximity Category 3 (one or more cities with 100,000 or more persons 

and less than 190 persons per square mile within 50 miles). Therefore, according to the 

sparseness and proximity matrix presented in the GEIS, the VEGP ranks of sparseness 

Category 2 and proximity Category 3 result in the conclusion that VEGP is located in a medium 

population area. 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-97 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 2-19 shows population levels, projections, and growth rates from 1970 to 2050 in Burke, 

Columbia, and Richmond counties; population for the state of Georgia is provided for 

comparison. Columbia County experienced the greatest rate of growth of the three counties, 

with increases of 35 percent to almost 80 percent during the period 1970 to 2000. Except for 

Columbia County, the ROI has shown lower growth rates than the State as a whole. Beyond

2000, the population is expected to continue increasing, although at a lower rate. One 

exception is Richmond County, whose population is expected to decrease during the period of 

2000 to 2010, after which it is expected to increase moderately. 

Table 2-19. Population and Percent Growth in Burke, Columbia and Richmond Counties, Georgia, from 

1970 to 2000 and Projected for 2010 to 2050 

Burke County Columbia County Richmond County Georgia 

Year Population Percent

Growth (a) Population PercentGrowth (a) Population PercentGrowth (a) Population PercentGrowth (a)

1970(b) 18,255 -- 22,327 -- 162,437 -- 4,589,575 -- 

1980(b) 19,349 6.0 40,118 79.7 181,629 11.8 5,463,105 19.0 

1990(b) 20,579 6.4 66,031 64.6 189,719 4.5 6,478,216 18.6 

2000(c) 22,243 8.1 89,288 35.2 199,775 5.3 8,186,453 26.4 

2010(d) 24,561 10.4 116,642 30.6 193,914 -2.9 9,864,970 20.5 

2020(e) 25,649 4.4 138,221 18.5 209,825 8.2 10,898,705 10.5 

2030(e) 27,200 6.0 162,001 17.2 217,935 3.9 12,226,119 12.2 

2040(e) 28,750 5.7 185,781 14.7 226,045 3.7 13,553,533 10.8 

2050(e) 30,301 5.4 209,561 12.8 234,155 3.6 14,880,947 9.8 

(a) Percent growth rate is calculated over the previous decade. 

(b) USCB 1995 

(c) USCB 2000c 

(d) State of Georgia 2005 

(e) Projected population data for 2020 to 2050 were calculated. 

The 2000 demographic profile of the region of influence population is included in Table 2–20. 

Persons self-designated as minority individuals comprise approximately 45 percent of the 

combined total population of these three counties. This minority population is composed largely 

of Black or African American residents who reside in Burke and Richmond counties. 

2.2.8.5.1 Transient Population 

Within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of VEGP, colleges and recreational opportunities attract daily 

and seasonal visitors who create demand for temporary housing and services. In 2000 in Burke 

and Columbia counties, 1.2 and 1.0 percent, respectively, of all housing units are considered 

temporary housing for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. By comparison, temporary 

housing accounts for only 0.4 percent and 0.2 percent of total housing units in Richmond 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-98 December 2008

County and Georgia, respectively (USCB 2000b). In 2006, there were approximately 43,700 

students attending colleges and universities within 50 miles of VEGP (NCES 2007). 

2.2.8.5.2 Migrant Farm Workers 

Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural 

crops. These workers may or may not have a permanent residence. Some migrant workers 

may follow the harvesting of crops, particularly fruits and vegetables, throughout the 

southeastern U.S. rural areas. Others may be permanent residents near VEGP who travel from 

farm to farm harvesting crops. 

Table 2-20. Demographic Profile of the Population in the VEGP Region of Influence 

Burke 

County 

Columbia

County 

Richmond 

County Region of Influence 

Total Population (2000) 22,243 89,288 199,775 311,306 

Race (2000) (percent of total non-Hispanic population) 

White 47.1 83.3 45.6 56.6 

Black or African American 51.5 11.4 50.8 39.5 

American Indian and Alaska Native 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Asian 0.2 3.4 1.5 2.0 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Some other race 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Two or more races 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.4 

Ethnicity 

Hispanic or Latino 316 2,313 5,545 8,174 

Percent of total population 1.4 2.6 2.8 2.6 

Minority Population (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity) 

Total minority population 11,907 16,850 111,115 139,872 

Percent minority 53.5 18.9 55.6 44.9 

Source: USCB 2000d 

Migrant workers may be members of minority or low-income populations. Because they travel 

and can spend a significant amount of time in an area without being actual residents, migrant 

workers may be unavailable for counting by census takers. If uncounted, these workers would 

be “underrepresented” in U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) minority and low-income population 

counts.
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-99 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Information of migrant workers was collected for the first time in the 2002 Census of Agriculture. 

Table 2-21 provides information on temporary farm workers, farms with temporary workers, and 

farms that reported hired workers that are migrant workers. Information is included for the 

counties within a 50-mi radius of the VEGP site. The counties within the VEGP region host 

relatively small numbers of migrant workers. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture 

estimates, 3478 temporary farm laborers (those working fewer than 150 days per year) were 

employed on 872 farms in the counties within a 50-mi radius of the VEGP site. The county with 

the largest number of temporary workers (949 on 76 farms) is Edgefield, in South Carolina. In 

Georgia, Burke County had the greatest number of temporary workers (258 on 110 farms). 

Farm operators were asked whether any hired workers were migrant workers, defined as a farm 

worker whose employment required travel that prevented the migrant worker from returning to 

his/her permanent place of residence the same day. A total of 87 farms in the VEGP region 

reported hired migrant workers. Aiken County, South Carolina, had the greatest number of 

farms (21) with hired migrant workers, followed by Barnwell County, South Carolina, with 16 

farms. Only 9 farms in Burke County, Georgia reported hired migrant workers (USDA 2004a 

and 2004b). 

Table 2-21. Farms that Employ Migrant Labor within 50 miles of VEGP (a)

County Total Farms (b) Temporary 

Workers (c)

Farms with 

Temporary 

Workers (d)

Farms with Hired 

Migrant Workers (e)

Georgia 

 Burke 494 258 110 9 

 Richmond 140 59 20 0 

 Columbia 196 93 32 0 

 Jenkins 240 146 45 2 

 Screven 347 218 83 4 

 Emanuel 554 219 81 5 

 Jefferson 388 185 69 1 

 McDuffie 296 191 37 2 

 Total 2,655 1,369 477 23 

South Carolina 

 Aiken 929 229 120 21 

 Edgefield 325 949 76 9 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-100 December 2008

Table 2-21. (cont’d) 

County Total Farms (b) Temporary 

Workers (c)

Farms with 

Temporary 

Workers (d)

Farms with Hired 

Migrant Workers (e)

 Allendale 156 190 25 5 

 Barnwell 370 245 91 16 

 Bamberg 340 281 42 13 

 Hampton 248 215 41 0 

Total 2,368 2,109 395 64 

Region Total 5,023 3,478 872 87 

(a) Includes counties with approximately more than half their area within a 50-mi radius of VEGP. 

(b) From Table 1 (USDA 2004a and 2004b). 

(c) Workers that have worked less than 150 days - from Table 7 (USDA 2004a and 2004b). 

(d) Farms with workers that have worked less than 150 days - from Table 7 (USDA 2004a and 

 2004b). 

(e) Migrant farm labor on farms with hired labor - from Table 7 (USDA 2004a and 2004b). 

2.2.8.6 Economy 

This section contains a discussion of the economy, including employment and income, 

unemployment, and taxes. 

2.2.8.6.1 Employment and Income 

Between 2000 and 2006, the civilian labor force in Burke County increased 10.0 percent to the 

2006 level of 10,141. The civilian labor force in Columbia County grew 21.1 percent to the 2006 

level of 57,433 and in Richmond County the civilian labor force grew 3.5 percent to 90,641 in 

2006 (GADL 2007a). 

In 2006, employment in the services industry represented the largest sector of employment in all 

three counties followed closely by government, and the retail trade and manufacturing 

industries. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, with 862 permanent employees (see Table 

2-20), is one of the largest employers in Burke County. The other top five employers in Burke 

County in 2006 were Brentwood Terrace Health Care, Galaxy Distribution, Health Span Llp, and 

Wal-Mart Associates Inc (GADL 2007b). Two of the largest employers in the Central Savannah 

River Area are Fort Gordon (U.S. Army), primarily in Richmond County, with 12,000 military and 

5,000 civilian workers (CSRA AFG 2003), and Savannah River Site (U.S. Department of 

Energy) in South Carolina with 10,700 workers (WSRC 2007). 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-101 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Income information for Burke, Columbia, and Richmond counties is presented in Table 2–22. 

Income levels are similar in Burke and Columbia counties. The median household and per 

capita incomes in Burke and Richmond counties are both well below the Georgia average. 

Columbia County has income levels that are above the State average and well above the other 

two counties. In 1999, 28.7 percent of the population in Burke County and 19.6 percent in 

Richmond County were living below the official poverty level, while in Columbia County only 5.1 

percent of the population was living below the poverty level. In comparison, the State average 

was 13.0 percent living below the poverty level (USCB 2000a). 

Table 2-22. Income Information for the VEGP Region of Influence

Burke County Columbia County Richmond County Georgia 

Median household income 

1999 (dollars) 27,877 55,682 33,086 42,433 

Per capita income 1999 

(dollars) 13,136 23,496 17,088 21,154 

Percent of persons below 

the poverty line (2000) 28.7 5.1 19.6 13.0 

Source: USCB 2000a 

2.2.8.6.2 Unemployment 

In 2006, the annual unemployment average in Burke and Richmond counties were 6.7 and 6.2 

percent, respectively, which were higher than the annual unemployment average of 4.1 and 4.6 

percent, respectively, for Columbia County and Georgia (USCB 2007c). 

2.2.8.6.3 Taxes 

VEGP pays annual real estate taxes to Burke County. From 2000 through 2007, SNC and the 

VEGP site’s co-owners paid between $23.7 and $25.3 million annually in property taxes to 

Burke County (see Table 2–23). This represented between 74 and 82 percent of the county’s 

total annual tax revenue. Each year, Burke County retains a portion of this tax money for 

county operations and disburses the remainder to the state, the school district, and 

fire/emergency management/public safety services to fund their respective operating budgets.

As shown in Table 2-23, the local public school system, Burke County School District, receives 

approximately 60 percent of the total county property tax revenue (SNC 2007a and Burke 

County Tax Commission 2008). 

At present, the State of Georgia has taken no action on deregulation, which could, if enacted, 

affect tax payments to Burke County. However, any changes to VEGP property tax rates due to 

deregulation would be independent of license renewal. 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-102 December 2008

Tax payments from SNC and VEGP are a major source of income to Burke County and the 

School District operating budgets. Any changes to this revenue stream would affect their ability 

to invest in infrastructure and to attract industry and new residents. 

Table 2-23. Property Tax Information for Burke County (2000-2006) 

Year

Total Burke 

County Property 

Tax Revenue 

Burke County 

Tax Revenue 

Disbursed to the 

Burke County 

School District 

Property Tax 

Paid by SNC and 

VEGP Co-Owners 

($)

Percent of Total 

Property Taxes 

Paid by SNC and 

VEGP Co-Owners 

2000 30,329,024 19,116,331 24,930,927 82.2 

2001 30,758,563 18,691,850 25,276,404 82.2 

2002 29,713,972 18,022,492 23,699,476 79.8 

2003 30,029,880 18,160,393 24,341,247 81.1 

2004 29,805,738 17,838,847 24,358,042 81.7 

2005 30,963,918 18,266,740 23,737,300 76.7 

2006 31,922,862 18,929,556 24,457,550 76.6 

2007 34,138,733 19,437,324 25,348,161 74.3 

Sources: 2000 to 2004 data from SNC 2007a; 2005 to 2007 data from Burke County Tax Commission 

2008.

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources 

 

This section presents a brief summary of the region’s cultural background and a description of 

known historic and archaeological resources at the VEGP site and its immediate vicinity. 

Information was collected from area repositories, the Georgia and South Carolina State Historic 

Preservation Offices (SHPO), and the applicant’s Early Site Permit Application (SNC 2007b). 

 2.2.9.1 Cultural Background 

Prehistoric Overview 

Paleoindian Period (13,000 to 9,000 Years Ago)

Paleoindian people in the southeastern United States ranged over large areas of land traveling 

in small bands. Early Paleoindian groups are thought to have lived in small centralized 

communities for varying periods throughout the year. Over the course of the Paleoindian era, 

occupation of fixed communities gave way to foraging, with bands frequently moving their 

camps as they exhausted the food supply in their immediate area (Anderson and Sassman, 

1996). No large Paleoindian sites have been excavated in Georgia to date and very few 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-103 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Paleoindian sites have been excavated in the Savannah River drainage (Anderson and 

Sassman, 1996).

Archaic Period (9,000 to 3,000 Years Ago)

Early Archaic people were hunters and gatherers who, generally, lived a nomadic life. They 

traveled in small groups or "bands" of twenty to fifty people hunting wild game and collecting 

seasonal and perennial edible flora (O’Steen et. al., 2002). They erected small, simple shelters 

located close to water sources and food resources, however, there is little archaeological 

evidence that they stored food or remained in settlements for extended periods (Kane and 

Keeton, 1993). 

It is believed that the climate of the southeastern United States was significantly drier and 

warmer during the Middle Archaic Period than it is today. The Paleoindian subsistence pattern 

of hunting and gathering continued through the Middle Archaic, with very little change from the 

preceding period (O’Steen et. al., 2002). It is thought that, due to the expanding territories of 

rival bands, Middle Archaic people began to rely more on locally available resources (Kane and 

Keeton, 1993). At present, no long-term Middle Archaic habitation sites have been found in 

Georgia.

During the Late Archaic Period, people in Georgia were drawn to the rivers and other major 

water sourses by the abundance of subsistence resources. As territories began to shrink in size 

some groups built semi-permanent settlements along the rivers and their tributaries (O’Steen et. 

al., 2002). One of the best examples of an Archaic riverine site is the Stallings Island site on the 

Savannah River near Augusta, about 30 miles upriver from the VEGP site. 

Woodland Period (3,000 to 1,200 Years Ago) 

This period witnessed the development of many subsistence and technological trends that had 

their genesis during the preceding Late Archaic Period. During the Woodland Period, people 

began to develop more settlements, increased their social stratification, and developed more 

elaborate rituals and ceremonies (Pluckhan, 2003). Horticulture gained importance during the 

Woodland Period as growing populations increased the need for food resources. Additionally, 

during this period people used local plants for food with increasing regularity (Kane and Keeton, 

1993).

The Early Woodland subperiod is marked by a continuation of many of the innovations that 

began during the preceding Late Archaic. Most settlements from this period were very small and 

were likely only used on a seasonal basis (Pluckhan, 2003). The reliance on horticulture 

increased during this period. 

During the Middle Woodland subperiod settlements appear to have become larger and more 

permanent. Archaeological evidence indicates that shelters were more sturdily constructed and 

appear to have been built to last for long periods of time (Kane and Keeton, 1993). The Middle 

Woodland subperiod gave rise to an increase in ritual and ceremonialism as evidenced by the 

earthen and rock mounds constructed in Georgia during this time (Pluckhan, 2003). 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-104 December 2008

The Late Woodland subperiod saw diminished mound construction that some attribute to a 

decrease in population (Kane and Keeton, 1993). The increase in corn agriculture during the 

Late Woodland subperiod and technological advances in weaponry set the stage for the final 

period in Georgia prehistory, the Mississippian Period (Pluckhan, 2003). 

Mississippian Period (1,200. to 550 Years Ago)

The Mississippian Period witnessed the development of some of the most socially and 

technologically complex aboriginal societies that ever existed in North America (King, 2002). 

During the Middle Mississippian subperiod in Georgia, populations were organized into 

chiefdoms that were centered around large mound towns (King 2002). Horticulture thrived 

during this period as people planted large crops in the fertile soil that lined the watercourses of 

the Southeastern United States (Kane and Keeton, 1993). Near the end of this period, from 

1539 to 1543, Hernando Desoto and his army of Spaniards traveled through the Southeast in 

search of riches. 

Historic Overview 

Since prehistoric times, the Savannah River has been used as a major transportation route 

between the Atlantic Coast and the Piedmont (SNC 2007b). Burke County is one of Georgia’s 

eight original counties and was known as the Halifax District at the time the Georgia colony was 

established in 1732 (Cooksey, 2007). In 1758 Georgia was divided into parishes, and the 

Halifax District became the parish of St. George. Burke County was formed from St. George 

Parish in 1777 and was named for Edmund Burke, an English spokesman for American liberty. 

The county currently encompasses an area of 831 square miles after portions of it were 

incorporated into Screven (1793), Jefferson (1796), Richmond (1841), and Jenkins (1905) 

counties (Cooksey, 2007). 

Most of the county’s early settlers came from the older American colonies to the north. They 

were enticed by the proximity to the Savannah and Ogeechee Rivers, which provided 

transportation and water for their livestock (Cooksey, 2007). By the mid-eighteenth century 

Georgia had lifted its ban on slavery and greater numbers of settlers began to flood into Burke 

County. By the end of the eighteenth century, a plantation system had been established and 

Burke County became a prime cotton producing area. By the end of the Civil War many of the 

plantations were destroyed and production of cotton shifted to a small farm system using tenant 

labor (Cooksey, 2007).

Edward Telfair, who was Georgia’s governor from 1786 to 1791, was the largest landowner in 

the vicinity of VEGP in the late eighteenth century. By 1830 the U.S. census shows no Telfair 

landowners in the VEGP area, however, several landowners named Utl[e]y began to appear 

(SNC 2007b). The first Utley to own land in the area is said to have been an overseer for 

Governor Telfair. Today, several features on the VEGP property bear the name Utley. 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-105 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

 2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the VEGP Site 

Previously Identified Resources 

Resources in the Vicinity of the VEGP Site

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) lists seven sites in Burke County (NRHP 

2008). The closest NRHP listed site to VEGP is the Sapp Plantation, about 10 miles to the south 

of the plant site. The Savannah River Site (SRS), a cold war-era nuclear materials processing 

center located directly across the Savannah River from VEGP, is considered eligible for NRHP 

listing. The SRS property also contains 22 recorded archaeological sites that have been 

determined eligible for NRHP listing. 

Shell Bluff Landing, approximately 7 miles north northwest of the VEGP site, has both historic 

and prehistoric significance. It was the site of the original grave of Dr. Lyman Hall, a signer of 

the Declaration of Independence, and was important during the era of steamboat river traffic 

(GPC 1972). Shell Bluff was named for an Eocene-era fossil bed of giant oysters 

(Crassostreagigantissima). A prehistoric village site containing Archaic Period artifacts is 

located between Shell Bluff and Boggy Gut Creek, approximately 7.5 miles upstream of VEGP 

(GPC 1972). 

Resources on the VEGP Site 

In the early 1970’s, prior to construction at the VEGP site, an archaeological assessment was 

conducted and submitted to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (Honerkamp, 1973). A total of 

seven archaeological sites were identified, four along the river bluff, two on the plateau west of 

Mallard Pond, and one in the location currently occupied by a barge slip. At the time of that 

study, the State Archaeologist considered the archaeological resources of the VEGP site to 

have been sufficiently characterized and did not recommend further work. 

In 2005 and 2006 a partial survey of the VEGP site was conducted by New South Associates 

(NSA) to assess potential impacts of the construction of new units. (NSA 2006a and 2006b) 

This survey work identified 17 archaeological sites (3 historic and 14 prehistoric) and 8 isolated 

finds. None of the seven sites identified during the 1972 survey were observed during the 2005 -

2007 survey effort. Of the 17 new archaeological sites identified during the 2005 - 2006 effort, 

two are considered eligible (9BK416 and 9BK423) and two potentially eligible (9BK419 and 

9BK420) for listing on the NRHP. Two additional sites, 9BK421 and 9BK422, were said to 

require further evaluation (NSA 2006a and b). In June of 2007 modifications to the proposed 

water intake structure necessitated additional testing in the vicinity (NSA 2007). No new sites 

were recorded during the course of this survey, however, further testing near site 9BK416 

confirmed that it is a multi-component prehistoric site, eligible for NRHP listing. NSA 

recommended that the site be avoided. 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-106 December 2008

Potential Archaeological Resources

Due to disturbances associated with site preparation and construction, the main generating 

station area has little or no potential for archaeological resources. There are other areas within 

the VEGP property that appear to have been only minimally disturbed and are comprised of 

landforms that may have been attractive during prehistory for varied resource exploitation. 

Archaeological surveys conducted in 2005 and 2006 demonstrated potential for archaeological 

resources to be present in the portions of the VEGP property that have not been disturbed by 

previous construction activity (NSA 2006a, 2006b). These surveys identified several historic and 

prehistoric archaeological sites, including two prehistoric sites that have been determined NRHP 

eligible. Additionally, several NRHP eligible archaeological sites have been recorded 

immediately across the Savannah River from the plant property at the SRS in South Carolina.

2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations

The NRC staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the 

renewal of the operating licenses for VEGP. Any such activities could result in cumulative 

environmental impacts and the possible need for the Federal agency to become a cooperating 

agency for preparation of this SEIS. 

The NRC staff has reviewed federally owned facilities in the local area near Waynesboro and 

Augusta, Georgia, and has determined that there are no federal project activities that would 

make it desirable for another federal agency to become a cooperating agency for preparing this 

SEIS. The known federal projects in the area are the operation of three reservoirs by the 

USACE (Hartwell, Richard B. Russell, and J. Strom Thurmond) and operation of the SRS by 

the DOE.

NRC is required under Section 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended 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. NRC consulted with 

the National Marine Fisheries, FWS, NOAA, EPA, and USACE. Copies of the consultation 

letters and the comments submitted by the consulted agencies are available in Appendices C, D 

and E of this SEIS. 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-107 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

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 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.” 

16 U.S.C. Section 1531 to 1544. “Endangered Species Act of 1973” (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87

Stat. 884), as amended. Public Law 93-205, approved December 28, 1973. 

32 FR 4001. Secretary of the Interior. “Native Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species.” Federal 

Register Notice. March 11, 1967. 

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.” 

40 CFR Part 261. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 261, 

“Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste.” 

40 CFR Part 273. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 273, 

“Standards for Universal Waste Management.” 

49 FR 7332. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

U.S. Breeding Population of the Wood Stork Determined To Be Endangered.” Final Rule. 

February 28, 1984. 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-108 December 2008

51 FR 6690. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Oxypolis canbyi (Canby’s Dropwort) To Be an Endangered Species.” Final 

Rule. February 25, 1986. 

52 FR 21059. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Reclassification of the American Alligator to Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance 

Throughout the Remainder of its Range.” Final Rule. June 4, 1987. 

53 FR 10879. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Endangered Status for the Relict Trillium.” Final Rule. April 4, 1988. 

57 FR 46340. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Echinacea laevigata (Smooth Coneflower) Determined To Be Endangered.” Final Rule. October 

8, 1992. 

64 FR 15691. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Final Rule To List the Flatwoods Salamander as a Threatened Species.” April 1, 1999. 

72 FR 5856. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Flatwoods Salamander; Proposed Rule”. February 7, 

2007.

72 FR 37346. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants: Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife.” Final rule. July 9, 2007. 

Academy of Natural Sciences (ANS). 2001. 2000 Savannah River Biological Surveys for 

Westinghouse Savannah River Company. Prepared by the Patrick Center for Environmental 

Research of The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Report No. 01-16F. 

September 30. 

Academy of Natural Sciences (ANS). 2003. 2001 Savannah River Biological Surveys for 

Westinghouse Savannah River Company. Prepared by the Patrick Center for Environmental 

Research of The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Report No. 03-08F. August. 

Academy of Natural Sciences (ANS). 2005. 2003 Savannah River Biological Monitoring 

Studies for the Westinghouse Savannah River Company. Prepared by The Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Report No. F04-06. February 14. 

Anderson, David G. and Kenneth E. Sassaman, eds.1996. The Paleoindian and Early Archaic 

Southeast. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-109 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission (ARCPC). 2004. Augusta-Richmond County 

Comprehensive Plan. February 17, 2004. Accessed at: 

http://www.augustaga.gov/departments/planning_zoning/comp_plan.asp on December 31, 

2007.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1990. “Fishery Management Report 

No. 17 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: Fishery Management Plan for the 

Atlantic Sturgeon.” Washington, D.C. November. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2000. “Interstate Fishery Management 

Plan for American Eel.” Fishery Management Report No. 36 of the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC. 

Bailey, M. M., J. I. Isley, and W. C. Bridges. 2004. “Movement and Population Size of 

American Shad Near a Low-head Lock and Dam.” Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society, 133(2): 300-308. 

Burke County. 2007. Burke County Comprehensive Plan 2007-2027; Part I: Draft Community 

Assessment. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. March 2007. Accessed at: 

http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/PlanningQualityGrowth/programs/downloads/plans/Bur

keCoComAsse.PDF on December 31, 2007. 

Burke County Tax Commission. 2008. “Tax Digest – Real and Personal Property,” facsimile 

transmissions from Cynthia McManus, Burke County Tax Commissioner, to E. Schreiber, Earth 

Tech, January 18, 2008. 

CSRA Alliance for Fort Gordon (CSRA AFG). 2003. “The Economic Impact of Fort Gordon.” 

Accessed at http://fortgordonalliance.com/economic_impact.htm on January 3, 2008. 

Central Savannah River Area Regional Development Center (CSRARDC). 2005. Central

Savannah River Area Regional Plan 2005-2025, Technical Staff Report, Regional Community 

Facilities Element. March 2005. Accessed at: 

http://www.csrardc.org/csra/planning/planning_search_results.asp on December 27, 2007. 

Columbia County. 2005. Columbia County Growth Management Plan Update: Community 

Assessment. EDAW. Accessed at: 

www.columbiacountyga.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2959 on December 

31, 2007. 

Conant, R. and J. T. Collins. 1998. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians, Eastern and 

Central North America. Third edition, expanded. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-110 December 2008

Cooksey, Elizabeth B. 2007. Overview of Burke County, Georgia from The New Georgia 

Encyclopedia. Accessed at :http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h2301&sug=y on November 13, 2007. 

Creel, M. 2005. “Striper moratorium to end Oct. 1 on lower Savannah River.” South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources news release dated July 11, 2005. Available online at 

http://www.outdoorcentral.com/mc/pr/05/07/11a2a.asp.

Eco-Sciences. 2007. "Jurisdictional Waters Report, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant." In 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to 

Requests for Additional Information on the Environmental Report. Letter report from Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (Washington, D.C.). Accession number ML0760460323. January. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Green Book. Accessed at: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html on August 10, 2007. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. “Safe Drinking Water Information System 

(SDWIS)”, October 12, 2007. Accessed at: http://epa.gov/enviro/ on December 28, 2007. 

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2002. Data and maps on CD-ROM. 

Redlands, California. 

Facey, D.E., and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1987. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) – American 

Eel.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.74). U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 28pp. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1986. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Endangered Status for Lindera Melissifolia. Federal Register 51: 27495-

27500.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1990a. Canby's Dropwort Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 

25 pp. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1990b. Recovery Plan for Relict Trillium (Trillium reliquum 

Freeman). Atlanta, Georgia. 29 pp. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995. Smooth Coneflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 

31 pp. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997. Revised Recovery Plan for the U.S. Breeding 

Population of the Wood Stork. Atlanta, Georgia. 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-111 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001a. “Candidate Conservation Agreement with 

Assurances and Permit Application for a Proposed Reintroduction of the Robust Redhorse.” 

Federal Register, Volume 66, Number 210, pg. 54776-54778. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003a. Recovery Plan for the Red-Cockaded 

Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Second Revision, Atlanta, Georgia. 296 pp. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. "Listed Species in Georgia Counties." Accessed at 

http://www.fws.gov/athens/endangered/countiesendangered html on December 19, 2007. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007a. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-

Month Finding on a Petition To List the American Eel as Threatened or Endangered.” Federal

Register, Vol. 72 No. 22, pp. 4967. Washington, D.C. February 2. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007b. Wood Stork (Mycteria americana), 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 

Fish and Wildlife (FWS). 2008a. “The American Eel: Considering Endangered Species Act 

Protection.” Accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ameel/ on January 3, 2008. 

Flora of North America (FNA) Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of 

Mexico. 12+ vols. New York and Oxford. Accessed at: 

http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=1 on February 5, 2008. 

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). 2007. “Annual Traffic Counts, 2006 Annual 

Average Daily Traffic Report (AADT).” Office of Transportation Data. Accessed at: 

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/DOT/plan-prog/transportation_data/traffic_counts/index.shtml on 

November 14, 2007. 

Georgia Department of Labor (GADL). 2007a. “Yearly Average Labor Force Estimates.” 

Georgia LaborMarket Explorer. Accessed at:

http://explorer.dol.state.ga.us/mis/laus_yearly.htm on January 3, 2008. 

Georgia Department of Labor (GADL). 2007b. “Local Area Profiles.” Georgia LaborMarket 

Explorer. Accessed at: http://explorer.dol.state.ga.us/mis/profiles.htm on January 3, 2008. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2004. Georgia Environmental Radiation 

Surveillance Report 2000-2002. 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-112 December 2008

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007a. "Striped Bass Harvest Now 

Allowed in the Savannah River." Press Release. Accessed at: 

http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaypressrelease.asp?ArticleID=831on August 7, 

18 2007. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007b. “Commercial Freshwater Fishing, 

A Guide to the Laws and Regulations on Commercial Freshwater Fishing.” Accessed at: 

http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=9 on December 

27, 2007. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007c. “Guidelines for Eating Fish from 

Georgia Waters, 2007 Update.” Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed at 

http://gaepd.org/Files_PDF/gaenviron/fish_advisory/GADNR_FishConsumptionGuidelines_Y20

07.pdf on February 26, 2008. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007d. "Locations of Special Concern 

Animals, Plants, and Natural Communities" by county. Accessed at: 

http://georgiawiIdlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage=9 on 

December 19, 2007. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2008. "Georgia Rare Species and Natural 

Community Information.” Accessed at: 

http://www.georgiawildlife.com/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89 on January 3, 

2008.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD). 2004. Environmental Radiation 

Surveillance Report 2000-2002 (published March 2004). Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed at: 

http://www.gaepd.org/Files_PDF/gaenviron/radiation/radrpt2002.pdf on December 19, 2007. 

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD). 2005. List of Municipal and Industrial 

Ground Water Withdrawal Permittees. Revised September 2005. Accessed at: 

http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/regcomm_wpb.html on January 2, 2008. 

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD). 2007. List of Municipal and Industrial 

Surface Water Withdrawal Permittees. Revised June 2007. Accessed at: 

http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/regcomm_wpb.html. January 2, 2008. 

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 1972. Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant, Applicant’s 

Environmental Report. Georgia Power Company, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 1997. “Maintenance of Plant Vogtle Transmission Line 

Corridors.” Georgia Power Transmission Bulletin Number 6-10. Atlanta, Georgia. May 8. 

Georgia Rivers LMER, 2007. Accessed at: http://lmer.marsci.uga.edu/index.html on 

December 31, 2007. 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-113 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Gotvald, A.J., J.T. Fisher, C.E. Oberst, and D.L. Calhoun. 2005. Water Resources DataGeorgia. Volume 1: Continuous water-level, streamflow water-quality, and periodic waterquality data. Water Year 2004. B.E. McCallum and D.V. Alhadeff (compilers): Reston, Va., 

U.S. Geological Survey Water Data Report GA 04-1. 

Governor’s Office of Student Achievement (GOSA). 2007. “Annual Education Accountability 

Report Cards, 2006 – 2007 Report Card.” Accessed at: http://reportcard2007.gaosa.org/ on 

December 28, 2007. 

Grabowski, T. B. and J. J. Isely. 2006. “Seasonal and Diel Movements and Habitat Use of 

Robust Redhorses in the Lower Savannah River, Georgia and South Carolina.” Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society, Volume 135, Issue 5, September. 

Haro, A., W. Richkus, K. Whalen, A. Hoar, W. Busch, S. Lary, T. Brush, and D. Dixon. 2000. 

“Population Decline of the American Eel: Implications for Research and Management.” 

Fisheries, 25:7-16. 

Hendricks, A.S. 2000. “The Conservation and Restoration of the Robust Redhorse, 

Moxostoma robustum, Volume 2.” Georgia Power Company, Environmental Laboratory, 

Smyrna, GA. Prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. April. 

Hendricks, A.S. 2002. “The Conservation and Restoration of the Robust Redhorse, 

Moxostoma robustum, Volume 3.” Georgia Power Company, Environmental Laboratory, 

Smyrna, GA. Prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. May. 

Honerkamp N. 1973. Archaeological Field Survey of the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant 

Property Plant in Burke County, Georgia. Submitted to L.H. Larson, Jr., Georgia State 

Archaeologist, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Kane, Sharyn and Richard Keeton. 1993. Beneath These Waters Atlanta: National Park ervice. 

Accessed at: http://www.nps.gov/history/seac/beneathweb/btw-index.htm 

Kemper Center for Home Gardening. 2008. Accessed at: http://www.mobot.org/ on February 

5, 2008. 

King, Adam. 2002. The Mississippian Period Overview from The New Georgia Encyclopedia. 

Accessed at: 

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?path=/HistoryArchaeology/Archaeologyand

EarlyHistory/ArchaeologicalPeriodsinGeorgia/PaleoindianPeriod&id=h-707

Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center Native Plant Information Network (NPIN). 2008.

Accessed at: http://www.wildflower.org/ on February 5, 2008. 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-114 December 2008

Marcy, B.C., D. E. Fletcher, F.D. Martin, M.H. Paller, and M.J.M. Reichert. 2005. Fishes of the 

Middle Savannah River Basin with Emphasis on the Savannah River Site. The University of 

Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. 

McCord, J.W. 2004. “American Eel (Anguilla rostrata).” Species account prepared for South 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Available online at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/AmericanEel.pdf. 

McFarlane R.W., R.F. Frietsche and R.D. Miracle. 1978. Impingement and Entrainment of 

Fishes at the Savannah River Plant. An NPDES 316b Demonstration. DP-1494, E.I. Du Pont 

DE Nemours and Company, Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina. 

Meyer J., M. Alber, W. Duncan, M Freeman, C. Hale, R. Jackson, C. Jennings, M. Palta, 

E. Richardson, R. Sharitz, J. Sheldon, and R Weyers. 2003. Summary Report Supporting the 

Development of Ecosystem Flow Recommendations for the Savannah River below Thurmond 

Dam. Summary Report 6/03. University of Georgia, River Basin Center. Accessed at: 

http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/publications/pdf/summaryreport.pdf on January 2, 2008. 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2007. “College Navigator.” Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Accessed at: 

http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/ on December 11, 2007. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon

(Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006. Biennial Report to Congress on the 

Recovery Program for Threatened and Endangered Species, October 1, 2004 – September 30, 

2006. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Accessed at 

http://nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/esabiennial2006.pdf on February 6, 2008. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. “Species of Concern: Atlantic Sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus.” November 1. Accessed at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/atlanticsturgeon_detailed.pdf on January 6, 2008. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004. Local Climatological Data – 

Annual Summary With Comparative Data – Atlanta and Augusta, GA ISSN 0198-2419, 

Asheville, NC 2004. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2007. “Shortnose Sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum).” Office of Protected Resources, NOAA Fisheries. Accessed at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm on December 31, 2007. 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-115 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

National Park Service (NPS). 2006a. Explore Air. Class I Receptors. Accessed at: 

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/Receptors/index.cfm, on June 5, 2006. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2006b. Explore Air. Class I Receptors. Accessed at: 

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/images/ClassIAreas.jpg , on August 10, 2007. 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 2008. Accessed at: 

http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/GA/Burke/state.html 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Plants Database. 2008. United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). Accessed at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/factSheet on 

February 5, 2008. 

NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life (web application). 

Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Accessed at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ in February 2008. 

New South Associates (NSA). 2006a. Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Proposed 

Expansion Areas at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Burke County, Georgia. New South 

Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. 

New South Associates (NSA). 2006b. Addendum Report: Intensive Archaeological Survey of

the Proposed Expansion Areas at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Burke County, Georgia. 

New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. 

New South Associates (NSA). 2007. Addendum Report: Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of the 

Water Line Corridor for the Proposed Intake Structure at Plant Vogtle. New South Associates, 

Stone Mountain, Georgia. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1985. Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

Operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1087, Washington, DC. 

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1437 Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, DC. 

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.” NUREG1437 Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, DC. 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-116 December 2008

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement For the 

Early Site Permit for Two Additional Reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Docket 

Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Georgia Power Company, et al. Washington, D.C. August. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Issuance of amendments regarding 

measurement uncertainty recapture, power uprate for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2. Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425. February. ML080350347

O’Steen, Lisa D., Ledbetter Gerald R., and Daniel T. Elliot. 2002. The Archaic Period Overview

from The New Georgia Encyclopedia. Accessed at: 

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-580 

Pluckhahn, T. J. 2003. The Woodland Period Overview from The New Georgia Encyclopedia. 

Accessed at: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-811. 

Reed, M. B., M. T. Swanson, S. Gaither, J. W. Joseph, and W. R. Henry. 2002. Savannah

River Site at Fifty. U. S. Government Printing Office. Accessed at: 

www.srs.gov/general/about/50anniv/50anniv.htm on February 5, 2008.

Reinert, T. R., C. A. Jennings, T. A. Will, and J. E. Wallin. 2005. “Decline and Potential 

Recovery of Striped Bass in a Southeastern U.S. Estuary. Fisheries 30 (3): 18-25. 

Robert W. Freckmann Herbarium. 2008. University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Wisconsin 

Plants web site. Accessed at: http://wisplants.uwsp.edu on February 5, 2008. 

Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee (RRCC). 2008. Robust Redhorse Conservation 

Committee website. Accessed at http://www.robustredhorse.com/ on February 22, 2008. 

Self, R. L. and J. Bettinger. 2006. “Highest Conservation Priority – Big River Species: Highfin 

Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer, Robust Redhorse Moxostoma robustum.” Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, 

SC. Accessed at www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html on February 26, 2008. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Final Habitat Plan for the South 

Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. October. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007. “2007 

South Carolina Fish Consumption Advisories.” Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Accessed at http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/fish/advisories.htm on February 26, 

2008.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2007. “South Carolina Rare, 

Threatened, & Endangered Species Inventory” by county. Accessed at: 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/county_species.list on December 20, 2007. 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-117 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2008. “South Carolina Rare, 

Threatened, & Endangered Species Inventory,” species maps by quadrangle. Accessed at: 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/species.qselect?pfilename on January 3, 2008. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). Undated. Canby’s Dropwort. 

Accessed at:http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/mrri/acechar/specgal/dropwort.htm on February 20, 

2008.

Southern Company. 2007. Information about Plant Vogtle. Accessed at: 

http://www.southerncompany.com/southernnuclear/vogtle.asp on December 13, 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2003a. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

(ODCM) included as Appendix A in Southern Nuclear Operating Company Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant - Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating 

License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81, Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for January 1, 

2002 to December 31, 2002. Burke County, Georgia. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2003b. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2002. Burke County, Georgia. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2004a. Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant- Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility 

Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81, Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for 

January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003. Burke County, Georgia.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2004b. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2003. Burke County, Georgia. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2005a. Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant- Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility 

Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81, Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for 

January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004. Burke County, Georgia.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2005b. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 13. January 31, 2005. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2005c. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2004. Burke County, Georgia. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2006a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant- Units 1 

and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report Revision 13. Burke County, Georgia. 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-118 December 2008

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2006b. Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant- Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility 

Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81, Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for 

January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. Burke County, Georgia. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2006c. “Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early 

Site Permit Application, Part 3 -Environmental Report.” Public Disclosure Version. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2006d. "Cooling Water Blowdown Thermal 

Discharge Analysis for Plant Vogtle Early Site Permit Facility." Southern Company, 

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML063000221. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2006e. "Wildlife Habitat Council 2006 

Recertification Application for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant." Found in Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to Requests for Additional 

Information on the Environmental Report. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington, 

D.C.). Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession number ML0760460323. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2006f. “Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Environmental Site Audit Information Needs.” 

December 11, 2006, Letter Report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, 

Alabama) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington, D.C.), Southern Company. 

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML063520382. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2006g. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2005. Burke County, Georgia. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007a. Applicant’s Environmental Report – 

Operating License Renewal Stage, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. Docket 

Numbers 50-424 and 50-425. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007b. Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application: Environmental Report, Rev. 2. Southern

Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007c. Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant- Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility 

Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81, Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for 

January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Burke County, Georgia.
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-119 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007d. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant- Units 

1&2 Conceptual Design for a Low Level Radwaste Pad at Plant Vogtle, April 30, 2007. Burke 

County, Georgia. (ML073240339) 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007e. Enclosure 2 to NL-07-2097. Monthly 

Surface Water Withdrawal Reports, 2006. Contained in: Letter from Tom Tynan, Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding Docket 

Numbers 50-424 and 50-425: Supplementary Environmental Information to Support the 

Application for Renewed Operating License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. 

NL-07-2097. November 5, 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007f. Enclosure 2 to NL-07-2097.

Groundwater Use Permit 017-0003. Contained in: Letter from Tom Tynan, Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding Docket Numbers 50-424 

and 50-425: Supplementary Environmental Information to Support the Application for Renewed 

Operating License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. NL-07-2097. November 

5, 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007g. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2006. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007h. Enclosure 2 to NL-07-2097. Annual 

Environmental Operating Reports (Nonradiological). Contained in: Letter from Tom Tynan, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding 

Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-425: Supplementary Environmental Information to Support the 

Application for Renewed Operating License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. 

NL-07-2097. November 5, 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007i. Enclosure 2 to NL-07-2097. Quarterly 

Operational Monitoring Reports, NPDES Permit GA0026786. Contained in: Letter from Tom 

Tynan, Southern Nuclear Operating Company to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

regarding Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-425: Supplementary Environmental Information to 

Support the Application for Renewed Operating License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 1 and 2. NL-07-2097. November 5, 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007j. Enclosure 2 to NL-07-2097.

Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Radionuclides. Contained in: Letter from Tom Tynan, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding 

Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-425: Supplementary Environmental Information to Support the 

Application for Renewed Operating License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. 

NL-07-2097. November 5, 2007. 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-120 December 2008

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007k. Enclosure 2 to NL-07-2119. 

Groundwater Monitoring Report, Plant Vogtle Landfill #2, Solid Waste Permit Nos. 017-

006D(L)(I). Contained in: Letter from Tom Tynan, Southern Nuclear Operating Company to 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-425: 

Supplementary Environmental Information to Support the Application for Renewed Operating 

License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. NL-07-2119. November 12, 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007l. Enclosure 2 to NL-07-2119.

Groundwater Monitoring Report, Plant Vogtle Landfill #3, Solid Waste Permit Nos. 017-

007D(L)(I). Contained in: Letter from Tom Tynan, Southern Nuclear Operating Company to 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-425: 

Supplementary Environmental Information to Support the Application for Renewed Operating 

License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. NL-07-2119. November 12, 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2008. Letter from T.E. Tynan, Vice President 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant to L. Lund, Division of License Renewal, NRC. Regarding 

Comments on Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants, Supplement 34. (Accession No. ML081990212). 

State of Georgia. 2005. Georgia 2015; Population Projections. Office of Planning and Budget 

– Policy, Planning, and Technical Support. Accessed at: http://www.opb.state.ga.us/ on 

December 28, 2007. 

Stier, D.J. and J.H. Crance. 1985. “Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream Flow 

Suitability Curves: American Shad.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.88). 

34 pp. 

The Catena Group. 2007. Freshwater Mussel Surveys, The Savannah River from Augusta to 

Savannah: South Carolina and Georgia. The Catena Group, Hillsborough, North Carolina. 

The Center for Plant Conservation. 2008. Accessed at: 

http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ on February 5, 2008. 

Third Rock Consultants (TRC). 2006. Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Final 

Report, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and Associated Transmission Corridors. January 16. 

Trails.com, 2007. Brier Creek: GA 56 to Savannah River. Accessed at: 

http://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail.asp?trailid=CGD036-012 on December 31, 2007. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1996. Water Control Manual: Hartwell, Richard B 

Russell, and J. Strom Thurmond Projects. Savannah River Basin, Savannah River District, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia. 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-121 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. Drought Contingency Plan Update: Savannah 

River Basin. Draft Environmental Assessment. Mobile/Savannah Planning Center, Savannah

River District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia. 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007a. Concepts of the Savannah River Basin 

Drought Contingency Plan. Accessed at: http://water.sas.usace.army.mil/drought/dcp.cfm on 

December 24, 2007. 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007b. Thurmond Reservoir Pool Elevation.

Accessed at: http://water.sas.usace.army.mil/cf/KavaPlot/KPlotAction2.cfm on December 24, 

2007.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007c. Thurmond Reservoir Outflow Data. 

Accessed at: http://water.sas.usace.army.mil/cf/DataQuery/QueryActionTab.cfm on December 

24, 2007. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Threatened and Endangered Species of the 

Upper Savannah River Basin. Accessed at: http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/prtillm.htm.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1995. Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900-1990.

Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/ga190090.txt on December 28, 2007. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. “Fact Sheets: Census 2000 Demographic Profile 

Highlights”; Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties, Georgia, and South Carolina.” 

Accessed at: http://factfinder.census.gov on December 27, 2007. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. “DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 

2000. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data.” Accessed at: 

http://factfinder/census.gov on December 26, 2007. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000c. “P1. Total Population [1] – Universe: Total Population. 

Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data.” Accessed at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/ on December 28, 2007. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000d. “P4. Hispanic or Latino, and not Hispanic or Latino by 

Race [73] – Universe: Total population. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-

Percent Data.” Accessed at: http://factfinder.census.gov/. Accessed January 3, 2008. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007a. GCT-T1. Population Estimates, Georgia – County and 

South Carolina – County. Accessed at: http://factfinder/census.gov. January 2, 2008. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007b. “State & County QuickFacts, Burke County, Georgia.” 
Plant and the Environment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 2-122 December 2008

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007c. “MapStats” for Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties 

and Georgia. MapStats from FedStats, last revised July 2007. Accessed at: 

http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/13/ on January 3, 2008. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2004a. 2002 Census of Agriculture; Georgia, State 

and County Data, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 10. National Agricultural Statistics 

Service. Accessed at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume 1/ga/index2.htm on 

December 31, 2007. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2004b. 2002 Census of Agriculture; South Carolina, 

State and County Data, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 40. National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. Accessed at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume

1/sc/index2.htm on December 31, 2007. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service Fire Effects Information 

System. 2008. Accessed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/index.html on February 

5, 2008. 

University of Georgia (UGA) Carl Vinson Institute of Government. 2006. Balancing Insteam 

and Offstream Uses: Instream Flows, Surface Storage and Aquifer Management. A Report to 

the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Athens, Georgia. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2002. Water Resources Data, South Carolina: Water Year 

2002, Water-Data Report SC-02-1, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007a. Savannah River Flow near Waynesboro, Georgia.

Accessed at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv/ on December 4, 2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007b. Drought Watch - USGS State Information on Drought. 

Accessed at: http://water.usgs.gov/waterwatch on September 14, 2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007c. Savannah River Flow near Augusta, Georgia.

Accessed at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv on December 24, 2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007d. Savannah River Flow, Annual Statistics, near 

Augusta, Georgia. Accessed at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/annual on December 24, 2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007e. Georgia Internet Map Server Applications. Accessed 

at: http://ga-ims.er.usgs.gov/website/drg24/viewer.htm on December 27, 2007. 

University of South Florida (USF), Institute for Systematic Biology, Atlas of Florida Vascular 

Plants. 2008. Accessed at: http://www.plantatlas.usf.edu/ on February 5, 2008. 
Plant and the Environment 

December 2008 2-123 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Weiss-Glanz, L.S., J.G. Stanley, and J.R. Moring. 1986. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) – American 

Shad.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 82(11.59). U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 16 pp. 

Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Inc. (WSRC). 2007. Savannah River Site 

Environmental Report for 2006, WSRC–TR–2007–00008. 

Wike, L. D. 1998. “Potential Effect of Increased SRS River Water Withdrawal on the Savannah 

River Shortnose Sturgeon Population.” WSRC-TR-98-00424. Westinghouse Savannah River 

Company, Aiken, South Carolina. 

Wike L.D., F.D. Martin, E.A. Nelson, N.V. Halverson, J.J. Mayer, M.H. Paller, R.S. Riley, M.G. 

Serrato, and W.L. Specht. 2006. SRS Ecology: Environmental Information Document. 

WSRC-TR-2005-00201. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of Energy by Washington Savannah River 

Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. March. 

Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris and R.J. Neves. 1993. 

Conservations status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries. 

18(9):6-22.

Wiltz J.W. 1982a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Beaverdam Creek Resident Fish Study, 

Burke County, Georgia from January 1977 through December 1978. Operating License Stage 

Environmental Report Technical Document, Georgia Power Company, Environmental Affairs 

Center, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Wiltz J.W. 1982b. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Beaverdam Creek Anadromous Fish 

Study, Burke County, Georgia from March 1977 through May 1978, Operating License Stage. 

Environmental Report Technical Document, Georgia Power Company, Environmental Affairs 

Center, Atlanta, Georgia. 

World Book Encyclopedia. 2006. Georgia Climate, Chicago, IL. 

December 2008 3-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

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 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 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; 

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 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 “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 3-2 December 2008 

Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

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

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Refurbishment 3.5

GROUND-WATER USE AND QUALITY

Impacts of refurbishment on ground-water 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 Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) because they are related to plant design features or site 

characteristics not found at VEGP 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. Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) indicated that it has performed an evaluation of 

structures and components pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 

54, Section 54.21 to identify activities that are necessary to continue operation of VEGP during 

the requested 20-year period of extended operation. These activities include replacement of 

certain components as well as new inspection activities, and are described in the Environmental 

Report (SNC 2007). 
 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment 

December 2008 3-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1

GEIS 

Sections

10 CFR 51.53 

(c)(3)(ii) 

Subparagraph

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Refurbishment impacts 3.6 E

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Threatened or endangered species 3.9 E

AIR QUALITY

Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and 

maintenance areas)

3.3 F

SOCIOECONOMICS

Housing impacts 3.7.2 I

Public services: public utilities 3.7.4.5 I

Public services, education (refurbishment) 3.7.4.1 I

Offsite land use (refurbishment) 3.7.5 I

Public services, transportation 3.7.4.2 J

Historic and archaeological resources 3.7.7 K

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Environmental justice Not 

addressed(a)

Not 

addressed(a)

(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 Staff’s environmental impact statement. The 

Commission issued a Final Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters 

in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions in 2004 (NRC 2004). 

However, VEGP stated that the replacement of these components and the additional inspection 

activities are within the bounds of normal plant component replacement and inspections; 

therefore, they are not expected to affect the environment outside the bounds of plant 

operations as evaluated in the final environmental statement (NRC 1985). In addition, SNC’s 

evaluation of structures and components as required by 10 CFR 54.21 did not identify any major 

plant refurbishment activities or modifications necessary to support the continued operation of 

VEGP beyond the end of the existing operating licenses. Therefore, refurbishment is not 

considered in this SEIS. 
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 3-4 December 2008 

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.” 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1985. Final Environmental Statement Related to 

Operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-

425, Georgia Power Company et al., Washington, DC. 

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1437 Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, DC. 

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.” NUREG1437 Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, DC. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register

Volume 69, pp. 52040-52048. Washington, DC August 24, 2004. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007. Applicant’s Environmental Report – 

Operating License Renewal Stage, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. Docket 

Numbers 50-424 and 50-425. 
December 2008 4-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

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 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 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. Eleven of 12 Category 2 

issues related to operational impacts during the renewal term, as well as environmental justice 

and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are discussed in detail in this chapter of the 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The twelfth Category 2 issue, which 

involves the severe accident mitigation alternatives, is addressed in Chapter 5. 

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 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP). Section 4.1 addresses issues 

applicable to the VEGP cooling system. Section 4.2 addresses issues related to transmission 

lines and on-site 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 

(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. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-2 December 2008 

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 and Section 4.8 discusses cumulative impacts. The results of the evaluation 

of environmental issues related to operation during the renewal term are summarized in 

Section 4.9. Finally, Section 4.10 lists the references for Chapter 4. Category 1 and Category 2 

issues that are not applicable to VEGP because they are related to plant design features or site 

characteristics not found at VEGP are listed in Appendix F. 

4.1 Cooling System

Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable to 

VEGP cooling system operation, during the renewal term, are listed in Table 4-1. Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) stated in its Environmental Report (SNC 2007a) that it is not 

aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the VEGP 

operating licenses. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff also has not 

identified any new and significant information during its independent review of the SNC 

Environmental Report, the Staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation of other 

available information. For all of the Category 1 issues, the Staff concluded in the GEIS that the 

impacts would be SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be 

sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 

Table 4-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the VEGP 

Cooling System During the Renewal Term 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

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

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

Eutrophication 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
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 4-1. (cont’d) 

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.3; 4.4.2.2; 

4.4.3

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 

Distribution of aquatic organisms 4.2.2.1.6; 4.4.3

Premature emergence of aquatic insects 4.2.2.1.7; 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 

exposed to sublethal stresses

4.2.2.1.10; 4.4.3

Stimulation of nuisance organisms 4.2.2.1.11; 4.4.3

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR PLANTS WITH COOLING TOWER-BASED HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages for plants with 

cooling tower heat dissipation systems 

4.3.3

Impingement of fish and shellfish in early life stages for plants with 

cooling tower heat dissipation systems

4.3.3

Heat shock for plants with cooling tower heat dissipation systems 4.3.3

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation 4.3.4

Cooling tower impacts on native plants 4.3.5.1

Bird collisions with cooling towers 4.3.5.2

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6 

Noise 4.3.7 

A brief description of the Staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for 

each of these Category 1 issues follows: 

• Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures. Based on information in the 

GEIS, the Commission found that: 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-4 December 2008 

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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 

impacts of altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures during the renewal 

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

• Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity. Based on information in the GEIS, 

the Commission found that: 

The GEIS determined that there is no evidence that temperature effects on sediment 

transport capacity have caused adverse environmental effects at any existing plant, and 

that 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 

impacts from temperature effects on sediment transport capacity during the 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 

impacts of scouring caused by discharged cooling water during the renewal term beyond 

those discussed in the GEIS. 

• Eutrophication. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that: 

Eutrophication 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. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

The Staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

review of the VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, review of 

monitoring programs, or evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff 

concludes that there would be no impacts of eutrophication during the 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit for VEGP. Therefore, the Staff has determined that there would be no 

significant impacts of discharge of chlorine or other biocides during the renewal term beyond 

those discussed in the GEIS. 

• Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills. Based on information in the 

GEIS, the Commission found that: 

Effects are readily controlled through the 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information including the NPDES permit for VEGP. Therefore, the Staff 

has determined that there would be no significant impacts of discharge of sanitary wastes 

and minor chemical spills during the 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-6 December 2008 

of other available information including the NPDES permit for VEGP. Therefore, the Staff 

concludes that there would be no impacts of discharges of other metals in wastewater 

during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

• 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. 

No non-radiological analysis of sediment or biota samples is required by the Annual 

Environmental Operating Program (SNC 2007b). 

The Staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

review of the VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no impacts of 

accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota during the renewal term beyond those 

discussed in the GEIS. 

• Entrainment of phytoplankton 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, review of 

monitoring programs, or evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff 

concludes that there would be no impacts of entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 

during the 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 oncethrough 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. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

The Staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

review of the VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 

impacts of cold shock during the 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 affect the larger 

geographical distribution of aquatic organisms. 

The Staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

review of the VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, review of 

monitoring programs, or evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff 

concludes that there would be no impacts on distribution of aquatic organisms during the 

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

• Premature emergence of aquatic insects. Based on information in the GEIS, the 

Commission found that: 

Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating nuclear 

power plants but has not been a problem 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 

impacts of premature emergence of aquatic insects during the 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, review of 

monitoring programs, or evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-8 December 2008 

concludes that there would be no impacts of gas supersaturation during the renewal term 

beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

• 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 oncethrough 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, review of 

monitoring programs, or evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff 

concludes that there would be no impacts of low dissolved oxygen during the renewal term 

beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

• Losses from predation, 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the Staff's site visit, the scoping process, or 

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be 

no impacts of losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to 

sub-lethal stresses during the 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

impacts of stimulation of nuisance organisms during the renewal term beyond those 

discussed in the GEIS. 

• Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages for plants with cooling tower heat 

dissipation systems. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that: 

In general, the relatively small volumes of water used for cooling tower-based cooling 

systems result in low levels of entrainment, and as a result, cooling tower systems are 

often recommended as a mitigation measure to reduce impacts from entrainment. 

Based on reviews of literature, operational monitoring reports, consultations with utilities 

and regulators, and comments on the draft GEIS, the GEIS concluded that entrainment 

had not been shown to cause reductions in aquatic populations associated with any 

plant with a closed-cycle cooling system. 

The Staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

review of the VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 

impacts due to entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages during the renewal term 

beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

• Impingement of fish and shellfish for plants with cooling tower heat dissipation systems.

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that: 

In general, the relatively small volumes of water used for cooling tower-based cooling 

systems result in low levels of impingement, and as a result, cooling tower systems are 

often recommended as a mitigation measure to reduce impacts from impingement.

Based on reviews of literature, operational monitoring reports, consultations with utilities 

and regulators, and comments on the draft GEIS, the GEIS concluded that impingement 

had not been shown to cause reductions in aquatic populations associated with any 

plant with a closed-cycle cooling system. 

The Staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

review of the VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 

impacts due to impingement of fish and shellfish during the renewal term beyond those 

discussed in the GEIS. 

• Heat shock for plants with cooling tower heat dissipation systems. Based on information 

in the GEIS, the Commission found that: 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-10 December 2008 

In general, the relatively small volumes of water used for cooling tower-based cooling 

systems result in low levels of heat shock, and as a result, cooling tower systems are 

often recommended as a mitigation measure to reduce impacts from heat shock. 

Based on reviews of literature, operational monitoring reports, consultations with 

utilities and regulators, and comments on the draft GEIS, the GEIS concluded that 

heat shock had not been shown to cause reductions in aquatic populations 

associated with any plant with a closed-cycle cooling system. 

The Staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

review of the VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 

impacts due to heat shock during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

• Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation. Based on information in the 

GEIS, the Commission found that: 

The GEIS evaluated the potential for cooling tower operations to impact crops and 

ornamental vegetation due to exposure to salts, ice, or increased humidity. The analysis 

revealed no instances where cooling tower operations had caused measurable 

productivity losses to crops or damage to ornamental vegetation. Therefore, this 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no cooling 

tower impacts on crops or ornamental vegetation during the renewal term beyond those 

discussed in the GEIS. 

• Cooling tower impacts on native plants. Based on information in the GEIS, the 

Commission found that: 

The GEIS evaluated the potential for cooling tower drift to native vegetation in the vicinity 

of nuclear power plants due to exposure to salts, ice, or increased humidity. The 

analysis revealed no instances where cooling tower operations had caused measurable 

degradation of the health of natural plant communities. Therefore, this 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no cooling 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

tower impacts on native plants during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the 

GEIS.

• Bird collisions with cooling towers. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 

found that: 

The GEIS evaluated avian mortality studies from plants with natural draft cooling towers, 

and concluded that the mortality occurred in sufficiently small numbers that it was 

unlikely that the losses would threaten the stability of native populations, or impair the 

function of these species within the local ecosystems. Therefore, this 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 

impacts due to bird collisions with cooling towers during the 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 

impacts of microbiological organisms on occupational health during the 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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation 

of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 

impacts of noise during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-12 December 2008 

The Category 2 issues related to cooling system operation during the renewal term that are 

applicable to VEGP are discussed in the sections that follow, and are listed in Table 4-2. 

Table 4-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the 

VEGP Cooling System During the Renewal Term 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, 

Table B-1

GEIS

Sections

10 CFR 

51.53(c)(3)(ii) 

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

SURFACE-WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Water use conflicts (plants with cooling towers and 

cooling ponds using makeup water from a small river 

with low flow)

4.3.2.1;

4.4.2.1

A 4.1.1

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbiological organisms (public health) (plants using 

a lake, canal, or cooling towers or cooling ponds that 

discharge to a small river) 

4.3.6 G 4.1.2 

4.1.1 Water Use Conflicts 

For plants with cooling tower systems that are supplied with make-up water from a small river 

with low flow, the potential impact on instream and riparian communities is considered a 

Category 2 issue, thus requiring a site-specific assessment for license renewal review. Since 

1953 (the year of the opening of the J. Strom Thurmond Dam), the mean annual flow volume of 

the Savannah River at Augusta (22 miles [mi] upstream from VEGP) has ranged from 4,470 to 

16,580 cubic feet per second (cfs; USGS 2007a). This volume meets the NRC definition of a 

small river as flow is less than 100,000 cfs (3.15 X 1012 cubic feet per year [ft3

/yr] listed in 10 

CFR Part 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A)), resulting in water use conflicts being a potentially applicable issue 

for relicensing of VEGP. 

In order to evaluate potential impacts related to water withdrawal from the Savannah River, and 

the potential for impacts to instream and riparian communities associated with the Savannah 

River, the Staff independently reviewed the VEGP Environmental Report, visited the site, 

consulted with Federal and State resource agencies, and reviewed the applicant's current 

NPDES permit and other existing literature. 

The GEIS considers surface water use conflicts to be a Category 2 issue for two separate 

reasons:
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

1) Consumptive water use can adversely affect riparian vegetation and instream aquatic 

communities in the stream. Reducing the amount of water available to either the riparian 

zones or instream communities could result in impacts to threatened and endangered 

species, wildlife, and recreational uses of the water body. In addition, riparian vegetation 

performs several important ecological functions, including stabilizing channels and 

floodplains, influencing water temperature and quality, and providing habitat for aquatic 

and terrestrial wildlife (NRC 1996). 

2) Continuing operation of these facilities depends on the availability of water within the 

river from which they are withdrawing water. For facilities that are located on small 

bodies of water, the volume of water available is expected to be susceptible to droughts 

and to competing water uses within the basin. In cases of extreme drought, these 

facilities may be required to curtail operations if the volume of water available is not 

sufficient (NRC 1996). 

An additional potential effect of the withdrawal of water from a small river is that the withdrawal 

may have an impact on groundwater levels and, therefore, result in groundwater use conflicts 

(NRC 1996). This is considered to be a separate Category 2 issue, and is evaluated in Section 

4.5.2 of this SEIS. 

The VEGP facility withdraws water from the Savannah River for use as make-up water to the 

circulating cooling water system. The water is withdrawn under a Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources (GDNR) surface water permit, Number 017-0191-05, which currently expires 

in 2010 (SNC 2007a). The permitted volume of water withdrawal under this permit is 131 cfs 

(85 million gallons per day [mgd] monthly average; GDNR 2007a). The VEGP Environmental 

Report reports that the actual capacity of the intake system is 89 cfs (SNC 2007a), of which an 

estimated 66.8 cfs is consumed through evaporative loses and drift (NRC 1985). The actual 

surface water withdrawal reports provide a different estimate. In 2006, the highest average 

monthly withdrawal rate was in May, with a daily average of 67.26 mgd (103.8 cfs; SNC 2007c). 

Using the same consumption ratio reported in the Environmental Report (75 percent), this would 

translate to an average consumptive use of 77.9 cfs. 

The hypothetical minimum flow volume in the river during the most extreme drought is projected 

to be 957 cfs (SNC 2006a), but this estimate was based on river conditions before the 

construction of the reservoirs. In reality, the most likely minimum flow volume in the Savannah 

River would be 3,800 cfs, which is the minimum volume that is to be released from Thurmond 

Dam, if the water level in the reservoir remains above 312 feet (ft) above mean sea level (msl; 

USACE 2007). The water level in the reservoir has never dropped that low. There have been 

days on which the flow volume was less then 3,800 cfs; these have been isolated events 

(USGS 2007b). Although the state of Georgia is currently considered to be in a period of severe 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-14 December 2008 

drought (USGS 2007c), the flow volume at the Waynesboro measuring station has not dropped 

below 3,900 cfs since measurements began in early 2005 (USGS 2007d). 

Based on these values, the highest volume that is expected to be consumed by facility 

operations (77.9 cfs) represents about 2.05 percent of the lowest expected flow volume (3,800 

cfs), and only 8 percent of the hypothetical minimum flow volume. This withdrawal is not 

expected to represent a volume large enough to adversely affect riparian vegetation and 

instream aquatic communities in the Savannah River. In addition, it does not appear that flow 

volumes in the Savannah River, even under the current severe drought conditions, could be 

reduced to the point where it would affect facility operations. In the unlikely event that drought 

conditions reduced flow volumes even further, the facility could continue to operate at flow 

volumes down to 500 cfs (SNC 2006a). At this volume, VEGP consumptive water use would 

still represent only about 15 percent of the flow volume in the river. Therefore, the Staff has 

determined that impacts associated with future water use conflicts are SMALL. 

The staff identified a variety of measures that could mitigate potential water use impacts 

resulting from continued operation of VEGP cooling water system. Potential mitigation 

measures for the effects of the cooling water system on water use impacts include reduction in 

the use of river water, or additional recycling of cooling water. These mitigation measures could 

reduce water use impacts by reducing the consumptive use of water within the Savannah River. 

The staff did not identify any cost benefit studies applicable to these mitigation measures. The 

volume of consumptive water use for the facility is authorized under a Permit to Withdraw, 

Divert, or Impound Surface Water issued by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division 

(GEPD), and NRC expects that analysis of the costs and benefits of any mitigation measures 

would be evaluated by GEPD as part of that permitting program. 

4.1.2 Microbiological Organisms (Public Health) 

The effects of thermophilic microbiological organisms on human health are listed in 10 CFR Part 

51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, as a Category 2 issue and require plant-specific 

evaluation before license renewal for those plants with closed-cycle cooling on a small river. 

The average annual flow of the Savannah River at the nearest measuring station to VEGP 

(Augusta, at river mile [RM] 187.4) is approximately 2.89 × 1011 ft3/yr (8.2 × 109 cubic meters per 

year [m3

/yr]) (Gotvald et al. 2005). This is less than the 3.15 × 1012 ft3/yr (9 × 1010 m3/yr) 

threshold value in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G) for thermal discharge to a small river. 

Nevertheless, recreational uses of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the plant, which include 

boating, fishing, and canoeing, create the potential for human exposure to thermophilic 

microbiological organisms. Hence, the effects of the VEGP cooling water discharge on 

microbiological organisms must be addressed for VEGP license renewal. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

The Category 2 designation is based on the magnitude of the potential public health impacts 

associated with thermal enhancement of enteric pathogens such as Salmonella spp. and 

Shigella spp., the Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacterium, the pathogenic strain of the free-living 

amoebae Naegleria spp., and a number of species from genus Legionella (NRC 1996). 

Thermophilic biological organisms generally occur at temperatures of 77 to 176 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) (25 to 80 degrees Celsius [°C]), with optimal growth occurring between 122 and 

150°F (50 and 66°C) and minimum tolerance of 68°F (20°C) (Joklik and Willett 1976). However, 

thermal preferences and tolerances vary across bacterial groups. Pathogenic thermophilic 

microbiological organisms that are of concern in nuclear power reactor operation typically have 

optimal growing temperatures of approximately 99°F (37°C) (Joklik and Smith 1972). 

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an opportunistic pathogen that causes serious and sometimes fatal 

infections in immuno-compromised individuals by producing and releasing toxins. It has an 

optimal growth temperature of 99°F (37°C) (Todar 2007). The genus Legionella consists of at 

least 46 species and 70 serogroups and is responsible for Legionnaires’ disease, which begins 

with the onset of pneumonia in the first two weeks of exposure. Risk groups for Legionella spp. 

include the elderly, cigarette smokers, persons with chronic lung or immuno-compromising 

disease, and persons receiving immuno-suppressive drugs. Legionella spp. grow best at 90 to 

105°F (32 to 41°C) (CDC 2007a). Salmonella typhimurium and S. enteritidis are two of the 

more common species of Enterobacteriaceae that cause fever, abdominal cramps, and 

diarrhea. Salmonella spp. can occasionally establish localized infection (e.g., septic arthritis) or 

progress to sepsis. All ages can be affected, but groups at greatest risk for severe or 

complicated disease include infants, the elderly, and persons with compromised immune 

systems. Salmonella spp. occur at temperatures between 50 and 120°F (10 and 49°C) 

(Aserkoff et al. 1970; CDC 2007b), with optimal growth occurring at 95 to 99°F (35 to 37°C) 

(ESR 2002). The pathogenic amoeba flagellate Naegleria fowleri is the causative agent of 

human primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM). All ages can be affected, but groups at 

greatest risk for severe or complicated disease include infants, the elderly, and persons with 

compromised immune systems. Naegleria spp. are ubiquitous in nature and can be enhanced 

in thermally altered water bodies at temperatures ranging from 95 to 106°F (35 to 41°C) or 

higher, but this organism is rarely found in water cooler than 95°F (35°C), and infection rarely 

occurs at this water temperature (Tyndall et al. 1989). 

The maximum temperature of the discharge stream (below the discharge outfall) in the summer 

is approximately 92°F (33.4°C) with a maximum ambient river temperature of 79°F (26.1°C) 

(NRC 1985). As described in the NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), nuclear power plants that use 

cooling ponds, lakes, or canals and those that discharge to "small rivers" have the greatest 

chance of affecting the public by increases in thermophilic microbiological organism populations. 

A small river is defined as one with a monthly average flow rate of less than 2,800 cubic meters 

per second (cms) (100,000 cfs). The annual average flow rate of the Savannah River at the 

nearest measuring station to VEGP (Augusta, at RM 187.4) is approximately 2.89 × 1011 ft3/yr
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-16 December 2008 

(8.2 × 109 m3/yr), which equates to 259 cms (9,146 cfs) (Gotvald et al. 2005). The monthly 

average flow rates of the Savannah River between the years 1985 and 2005 ranged from about 

200 to 400 cms (7,000 to 14,000 cfs), which meets the criterion of a small river (SNC 2007b). 

The average cooling tower blowdown flow rate from current operation is about 5,000 gallons per 

minute (11.4 cfs), per unit. This flow rate equates to 10,000 gallons per minute (22.8 cfs) for the 

VEGP site (SNC 2007b). This flow rate is less than 1 percent of the minimum monthly average 

flow rate of the Savannah River. Thus, at a given volume of the discharge stream with a 

maximal temperature of 92°F (33.4°C), there will be approximately 100 equivalent diluting 

volumes of Savannah River water with a maximal temperature of 79°F (26.1°C). The Zeroth 

Law of Thermodynamics dictates that when a higher temperature system comes in physical 

contact with a lower temperature system, there will be a net transfer of heat from the higher 

temperature system to the lower temperature system. This happens until the two systems have 

reached thermal equilibrium (Adkins 1984). Therefore, when the discharge stream temperature 

is at its maximum and the ambient Savannah River water is at its maximum, the temperature 

range of the Savannah River (below the discharge outfall) would be between 79°F (26.1°C) and 

92°F (33.4°C) (NRC 1985). This temperature range is well outside the optimal growth 

temperature range of thermophilic microbiological organisms between 99°F and 150°F (37 and 

66°C), and is not expected to cause any significant public health risks. 

SNC consulted the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

(SCDHEC), Aquatic Biology Section, to determine whether there was any concern about the 

potential occurrence of thermophilic microbiological organisms in the Savannah River at the 

VEGP location (SNC 2007a). The SCDHEC has indicated that it currently does not monitor for 

N. fowleri in the waters of the State of South Carolina and no information is available from 

SCDHEC concerning the potential health effects in South Carolina associated with N. fowleri 

and its associated disease (SNC 2007a). 

Available data assembled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the 

years 1996 to 2005 (CDC 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002a, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007c), and 

from the States of Georgia and South Carolina for the years 2001 to 2006 (GDHR 2002, 2006; 

SCDHEC 2007), report a single occurrence of a waterborne disease in August 2002 resulting in 

one fatality. The environmental investigation of this incident revealed that it occurred under 

extreme environmental conditions of high ambient air and water temperatures, low river water 

level, and low river flow rate. During 1989 to 2000, the CDC waterborne-disease outbreak 

surveillance system documented 24 fatal cases of PAM in the United States, this being the first 

case in Georgia since 1987 (CDC 2002b). Outbreaks of Legionellosis, Salmonellosis, or 

Shigellosis that occurred in Georgia or South Carolina were within the range of national trends 

(CDC 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002a, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007c) in terms of cases per 

100,000 population or total cases per year, and the outbreaks were associated with pools, spas, 

or lakes.
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Epidemiological reports from the States of Georgia and South Carolina indicate a very low risk 

of causing outbreaks from thermophilic microbiological organisms associated with thermal 

discharges (GDHR 2002, 2006; SCDHEC 2007). Notably, there have been up to 40 cases per 

year of Legionellosis reported statewide in Georgia during the last 10 years and only one case 

of exposure to N. fowleri reported statewide during the last 5 years. During the period 2004 to 

2006, counties in Georgia within the vicinity of VEGP reported Legionellosis in Jefferson County 

(6 cases) and Chatham County (9 cases), with no cases reported in Burke, Columbia, Emanuel, 

Effingham, Jenkins, McDuffie, Richmond, or Screven Counties. In South Carolina, up to 22 

cases per year of Legionellosis have been reported statewide since 1995. For the South 

Carolina counties in the vicinity of VEGP, Aiken County reported one case in 2004, and 

Barnwell County reported one case in 2006, with no cases reported in Allendale, Edgefield, 

Hampton, or Jasper Counties during 2003 to 2006. No reported cases of exposure to N. fowleri 

in South Carolina were identified during the last 5 years (SCDHEC 2007). 

The Staff independently reviewed the VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007a) and visited the 

VEGP site. Based on the evaluation presented above, thermophilic microbiological organisms 

are not likely to present a public health hazard as a result of VEGP’s discharges to the 

Savannah River. The Staff concludes that impacts on public health from thermophilic 

microbiological organisms from continued operation of VEGP in the license renewal period 

would be SMALL.

The staff identified a variety of measures that could mitigate potential thermophilic 

microbiological organism impacts resulting from continued operation of the VEGP. These 

mitigation measures would include periodically monitoring for thermophilic microbiological 

organisms in the water and sediments near the discharge, as well as not allowing recreational 

use near the discharge plume. These mitigation measures could reduce human health impacts 

by minimizing public exposures to thermophilic microbiological organisms. The staff did not 

identify any cost benefit studies applicable to these mitigation measures 

4.2 Transmission Lines 

The seven transmission lines and right-of-ways (ROWs) built in conjunction with the VEGP site 

are described in section 2.1.7 and mapped on figure 2-4. The lines total 395 mi (636 kilometers 

km) in length, and have ROW widths varying from 100 ft (30.5 m) to 275 ft (84 m). The 

transmission lines operate with 500 kV lines and 230-kV lines. The transmission line ROWs 

include a total area of 6395 ac (2588 ha) (SNC 2007a). 

GPC maintains the ROW with established procedures to prevent vegetation from interfering with 

the lines (GPC 1997). The vegetative maintenance program includes selected backpack 

spraying of approved herbicides on dry ground and stream crossings every other year; GPC 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-18 December 2008 

follows a four-year mowing cycle in non-spraying years (SNC 2007a; TRC 2006). On wetland 

areas, no herbicides are used, the area is not mowed, and only hand clearing is allowed. 

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to 

transmission lines from VEGP are listed in Table 4-3. The NRC staff has not identified any new 

and significant information during its independent review of the VEGP Environmental Report, 

the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation of other available information that would 

indicate any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the VEGP operating 

licenses. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be 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 would be SMALL. 

Table 4-3. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the VEGP Transmission Lines 

During the 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, 

honeybees, wildlife, livestock)

4.5.6.3

Floodplains and wetland on power line ROW 4.5.7

AIR QUALITY

Air quality effects of transmission lines 4.5.2

LAND USE

On-site 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 ROW management (cutting and herbicide application). Based on information 

in the GEIS, the Commission found that: 

The impacts of ROW maintenance on wildlife are expected to be of small significance at 

all sites. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

The Staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

review of the VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007a), the site audit, the scoping process, 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), or evaluation of other 

information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no impacts of power line 

ROW maintenance on wildlife during the 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. 

The Staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent 

review of the VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007a), the site audit, the scoping process, 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or evaluation of other information. 

Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no impacts of bird collisions with power 

lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

• Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, 

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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007a), the site audit, the scoping process, 

or evaluation of other information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 

impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna during the renewal term beyond those 

discussed in the GEIS. 

• Floodplains 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007a), the site audit, the scoping process, 

or evaluation of other information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-20 December 2008 

impacts of power line ROW maintenance on floodplains and wetlands during the 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007a), the site audit, the scoping process, 

or evaluation of other information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no air 

quality impacts of transmission lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the 

GEIS.

• On-site land use. Based on the information in the GEIS, the Commission found that: 

Projected on-site 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007a), the site audit, the scoping process, 

or evaluation of other information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no onsite land use impacts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

• Power line right of way (ROW). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found 

that:

Ongoing use of power line ROWs 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007a), the site audit, the scoping process, 

or evaluation of other information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 

impacts of power line ROWs on land use during the renewal term beyond those discussed 

in the GEIS. 

Two Category 2 issues exist for the transmission lines. The issue of chronic effects was not 

categorized in the GEIS, but is being treated as a Category 2 issue in this SEIS. The Category 

2 issues are listed in Table 4-4 and are discussed in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 4-4. Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the VEGP 

Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1

GEIS

Sections

10 CFR 

51.53(c)(3)(ii) 

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

HUMAN HEALTH

Electromagnetic fields, acute effects 

(electric shock)

4.5.4.1 H 4.2.1

Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects 4.5.4.2 NA 4.2.2

4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields-Acute Effects

Based on the GEIS, the Commission found that electric shock resulting from direct access to 

energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures has not been found to be a 

problem at most operating plants and generally is not expected to be a problem during the 

license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of 

the electric shock potential along the portions of the transmission lines that are within the scope 

of this SEIS.

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. 

An analysis of the conformance of the VEGP transmission lines with the NESC standard was 

conducted using computer modeled data of induced current under the transmission lines. 

Objects located near the transmission lines can become electrically charged due to their 

immersion in the electromagnetic field surrounding the lines. This electrical charge results in a 

current that flows through the object to the ground. This current is called “induced” because 

there is no direct connection between the line and the object. The induced current can also flow 

to the ground through the body of a person who touches the electrically charged object. An 

object that is insulated from the ground can actually store an electrical charge, becoming what is 

called “capacitively charged.” A person standing on the ground and touching a vehicle or a 

fence receives an electrical shock due to the sudden discharge of the capacitive charge through 

the person’s body to the ground. After the initial discharge, a steady-state current can develop, 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-22 December 2008 

with the magnitude of the current depending upon several factors. These factors include the 

strength of the electric field (dependent on the voltage of the transmission line and its height and 

geometry), the size of the object on the ground, and the extent to which the object is grounded 

(SNC 2007a). 

As described above, two 500-kV and five 230-kV transmission lines were built to distribute 

power from VEGP to the electric grid. SNC began its analysis of these lines by identifying the 

limiting case for each line; that is, the configuration along each line where the potential for 

induced-current shock would be greatest. Once the limiting case was identified, the electric field 

strength for each transmission line was calculated, then the induced current was calculated. 

SNC calculated electric field strength and induced current using a computer code called 

ACDCLINE, produced by the Electric Power Research Institute. The results of this program 

have been field-verified through actual electrostatic field measurements by several utilities. The 

input parameters for the ACDCLINE program included the design features of the limiting-case 

scenario, the NESC requirement that line sag be determined at a conductor temperature of 

120°F, and the maximum vehicle size under the lines (a tractor-trailer). The analysis 

determined that none of the transmission lines has the capacity to induce greater than 5 

milliamperes in a vehicle parked beneath the lines (Table 4-5). Therefore, the VEGP 

transmission lines conform to the NESC provisions for preventing electric shock from induced 

current (SNC 2007a). 

SNC also analyzed hypothetical spans of a generic 230-kV transmission line and a generic 500-

kV transmission line terminating at the VEGP facility (GPC 1997 in SNC 2007a). These 

hypothetical cases represented the most extreme condition expected on each type of line. 

Table 4-5 includes the results of these generic analyses (SNC 2007a). 

Georgia Power Company (GPC) and Georgia Transmission Corporation, the owners of the 

transmission lines, have surveillance and maintenance procedures that provide assurance that 

design ground clearances will not change. These procedures include routine aerial inspections 

that check for evidence of clearance problems, including encroachments, broken conductors, 

broken or leaning structures, and signs of burning trees. In addition, ground-level inspections 

include examination of clearances at questionable locations, evaluation of the integrity of 

structures, and surveillance for dead or diseased trees that may fall on the lines. Problems 

noted during any inspection are identified for corrective action by the appropriate organization 

(SNC 2007a). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 4-5. Results of Induced Current Analysis 

Transmission Line Voltage 

(kilovolts) 

Induced Current(a)

(milliamperes)

Scherer 500 4.7 

West McIntosh (Thalmann) 500 4.3 

Goshen (Black) 230 1.5(b)

Goshen (White) 230 1.5(b)

Augusta Newsprint 230 2.0 

SCE&G 230 2.1 

Wilson 230 na(c)

Generic 500-kV line(d) 500 4.7 

Generic 500-kV line(d) 230 1.4 

(a) Conservatively calculated for 212°F sags for all cases except Thalmann and SCE&G, for which the 

line was resagged to 120°F. 

(b) Location has combined effects of Goshen (black), Goshen (white), and Augusta Newsprint, which run 

in parallel. 

(c) Not applicable (na) because there are no public road crossings for the Wilson transmission line. It is 

entirely on GPC property. 

(d) Calculation is for a 90-degree crossing – lesser angles could produce higher results. 

Source: SNC 2007a

The Staff has reviewed the available information, including the applicant's evaluation and 

computational results, the site visit, the scoping process, and other public sources of 

information. Based on this information, the Staff evaluated the potential impacts of electric 

shock resulting from operation of VEGP and its associated transmission lines. It is the Staff's 

conclusion that the potential impacts of electric shock during the renewal term would be SMALL. 

The staff identified a variety of measures that could mitigate potential acute EMF impacts 

resulting from continued operation of the VEGP transmission lines. These mitigation measures 

would include limiting public access to transmission line structures, installing road signs at road 

crossings, and increase transmission line clearances. 

These mitigation measures could reduce human health impacts by minimizing public exposures 

to electric shock hazards. NESC rules as specified in Part 2, Rules 232C1c and 232D3c 

contain provisions that are considered necessary for the protection of employees and the public 

from acute EMF hazards associated with transmission lines, including during the license 

renewal period. SNC currently meets these rules. The staff did not identify any cost benefit 

studies applicable to the mitigation measures mentioned above. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-24 December 2008 

4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields-Chronic Effects

In the GEIS, the chronic effects of 60 hertz electromagnetic fields from power lines were not 

designated as Category 1 or 2, and a designation will not be made until a scientific consensus is 

reached on the health implications of these fields. 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). The 1999 report of the NIEHS and DOE Working Group (Portier 1999) 

contains the following conclusion: 

The NIEHS concludes that extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field exposure (ELFEMF) 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 

VEGP in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-6. SNC stated in its Environmental 

Report (SNC 2007a) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with 

the renewal of the VEGP Operating License. The Staff has not identified any new and 

significant information during its independent review of the VEGP Environmental Report, the site 

audit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff 

concludes that there would be no impacts related to these issues beyond those discuss 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.
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 4-6. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal 

Operations During the 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

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 public (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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 

available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no impacts of radiation 

exposures to the public during the renewal term beyond those discuss in the GEIS. 

Occupational exposures to public (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 VEGP Environmental Report, the site audit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 

available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no impacts of 

occupational exposures during the renewal term beyond those discuss in the GEIS. 

There are no Category 2 issues related to radiological impacts of routine operations. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-26 December 2008 

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, which are applicable 

to socioeconomic impacts during the renewal term are listed in Table 4–7. As stated in the 

GEIS, the impacts associated with these Category 1 issues were determined to be SMALL, and 

plant-specific mitigation measures would not be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 

The Staff reviewed and evaluated the VEGP Environmental Report, scoping comments, other 

available information, and visited the VEGP site in search of new and significant information that 

would change the conclusions presented in the GEIS. No new and significant information was 

identified during this review. Therefore, it is expected that there would be no impacts related to 

these Category 1 issues during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

Table 4-7. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the 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 

The results of the review and brief statement of GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1 of 10 

CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, for each of the socioeconomic Category 1 issues are 

provided below. 

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. 

No new and significant information was identified during the review. Therefore, it is 

expected that there would be no impacts on public safety, social services, and tourism and 

recreation during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Public services: education (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, the 

Commission found that: 

Only impacts of small significance are expected. 

No new and significant information was identified during the review. Therefore, it is 

expected that there would be no impacts on education during the 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. 

No new and significant information was identified during the review. Therefore, it is 

expected that there would be no aesthetic impacts during the 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. 

No new and significant information was identified during the review. Therefore, it is 

expected that there would be no aesthetic impacts of transmission lines during the renewal 

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

Table 4–8 lists the Category 2 socioeconomic issues, which require plant-specific analysis, and 

an additional issue, environmental justice, which was not addressed in the GEIS. 

4.4.1 Housing Impacts 

Appendix C of the GEIS presents a population characterization method based on two factors, 

sparseness and proximity (GEIS, Section C.1.4). Sparseness measures population density 

within 20 miles of the site, and proximity measures population density and city size within 50 

miles. Each factor has categories of density and size (GEIS, Table C.1). A matrix is used to 

rank the population category as low, medium, or high (GEIS, Figure C.1). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-28 December 2008 

Table 4–8. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics 

and Environmental Justice During the Renewal Term 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section 

10 CFR 

51.53(c)(3)(ii) 

Subparagraph 

SEIS

Section

SOCIOECONOMICS

Housing impacts 4.7.1 I 4.4.1 

Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 I 4.4.2 

Off-site land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 I 4.4.3 

Public services: transportation 4.7.3.2 J 4.4.4 

Historic and archaeological resources 4.7.7 K 4.4.5 

Environmental justice Not addressed(a) Not addressed(a) 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 plant-specific reviews.

According to the 2000 Census, approximately 43,857 people lived within 20 mi of VEGP, which 

equates to a population density of 46 persons per square mile (SNC 2007a). This density 

translates to sparseness Category 2 (40 to 60 persons per square mile and no community with 

25,000 or more persons within 20 mi). Approximately 670,000 people live within 50 mi of VEGP 

(SNC 2007a). This equates to a population density of 89 persons per square mile. Applying the 

GEIS proximity measures, VEGP is classified as proximity Category 3 (one or more cities with 

100,000 or more persons and less than 190 persons per sq mi within 50 mi). Therefore, 

according to the sparseness and proximity matrix presented in the GEIS, the VEGP ranks of 

sparseness Category 2 and proximity Category 3 result in the conclusion that VEGP is located 

in a medium population area. 

Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, states that impacts on housing availability 

are expected to be of small significance in medium or high-density population areas where 

growth-control measures are not in effect. Since VEGP is located in a medium population area 

and Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties are not subject to growth-control measures that 

would limit housing development, any VEGP employment-related impact on housing availability 

would likely be small. Since SNC has indicated that there would be no major plant 

refurbishment and no non-outage employees would be added to support VEGP operations 

during the license renewal term, employment levels at VEGP would remain relatively constant 

with no additional demand for housing during the license renewal term. In addition, the number 

of available housing units has kept pace with or exceeded the low growth in the area population. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Based on this information, there would be no impacts on housing during the license renewal 

term.

4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts 

Impacts on public utility services are considered SMALL if there is little or no change in the 

ability of the system to respond to demand and thus there is no need to add capital facilities. 

Impacts are considered MODERATE if service capabilities are overtaxed during periods of peak 

demand. Impacts are considered LARGE if services (e.g., water, sewer) are substantially 

degraded and additional capacity is needed to meet ongoing demand. The GEIS indicated 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. 

Analysis of impacts on the public water systems considered both facility demand and facilityrelated population growth. As previously discussed in Section 2.2.2, VEGP obtains its potable 

water supply directly from groundwater sources. The facility does not purchase water from a 

public water system. Water usage by VEGP has not stressed the supply source capacity and is 

not currently an issue. SNC also has no plans to increase Unit 1 and Unit 2 staffing due to 

refurbishment or new construction activities, and has identified no operational changes during 

the license renewal term that would increase facility water use. 

VEGP operations during the license renewal term would not increase facility-related population 

demand for public water services. Given that SNC has indicated that there would be no major 

plant refurbishment, overall employment levels at Unit 1 and Unit 2 would remain relatively 

constant during this period with no additional demand for public services. In addition, public 

water systems in the region would be adequate to provide the capacity required to meet the 

demand of residential and industrial customers in the area. Based on a review of available 

public water supply use and capacity information in the region, there would be no impact to 

public water services during the license renewal term. 

4.4.3 Off-site Land Use During Operations 

Off-site land use during the license renewal term is a Category 2 issue. 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." 

Section 4.7.4 of the GEIS defines the magnitude of land-use changes as a result of plant 

operation during the license renewal term as follows: 

SMALL - Little new development and minimal changes to an area's land-use pattern. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-30 December 2008 

MODERATE - Considerable new development and some changes to the land-use pattern. 

LARGE - Large-scale new development and major changes in the land-use pattern. 

Tax revenue can affect land use because it enables local jurisdictions 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, taxdriven 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 jurisdiction’s revenue, the 

significance level would be SMALL. If the plant’s tax payments are projected to be medium to 

large relative to the community’s total revenue, new tax-driven land-use changes would be 

MODERATE. 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. 

Population-Related Impacts 

Since SNC has no plans to add non-outage employees to Units 1 and 2 during the license 

renewal period, there would be no noticeable change in land use conditions in the vicinity of the 

VEGP site. Therefore, there would be no land use impacts during the license renewal term. 

Tax-Revenue-Related Impacts 

As previously discussed in Section 2.2.8.6.3, SNC and the VEGP site’s co-owners pay annual 

real estate taxes to Burke County. From 2000 through 2007, the owners paid between $23.7 

and $25.3 million annually in property taxes to Burke County. This represented between 74 and 

82 percent of the county’s total annual tax revenue. Each year, Burke County retains a portion 

of this tax money for county operations and disburses the remainder to the state, the school 

district, and fire/emergency management/public safety services to fund their respective 

operating budgets. The local public school system, Burke County School District, receives 

approximately 60 percent of the total county property tax revenue.

At present, the State of Georgia has taken no action on deregulation, which could, if enacted, 

affect tax payments to Burke County. However, any changes to VEGP property tax rates due to 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

deregulation would be independent of license renewal. Discontinuing the current level of tax 

revenues would have a significant negative economic impact on the county. 

SNC has indicated that there would be no major plant refurbishment or license renewal-related 

construction activities necessary to support the continued operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2 during 

the license renewal period. Accordingly, there would be no increase in the assessed value of 

VEGP and annual property taxes to Burke County would remain relatively constant throughout 

the license renewal period. Based on this information, there would be no tax revenue-related 

land-use impacts during the license-renewal term. 

4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations 

Table B-1, 10 CFR Part 51 states: 

Transportation impacts (level of service) of highway traffic generated... during the term of 

the renewed license are generally expected to be of small significance. However, the 

increase in traffic associated with additional workers and the local road and traffic control 

conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large significance at some sites. 

All applicants are required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) to assess the impacts of highway traffic 

generated by the proposed project on the level of service of local highways during the term of 

the renewed license. 

Given that VEGP has no plans to add non-outage employees to Units 1 or 2 during the license 

renewal period, there would be no noticeable change in traffic volume and levels of service on 

roadways in the vicinity of the VEGP site. Therefore, there would be no transportation impacts 

during the license renewal term. 

4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies take in to account 

the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The historic preservation review process 

mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR Part 800. Renewal of an operating license is an undertaking 

that could potentially affect historic properties. Therefore, according to the NHPA, the NRC is to 

make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties in areas of potential effects. If no historic 

properties are present or affected, the NRC is required to notify the State Historic Preservation 

Officer before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present the NRC is 

required to assess and resolve possible adverse effects of the undertaking. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-32 December 2008 

4.4.5.1 Site Specific Cultural Resources Information 

A review of the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) files shows that there are no 

National Register listed archaeological or above ground historic resources identified on the 

VEGP property. As noted in Section 2.2.9.2, three surveys, conducted in 2005, 2006 and 2007, 

of specific portions of the VEGP site resulted in the identification of 17 archaeological sites, two 

of which were eventually determined to be eligible for listing on the Nation Register of Historic 

Places (NSA 2006a and 2006b). 

There is potential for archaeological resources to be present on other portions of the VEGP site 

that have not been surveyed. As noted in Section 2.2.9.2, while seven National Register listed 

resources have been identified in Burke County, none are located within the boundaries of the 

VEGP.

4.4.5.2 Conclusions 

The staff does not expect any significant impacts on historic and archaeological resources 

during the license renewal term. Any new ground-disturbing activities that might occur during 

plant operations would follow SNC’s procedures, which would require further evaluation to 

determine if additional archaeological review is necessary. The NRC contacted the Georgia 

SHPO on April 9, 2008, to request comments on the draft SEIS (NRC 2008). On June 10, 2008 

the Georgia SHPO provided its response on the draft SEIS by stating that the SHPO concurred 

with the findings of the draft SEIS in that the undertaking would have no adverse effects to 

historic properties (GDNR 2008). Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts from 

operations would be SMALL. Some mitigation might be required in the event of an unexpected 

discovery. 

4.4.6 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal agencies to identify and address, as 

appropriate, potential disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 

impacts on minority and low-income populations. In 2004, the Commission issued a Policy

Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing 

Actions (69 FR 52040) which states “The Commission is committed to the general goals set 

forth in EO 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of its NEPA review process.” 

The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides the following information in Environmental 

Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997): 

• Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects. Adverse health effects are 

measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer fatalities, as well as other 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse health effects may include 

bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. Disproportionately high and adverse 

human health effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard 

for a minority or low-income population is significant (as defined by the National 

Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]) and appreciably exceeds the risk or exposure rate for 

the general population or for another appropriate comparison group (CEQ 1997). 

• Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects. A disproportionately high 

environmental impact that is significant (as defined by NEPA) refers to an impact or risk 

of an impact on the natural or physical environment in a low-income or minority 

community that appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the larger community. 

Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social 

impacts. An adverse environmental impact is an impact that is determined to be both 

harmful and significant (as defined by NEPA). In assessing cultural and aesthetic 

environmental impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically dislocated or 

dispersed minority or low-income populations or American Indian tribes are considered 

(CEQ 1997). 

The environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 

could result from the operation of VEGP during the renewal term. In assessing the impacts, the 

following CEQ (CEQ 1997) definitions of minority individuals and populations and low-income 

population were used: 

• Minority individuals. Individuals who identify themselves as members of the following 

population groups: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or 

African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races, 

meaning individuals who identified themselves on a Census form as being a member of 

two or more races, for example, Hispanic and Asian. 

• Minority populations. Minority populations are identified when (1) the minority population 

of an affected area exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority population percentage of the 

affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the 

general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

• Low-income populations. Low-income populations in an affected area are identified with 

the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau’s Current Population 

Reports, Series P-60, on Income and Poverty. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-34 December 2008 

4.4.6.1 Minority Populations in 2000 

Data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s (USCB) 2000 census for Georgia identifies 28.7 percent of 

the state population as Black or African American; 0.3 percent American Indian or Alaskan 

Native; 2.1 percent Asian; 0.1 percent Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; 2.4 percent 

some other race; 1.4 percent two or more races; 34.9 percent aggregate of minority races; and 

5.3 percent Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (USCB 2000a). For South Carolina, the USCB reports 

29.5 percent of the state population as Black or African American; 0.3 percent American Indian 

or Alaskan Native; 0.9 percent Asian; 0.04 percent Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; 1.0 

percent some other race; 1.0 percent two or more races; 32.8 percent aggregate of minority 

races; and 2.4 percent Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (USCB 2000a). 

Those census block groups (491) wholly or partly within the 50-mi radius of VEGP were 

reported in the 2000 census as having a minority population of 275,179 or 42.0 percent of the 

total population in these block groups. Of those 491 block groups, 168 were reported in the 

2000 census as having aggregate minority population percentages that exceed the state 

average by 20 percentage points or more, while 183 census block groups have aggregate 

minority population percentages that exceed 50 percent. The largest minority group was Black 

or African American, with 175 block groups that exceed the state average by 20 percent or more 

and 171 that have Black or African American populations of 50 percent or more. These block 

groups are located in ten Georgia counties and nine counties in South Carolina. One census 

block group (in Aiken County, South Carolina) exceeded the state average for Hispanic or 

Latino ethnicity by 20 percent or more, but no block groups had 50 percent or more. No other 

minority classifications exceeded either the 20 percent or 50 percent selection criterion (NRC 

2007). Based on 2000 census data, Figure 4-1 shows the block groups with high density 

minority populations within a 50-mi radius of VEGP. 

4.4.6.2 Low-Income Populations in 2000

According to 2000 census data, 12.6 percent of Georgia households and 14.1 percent of South 

Carolina households were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold (USCB 

2000b). (The 1999 Federal poverty threshold was $17,029 for a family of four.) A total of 

108,732 individuals (17.1 percent) and 23,580 families (13.6 percent) residing in the census 

blocks within a 50-mi radius of VEGP were identified as living below the Federal poverty 

threshold. Census block groups were considered high density low-income block groups if the 

percentage of the population living below the Federal poverty threshold exceeded the state 

average by 20 percent or more, or if 50 percent or more of the households in the block group 

exceeded the state average. Based on 2000 Census data, there were 72 block groups within a 

50-mi radius of VEGP that exceeded the state average for low income households by 20 

percent or more. Of those 72 block groups, 14 had 50 percent or more low-income households 

(NRC 2007). Figure 4-2 shows low-income census block groups within a 50-mi radius of VEGP. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Figure 4-1. Minority block groups in 2000 within a 50-mi radius of VEGP 

Source: SNC 2007a 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-36 December 2008 

Figure 4-2. Low-income block groups in 2000 within a 50-mi radius of VEGP 

Source: SNC 2007a 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

4.4.6.3 Analysis of Impacts 

Based on the analysis of impacts for all resource areas presented in this SEIS, it was 

determined that there would be no significant adverse health impacts on members of the public 

and, therefore, there would be no disproportionate and adverse impacts felt by minority or lowincome populations within the region of interest. Similarly, given that the potential 

environmental effects of continued operation on the physical environment (water, air, aquatic 

and terrestrial resources) and socioeconomic conditions, there would be no disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations because of negative 

environmental effects. 

NRC also analyzed the risk of radiological exposure through the consumption patterns of 

special pathway receptors, including subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife. The special 

pathway receptors analysis is important to the environmental justice analysis because 

consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority and low-income 

populations in the area. 

4.4.6.4 Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife 

Section 4-4 of EO 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and 

appropriate, to collect and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations who 

rely principally on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these 

consumption patterns to the public. In this SEIS, NRC considered whether there were any 

means for minority or low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by examining 

impacts to American Indian, Hispanic, and other traditional lifestyle special pathway receptors. 

Fish advisories issued by the States of Georgia and South Carolina for the Savannah River have 

indicated that some species, especially predatory species, can carry levels of radioactive 

contamination that could be harmful if ingested. However, an in-depth evaluation by the Institute for 

Energy and Environmental Research found that VEGP is responsible for only a small amount of the 

radiological contamination (principally tritium) in the Savannah River and its organisms (NRC 2007). 

SNC has a comprehensive Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (REMP) at VEGP to assess 

the impact of site operations on the environment. Samples are collected from the aquatic and 

terrestrial pathways applicable to the site. The aquatic pathways include fish, surface waters and 

sediment. The terrestrial pathways include airborne particulates and radioiodine, milk, fish, grass or 

leafy vegetation, and direct radiation. 

No man-made radionuclides were detected in fish samples in 2006. In 2006, several outages 

resulted in an increase of the annual curies of tritium released in liquid effluents from the site. The 

increase in liquid effluents along with drought conditions on the river contributed to a higher annual 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-38 December 2008 

tritium average. Although the drinking water stations are much further downstream, the potential 

dose to someone consuming water near the plant discharge for an entire year (730 liters) would be 

1.47 x 10-2 millirems (mrem) in a year. The potential dose from tritium in the river to an individual 

who regularly consumed fish in the vicinity of the plant would be 3.82 x 10-3 mrem in a year. The 

dose limit to a member of the public due to liquid effluents is 3 mrem per year (SNC 2007d). 

During 2006, analyses were performed on collected samples of environmental media as part of the 

required REMP and showed no discernible radiological impact from VEGP operations, except for 

two instances. Cesium-137 and cobalt-60 were found in indicator samples of river sediment. 

Cesium-137 activity was also detected in control samples, but at lower concentrations than the 

indicator samples. The presence of cesium-137 in these samples could be attributed to VEGP 

effluents, the Savannah River Site (SRS), or from fallout from past weapons testing and from the 

Chernobyl incident. The cobalt-60 activity could be attributable to releases from either SRS or 

VEGP because it was not detected in the control samples. The associated total body dose in a year 

to a member of the public expected to receive the highest dose was less than 0.1 percent of the 

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual annual limit for an operating unit. In summary, the results of the 

2006 REMP demonstrate that the routine operation at the VEGP site had no adverse radiological 

impact on the environment or to the public (SNC 2007d).

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) also conducts its own environmental 

radiation surveillance program of VEGP, which parallels (and partially overlaps) the SNC 

REMP. The purpose of the surveillance program, instituted in 1976, is to detect, identify, and 

measure radioactive material released to the environment from the operation of nine facilities in 

or bordering Georgia. The most extensive monitoring network is focused on an area in Georgia 

adjacent to and downstream of SRS and VEGP. Similar to REMP, air, surface and ground 

water, rain, milk, sediment and soil, fish, game animals, crops and vegetation samples are 

collected by GEPD from the environs surrounding VEGP and SRS. Analyses of environmental 

samples are performed at the Environmental Radiation Laboratory at Georgia Tech. Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources has provided deer from five zones in east central Georgia, along 

the Savannah River. GEPD staff collects several species of sport fish from the Savannah River 

near VEGP and SRS (GEPD 2004). 

The GEPD found elevated concentrations of cesium-137 and tritium in fish samples taken near 

VEGP. GEPD attributed less than 10 percent of the tritium to VEGP; the majority was attributed 

to SRS. Similarly, the cesiuim-137 levels were attributed to SRS. All fish samples, except one 

collected near SRS, were below any significant risk level-of-concern. Cesium-137 and tritium 

were the only man-made radionuclides detected in deer, from samples collected adjacent to 

SRS and they were considered most likely due to SRS releases. GEPD determined that 

consumption of deer near SRS would be unlikely to pose a significant long-term radiological 

risk. Based on these monitoring results, concentrations of VEGP-related contaminants in fish 

and game animals in areas surrounding VEGP have been quite low (GEPD 2004).
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Consequently, no disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts would be 

expected in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of subsistence 

consumption of fish and wildlife. 

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality

There are no Category 1 issues related to groundwater use and quality in 10 CFR Part 51, 

Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to VEGP operations. The Category 2 

issues related to groundwater use and quality during the renewal term that are applicable to 

VEGP are discussed in the sections that follow, and are listed in Table 4-9.

Table 4-9. Category 2 Issues Applicable to VEGP Groundwater Use and Quality 

During the Renewal Term

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix 

B, Table B-1

GEIS

Sections

10 CFR 

51.53(c)(3)(ii) 

Subparagraph

 SEIS 

Section

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Groundwater use conflicts (potable, service water, 

and dewatering; plants that use > 100 gallons per 

minute [gpm])

4.8.1.1 C 4.5.1

Groundwater use conflicts (plants using cooling 

towers withdrawing make-up water from a small 

river)

4.8.1.3 A 4.5.2

4.5.1 Groundwater Use Conflicts, Plants Using > 100 GPM 

For plants that withdraw groundwater to supply potable and service water systems at a rate 

greater than 100 gpm, potential groundwater use conflicts are considered a Category 2 issue, 

thus requiring a site-specific assessment for license renewal review. VEGP uses an annual 

average of approximately 1.05 mgd, equivalent to a rate of 729 gpm. Therefore, groundwater 

use conflicts are a potentially applicable issue for relicensing of VEGP. The GEIS considered 

groundwater water use conflicts to be a Category 2 issue because of the potential for withdrawal 

of groundwater to reduce the volume of groundwater available to other users in the area. The 

Staff independently reviewed the VEGP Environmental Report, visited the site, and consulted 

with Federal and State resource agencies to evaluate the potential for this withdrawal to impact 

the availability of groundwater within the region surrounding VEGP. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-40 December 2008 

4.5.1.1 Groundwater Users Potentially Impacted 

The aquifers located at VEGP are used as a source of water supply for several other 

groundwater users within the local area. Uses of groundwater within the local area include 

municipal water supplies, as well as industrial, domestic, and agricultural uses (SNC 2007a). A 

summary of the local municipalities and industries within Burke County which use groundwater 

for water supply is provided in Table 4-10. 

Table 4-10. Permitted Municipal and Industrial Groundwater Users in Burke County 

Permit User Permitted Withdrawal 

Name 

Number of 

Wells Monthly 

Average 

(mgd)

Annual 

Average 

(mgd)

Permitted Aquifer 

City of 

Waynesboro 4 4 3.5 Cretaceous Sand 

Southern Nuclear 

Operating Co – 

Plant Vogtle 8 6 5.5 Cretaceous Sand

International Paper 2 0.95 0.95 Cretaceous Sand

City of Sardis 2 0.4 0.4 Cretaceous Sand

Source: GDNR 2007b 

Other municipal and industrial groundwater users that may be impacted include the towns of 

Girard and Sylvania, and the Augusta-Richmond Utilities Department (SNC 2007a, GDNR 

2007b). The nearest permitted agricultural supply well is located 3.4 mi northwest of VEGP, 

and the nearest supply well listed in the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) is 

located 4.9 mi to the southwest. Both of these wells produce water from the Tertiary Aquifer 

(SNC 2006b). The nearest permitted industrial supply well is the International Paper well, which 

is 8.5 mi to the northwest of VEGP (SNC 2006b). The nearest municipal supply well is the City 

of Waynesboro system, located 14.5 mi to the southwest (SNC 2006b). Although the nearest 

reported domestic well is located across River Road from the facility (SNC 2006b), most 

groundwater use for domestic purposes in eastern Burke County is from private domestic wells 

that produce less than 10 gpm (SNC 2007a). 

4.5.1.2 Effect of Withdrawal on Groundwater Volume Available 

As discussed in Section 2.2.3, the facility withdraws groundwater through a total of nine 

groundwater supply wells. These wells have a permitted capacity of 5.5 mgd, while the actual 

annual average withdrawal volume since 2000 is 1.05 mgd (SNC 2007a). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

To evaluate the potential impact of groundwater withdrawal, the applicant performed modeling 

to calculate the potential drawdown. The calculation was performed using the following 

assumptions: 

• Average withdrawal rate of 1.05 mgd; 

• The entire 1.05 mgd is withdrawn from well MU-2A, which is the well closest to the 

VEGP property boundary (5,700 ft) and to an offsite production well; and 

• The Cretaceous and Tertiary aquifers are hydraulically connected in a “leaky” aquifer 

scenario.

The result of this calculation was that the drawdown in the aquifer at the closest property 

boundary, in the direction of the nearest offsite well, was 1.9 ft after production of 10 years, and 

remained constant at 1.9 ft through the end of the license renewal term. Because the 

drawdown is relatively small and constant, the applicant concluded that the impact of VEGP 

groundwater withdrawals on groundwater resources would be SMALL (SNC 2007a). Similar 

calculations performed to evaluate the impact of groundwater withdrawal for the potential 

expansion of the facility, using the same withdrawal rate just for Units 1 and 2, also concluded 

that the maximum drawdown at 5,700 ft would be 1.9 ft (NRC 2007). 

To evaluate these estimates, the Staff reviewed the assumptions and performed independent 

calculations of the groundwater drawdown. The Staff verified the assumptions used for the 

calculations were conservative, which results in developing a worst-case estimate of the 

potential impacts to groundwater resources. The independent calculations verified the expected 

amount of drawdown in the aquifer is limited, and therefore the expected impacts to 

groundwater resources are SMALL. 

4.5.1.3 Summary of Impacts Related to Groundwater Use Conflicts 

The Staff has reviewed the potential effect of water withdrawals on the availability of 

groundwater in the local area near the facility. Based on a review of the available information 

relative to potential impacts of the use of cooling and service water on the availability of 

groundwater in the local area, the Staff concludes that the potential impacts from renewal of the 

operating license would be SMALL. 

The staff identified a variety of measures that could mitigate potential groundwater use impacts 

resulting from continued operation of the VEGP groundwater withdrawal wells. Potential 

mitigation measures for the effects of the impact of groundwater use on groundwater resources 

could include reduction in the ground water withdrawal rates or the possible recycling and 

treatment of gray water to supplement potable water supplies. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-42 December 2008 

The staff did not identify any cost benefit studies applicable to these mitigation measures. The 

volume of groundwater withdrawal use for the facility is authorized under a Groundwater Use 

Permit issued by the GEPD, and NRC expects that analysis of the costs and benefits of any 

mitigation measures would be evaluated by GEPD as part of that permitting program. 

4.5.2 Groundwater Use Conflicts, Plants Using Cooling Towers Withdrawing 

Make-Up Water from Small River 

For plants with cooling tower systems that are supplied with make-up water from a small river 

with low flow, potential groundwater use conflicts are considered a Category 2 issue, thus 

requiring a site-specific assessment for license renewal review. Since 1953 (the year of the 

opening of the J. Strom Thurmond Dam), the mean annual flow volume of the Savannah River 

at Augusta (22 mi upstream from VEGP) has ranged from 4,470 to 16,580 cfs (USGS 2007a). 

This volume meets the NRC definition of a small river of 100,000 cfs (3.15 X 1012 ft3

/yr listed in 

10 CFR Part 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A)), resulting in water use conflicts being a potentially applicable 

issue for relicensing of VEGP. VEGP withdraws water from the Savannah River to provide 

make-up water to the cooling tower system. Therefore, groundwater use conflicts are a 

potentially applicable issue for relicensing of VEGP. 

The GEIS considered groundwater water use conflicts to be a Category 2 issue because of the 

potential for withdrawal of surface water to lower the volume of groundwater in the aquifers 

associated with the river, thus reducing the volume of groundwater available to other users in 

the area. The Staff independently reviewed the VEGP Environmental Report, visited the site, 

and consulted with Federal and State resource agencies to evaluate the potential for the 

facility’s surface water withdrawals to impact the availability of groundwater within the aquifer 

system associated with the Savannah River. 

As discussed in Section 4.5.1, the use of groundwater in the immediate vicinity of VEGP is 

confined to small domestic users. These wells, as well as the industrial and municipal 

groundwater users in the area, withdraw water from the Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Water Table 

aquifers. There is no reported use of groundwater from the alluvial aquifer located along the 

Savannah River, which is the only aquifer that could be impacted by water withdrawal from the 

river (SNC 2007a). 

In Section 4.1.1 the Staff calculated that VEGP’s consumptive water withdrawals from the 

Savannah River would constitute, at most, about 2 percent of the flow volume of the Savannah 

River during a severe drought period. This withdrawal rate would not significantly reduce the 

water level in the Savannah River and would not affect recharge from the river into the aquifer 

system. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Based on a review of the available information relative to potential impacts on groundwater 

resources from surface water withdrawals, the Staff concludes that the potential impacts from 

renewal of the operating license would be SMALL. 

The staff identified a variety of measures that could mitigate potential groundwater impacts 

resulting from continued operation of VEGP cooling water system. Potential mitigation 

measures for the effects of the cooling water system on groundwater resources include 

reduction in the use of river water, or additional recycling of cooling water. These mitigation 

measures could reduce groundwater resource impacts by reducing the consumptive use of 

water within the Savannah River. 

The staff did not identify any cost benefit studies applicable to these mitigation measures. The 

volume of consumptive water use for the facility is authorized under a Permit to Withdraw, 

Divert, or Impound Surface Water issued by the GEPD, and NRC expects that analysis of the 

costs and benefits of any mitigation measures would be evaluated by GEPD as part of that 

permitting program. 

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species

Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are listed as a Category 2 issue in 10 

CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue is listed in Table 4-11. 

Table 4-11. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species 

During the Renewal Term

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1

GEIS

Section

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) 

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Threatened or Endangered Species 4.1 E 4.6

The presence of threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the VEGP site is discussed 

in Sections 2.2.5.4 and 2.2.6.4. On August 22, 2007, the Staff contacted the National Marine 

Fisheries Services (NMFS) and FWS and to request information on threatened and endangered 

species and the impacts of license renewal (NRC 2007). In its response, the NMFS provided a 

list of Federally protected species under its jurisdiction for the State of Georgia (NMFS 2007). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-44 December 2008 

The Staff prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) for NMFS that documents its review of the 

potential impacts to shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). The BA provided in Appendix 

E of this SEIS, concluded that the continued operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2 during the 

renewal period is unlikely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon. In a letter dated August 5, 

2008, NMFS responded to the BA, stating the NMFS concurred with the NRC’s conclusion that 

the license renewal is unlikely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon, thereby concluding 

consultation (NMFS 2008). 

4.6.1 Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species 

Of the Federally listed aquatic species mentioned in Section 2.2.5.4.1, the occurrence of one 

species, the shortnose sturgeon, has been confirmed in the area of the site. The shortnose 

sturgeon occurs in the Savannah River both upstream and downstream of the VEGP site. 

There is no designated critical habitat in the vicinity of the VEGP site for the shortnose sturgeon 

or other Federally listed threatened or endangered species. 

Of the rare aquatic species recorded as occurring in the 18 counties crossed by the 360 mi of 

transmission line ROWs, Section 2.2.5.4.2 identified five aquatic species that potentially may 

occur in the ROWs: the endangered shortnose sturgeon and West Indian manatee (Trichecus

manatus) and three Federally listed plant species, the threatened pool sprite (Amphianthus 

pusillus) and the endangered mat-forming quillwort (Isoetes tegetiformans) and harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum). In addition, one Federal candidate species, the Altamaha spinymussel 

(Elliptio spinosa), was identified as having recorded occurrences in two of the counties. As 

described in Section 2.2.5.4.2, none of these species is known to or likely to occur within the 

ROWs. Given that no change in operations, expansion of existing facilities, or disturbance of 

additional land is anticipated in conjunction with the transmission lines, these Federally listed 

aquatic species would not be adversely affected by the transmission line ROWs during the 

renewal period. 

The shortnose sturgeon is the only federally listed aquatic species with the potential to be 

adversely affected by continued operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2 during the renewal period. 

The staff has prepared a BA for NMFS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 

evaluating the potential impacts on shortnose sturgeon related to 1) entrainment and 

impingement at the VEGP intake structure, and 2) thermal and chemical discharges. 

As described in Section 2.2.5.4, shortnose sturgeon are known to occur in the Savannah River 

in the vicinity of the site. There are two probable spawning sites, one 32 RM downstream of the 

VEGP intake and the other 18 RM upstream of the intake. Because the fertilized eggs of 

shortnose sturgeon are demersal and adhere to hard substrates on the river bottom, they are 

less likely to be entrained into the cooling water system than eggs of other species. Shortnose 

sturgeon larvae seek out shelter on the river bottom, and are similarly unlikely to be entrained 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

by the VEGP cooling system. As explained in Section 4.1, the continued operation of VEGP 

Units 1 and 2 would have no impact on the entrainment of fish in early life stages; this 

conclusion is also applicable to the shortnose sturgeon. 

The design and operation of the VEGP Units 1 and 2 intake structures results in velocities 

across the traveling screens of 0.7 feet per second (fps) (0.2 meters per second [m/s]) which is 

slow enough to allow adult shortnose sturgeon to swim away from the intake without becoming 

impinged, especially considering their adaptation to swimming in a riverine habitat with strong 

currents. This is consistent with the conclusion in Section 4.1 that the continued operation of 

VEGP would have no impact on the impingement of fish. 

The VEGP cooling water system discharges blowdown into the Savannah River downriver of 

the intake structure. The NRC staff conducted an assessment of the existing thermal plume 

from Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2007) that shows the area affected by the thermal discharge is small 

compared to the width of the Savannah River. Therefore, the thermal plume from the existing 

discharge does not impede the passage of shortnose sturgeon in the vicinity of the VEGP site 

and would have no impact on the species. In addition, the discharge of chemicals into the 

Savannah River are low in concentration and are further diluted by the river, so that they would 

not affect the shortnose sturgeon (NRC 2007). 

Continued operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2 during the renewal period is not likely to adversely 

affect the shortnose sturgeon and therefore the impacts to the shortnose sturgeon would be 

SMALL.

The staff identified a variety of measures that could mitigate potential impacts resulting from 

continued operation of the VEGP cooling water system. A few mitigation measures for the 

potential effects of the cooling water system on the shortnose sturgeon include: installation of a 

fish return system, derating the facility, and scheduling plant outages during the spawning 

season. These mitigation measures could reduce impacts by increasing survival of any 

impinged fish and limiting the amount of water taken in by the cooling system, thereby reducing 

the likelihood of impingement and entrainment of shortnose sturgeon. 

4.6.2 Terrestrial Threatened or Endangered Species 

As discussed in Section 2.2.6.2, there are seven Federally listed terrestrial species that have 

the potential to occur at or near the VEGP site or within the associated transmission line ROWs: 

the smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi), relict trillium 

(Trillium reliquum), wood stork (Mycteria americana), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides

borealis), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), and flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma 

cingulatum). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-46 December 2008 

The American alligator is the only such species to be found regularly on the VEGP site; 

however, it is not rare itself but has a listing status of "threatened due to similarity of 

appearance" in order to protect the endangered American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). There 

is no known historical documentation of smooth coneflower or relict trillium on the VEGP site or 

in the associated transmission line ROWs, and suitable habitat for the species on the VEGP site 

is unlikely (NRC 2007; TRC 2006). There have been no historical occurrences of Canby's 

dropwort recorded within 10 mi (16 km) of the site, and suitable habitat for the species on the 

VEGP site is unlikely (TRC 2006). Suitable habitat for the flatwoods salamander may exist on 

the site, but there have been no historical occurrences of the species recorded in the vicinity. 

Habitat capable of supporting the flatwoods salamander could be present within the West 

McIntosh (Thalmann) ROW. The flatwoods salamander would not be adversely affected by 

ongoing maintenance of the ROW or by future operations. There is no recorded occurrences of 

red-cockaded woodpecker on or in the vicinity of the VEGP site or associated transmission line 

ROWs, however, potential suitable habitat does exist. The woodpecker is unlikely to be 

affected by future operation of the VEGP site. Wood stork individuals have been seen within 2 

mi (3.2 km) of the VEGP site; however, the closest colony is 28 mi (45 km) away. Additionally, 

the stork was observed at two locations on the Scherer transmission line ROW (TRC 2006). 

The wood stork, in particular, is highly mobile and potentially could forage in wetlands on the 

site. Impacts to the wood stork from operation of the VEGP site would be negligible. 

The NRC Staff reviewed information from the site audit, VEGP’s Environmental Report, other 

reports, and information from FWS. The Staff concludes that the impacts on Federally listed 

threatened or endangered species of an additional 20 years of operation and maintenance of 

the VEGP site and associated transmission line ROWs would be SMALL. 

4.7 Evaluation of New and Potentially 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 also determined that information provided during the public comment period did not 

identify any new issue that requires site-specific assessment. 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. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

4.8 Cumulative Impacts

The NRC Staff considered potential cumulative impacts on the environment resulting from the 

incremental impact of license renewal when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. For the purposes of this analysis, past actions are those related to 

the resources when VEGP was licensed and constructed, present actions are related to the 

resources during current operations, and future actions are those that are reasonably 

foreseeable through the end of station operations, including the license renewal term. The 

geographical area over which past, present, and future actions are assessed is dependent on 

the affected resource. 

The impacts of the proposed action, license renewal, as described in previous sections of 

Chapter 4, are combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in 

the potentially affected area regardless of which agency (Federal or non-Federal) or entity is 

undertaking the actions. The combined impacts are defined as “cumulative” in 40 CFR 1508.7 

and include individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of 

time (CEQ 1997). 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. 

The NRC staff has identified the principal past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions potentially impacting the environment affected by VEGP. These include: the proposed 

VEGP Units 3 and 4 (future); major SRS facilities, including nuclear reactors (past), the D-Area 

powerhouse (present), and the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility (future); and other 

users of Savannah River water. VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be located adjacent to Units 1 and 

2 and would have similar environmental impacts from operation (NRC 2007). 

The principal SRS facilities with a potential to affect the Savannah River due to their water 

withdrawals and discharges historically were the five production reactors (the C, K, L, P, and R 

reactors), a coal-fired power plant (the D-Area powerhouse), and a heavy water production 

facility. During their initial operation, all of these facilities used once-through cooling systems in 

which water was pumped from the Savannah River, used in secondary cooling, and discharged 

into the nearest surface stream, which returned the effluent to the river. Numerous changes 

involving the cooling water systems subsequently occurred, including the construction of two 

cooling ponds and the shutdowns of the reactors. Use of Savannah River surface water by 

SRS varied, with estimated withdrawal rates ranging from 8.5 m3

/s to 26.0 m3/s, depending on 

the number of reactors in operation and the power levels at which they were operating. 

Generally, the amount of water withdrawn by SRS was approximately 9 percent of the average 

annual flow in the Savannah River (DuPont 1987). The heavy water production facility was 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-48 December 2008 

placed on standby in 1982 (DuPont 1987), and all five nuclear reactors were shut down and 

placed on standby prior to 1989 (Reed et al. 2002). Of these SRS facilities, only the D-Area 

powerhouse is currently operational. 

The D-Area powerhouse is a coal-fired power plant that has been in operation since 1952 (DOE 

1995). In October 1995, the SRS power generation and production facilities were privatized and 

transferred to South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G). Condenser cooling water for the 

powerhouse is withdrawn from the Savannah River through one of the SRS intakes located 

upstream of the VEGP site. Heated water from the condenser is discharged at the origin of 

Beaver Dam Creek, which flows south for approximately 3 miles and discharges into the 

Savannah River floodplain swamp, through which the water flows to the river (DOE 1995). The 

D-Area powerhouse currently is the only major SRS facility with the potential to contribute to 

cumulative impacts on the Savannah River in conjunction with the effects of continued operation 

of VEGP Units 1 and 2. 

The MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility is currently under construction in the F-Area of SRS. Site 

preparation began in October 2005, and the facility is scheduled to be in operation by 2016. 

The 41-acre complex will convert an estimated total of 75,000 lbs of weapons-grade plutonium 

to nuclear reactor fuel during its 20-year licensing period (NRC 2005). No surface water from 

the Savannah River or other surface water sources will be used during the construction or 

operation of the MOX facility (groundwater will be used). Discharges from the component 

facility that will process liquid wastes will be discharged to the Savannah River through a 

NPDES-permitted outfall. Constituent concentrations in the river are estimated to remain within 

their current ranges, and impacts are expected to be small (NRC 2005). Thus, construction and 

future operation of the MOX facility at SRS would not contribute to cumulative impacts on the 

Savannah River in conjunction with the effects of continued operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2. 

Users of Savannah River water other than VEGP and SRS are identified below. 

4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts on Water Use and Quality 

Cumulative water use impacts may occur with respect to the amount of water available for use 

from the Savannah River or from local groundwater resources. These impacts may occur if 

operations of VEGP and other facilities are resulting in consumptive water use from the 

Savannah River or from groundwater aquifers. Cumulative water quality impact issues in the 

area near VEGP include thermal stresses within the Savannah River, the release of 

contaminants to the river and to groundwater, saltwater intrusion within the groundwater 

aquifers, and the detection of tritium in the unconfined aquifer. The geographic scope of the 

surface water resources that may be impacted by VEGP include the stretch of the Savannah 

River from Augusta to Savannah, Georgia. Groundwater resource impacts may exist in the 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

local area near the VEGP facility, and also include regional drawdown and contamination 

issues.

4.8.1.1 Water Use Impacts 

The other known users of water from the Savannah River, and their permitted volumes of 

withdrawal, are provided in Table 4-12. A study of water use data near VEGP from 1980 to 

2000 indicated that surface water and groundwater withdrawal rates remained constant 

(Fanning 2003). However, population growth is expected to increase use of the Savannah 

River as a water resource near Savannah, approximately 150 mi downstream of VEGP (NRC 

2007).

Table 4-12. Current, Past, and Potential Future Water Withdrawal Permits within Savannah River Basin 

Facility Location Maximum Daily 

Withdrawal (mgd) 

Monthly Average 

Withdrawal (mgd) 

Georgia

Banks County Board of 

Commissioners 

Banks County, GA 1.00 1.00 

Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company 

(VEGP Units 1 and 2) 

Burke County, GA 

RM 150-152 

127.00 85.00 

VEGP Units 3 and 4 Burke County, GA 

RM 151.2 

127.00 85.00 

City of Waynesboro Burke County, GA 1.5 1.0 

Weyerhaeuser Company Chatham County, GA 30.50 27.50 

Georgia Power Company 

Port Wentworth 

Chatham County, GA 267.00 267.00 

International Paper 

Corporation 

Chatham County, GA 58.00 50.00 

Kerr-McGee Chemical Chatham County, GA 30.00 20.00 

Columbia County Water 

System 

Columbia County, GA 8.00 8.00 

Columbia County Water 

System 

Columbia County, GA 31.00 31.00 

Fort James Operating 

Company 

Effingham County, GA 

RM 44-46 

35.00 35.00 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-50 December 2008 

Table 4-12. (cont’d)

Facility Location Maximum Daily 

Withdrawal (mgd) 

Monthly Average 

Withdrawal (mgd) 

Georgia Power 

Company Plant McIntosh 

Effingham County, GA 

RM 44-46 

130.00 130.00 

Savannah Industrial and 

Domestic Water 

Effingham County, GA 55.00 50.00 

City of Elberton Elbert County, GA 2.20 1.70 

City of Elberton Elbert County, GA 4.10 3.70 

City of Lavonia Franklin County, GA 1.50 1.50 

City of Lavonia Franklin County, GA 3.00 3.00 

City of Royston Franklin County, GA 1.00 1.00 

City of Union Point Greene County, GA 0.45 0.33 

City of Hartwell Hart County, GA 4.50 3.50 

City of Commerce Jackson County, GA 4.50 4.20 

JM Huber - Ready Creek Jefferson County, GA 5.80 4.00 

City of Lincolnton Lincoln County, GA 0.63 0.63 

Turner Concrete 

Company 

Madison County, GA 0.60 0.30 

Thomson-McDuffie 

County W/S Commission 

McDuffie County 3.00 2.00 

Thomson-McDuffie 

County W/S Commission 

McDuffie County 2.00 1.50 

City of Crawford Oglethorpe County, GA 0.43 0.25 

Clayton-Rabun Co. 

Water & Sewer Authority 

Rabun County, GA 2.00 2.00 

Augusta-Richmond 

County 

Richmond County, GA 50.00 45.00 

Augusta-Richmond 

County 

Richmond County, GA 21.00 15.00 

Avondale Mills – 

Augusta Canal 

Richmond County, GA 1.44 0.65 

DSM Chemicals Augusta 

Inc. 

Richmond County, GA 8.20 6.80 

Fort Gordon – Butler 

Creek 

Richmond County, GA 5.40 5.00 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 4-12. (cont’d)

Facility Location Maximum Daily 

Withdrawal (mgd) 

Monthly Average 

Withdrawal (mgd) 

Fort Gordon – Cow 

Branch 

Richmond County, GA 0.70 0.60 

Fort Gordon – Lietner 

Lake

Richmond County, GA 0.50 0.40 

Fort Gordon – Union Mill 

Pond

Richmond County, GA 0.25 0.20 

General Chemical Corp. 

Augusta Plant 

Richmond County, GA 5.65 5.30 

International Paper 

Augusta Mill 

Richmond County, GA 79.00 72.00 

PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, 

L.P.

Richmond County, GA 21.60 10.80 

City of Toccoa Stephens County, GA 6.00 6.00 

City of Toccoa – Lake 

Toccoa

Stephens County, GA 9.00 9.00 

JM Huber Corporation – 

Brier Creek 

Warren County, GA 5.00 2.50 

Thiele Kaolin Company Warren County, GA 0.75 0.50 

City of Washington – 

Clarks Hill 

Wilkes County, GA 2.20 2.00

City of Washington – Old 

Plant

Wilkes County, GA 2.20 1.80

South Carolina 

City of Abbeville Abbeville County, SC 10.6 -

Mohawk Industries Abbeville County, SC 4.3 -

City of North Augusta Aiken County, SC 25.8 -

Graniteville Co. Aiken County, SC 2.0 -

SCE&G Urquhart Station Aiken County, SC 82.6 82.6

Anderson Regional, Six 

and Twenty Creek 

Anderson County, SC 43.0 -

SCE&G 

Area Powerhouse 

Barnwell County, SC 44.3 44.3
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-52 December 2008 

Table 4-12. (cont’d)

Facility Location Maximum Daily 

Withdrawal (mgd) 

Monthly Average 

Withdrawal (mgd) 

Savannah River Site K 

Reactor 

Barnwell County, SC 256.00 256.00 

Savannah River Site L 

Reactor 

Barnwell County, SC 256.00 256.00 

Edgefield County Water 

and Sewer Authority 

Edgefield County, SC 10.0 - 

Beaufort-Jasper Water 

and Sewer Authority 

Jasper County, SC 24.00 24.00 

McCormick CPW McCormick County, SC 2.8 - 

McCormick CPW McCormick County, SC 0.5 - 

Town of Westminster – 

Ramsey Creek 

Oconee County, SC 3.8 - 

Town of Westminster – 

Chauga River 

Oconee County, SC 8.0 - 

City of Seneca Oconee County, SC 18.0 - 

City of Walhalla – 

Coneross Creek 

Oconee County, SC 4.3 - 

City of Walhalla – Negro 

Fork

Oconee County, SC 0.1 - 

Greenville Water System, 

Lake Keowee 

Pickens County, SC 45.0 - 

Town of Pickens – City 

Reservoir/North Fork 

Pickens County, SC 10.6 - 

Town of Pickens – 

Twelvemile Creek 

Pickens County, SC 4.0 - 

City of Easley Pickens County, SC 4.0 - 

Sources: GDNR 2007a, NRC 2007, SCDHEC 2003 

Surface water use in the vicinity of VEGP during the license renewal period is likely to be 

dominated by four users: VEGP Units 1 and 2 at a permitted withdrawal rate of 127 cfs; 

SCE&G’s D Area Powerhouse at 44.3 cfs; SCE&G’s Urquhart Station at 82.6 cfs; and VEGP 

proposed Units 3 and 4 at 127 cfs (NRC 2007). These four users are expected to incur a total 

withdrawal of 380.9 cfs. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, the average flow volume in the 

Savannah River at Augusta is 9,157 cfs (Gotvald et al. 2005), and the expected low flow volume 

during drought periods is 3,800 cfs (UGA 2006). Therefore, the total withdrawal from the four 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

largest users in the vicinity of VEGP is expected to range from 5 percent of the normal volume 

to 12 percent of the low flow volume. These withdrawals are not expected to impact the volume 

of surface water available for other downstream users. Although water availability for other 

users and for aquatic resources could hypothetically be impacted by a more extreme drought 

(flow rate down to 957 cfs; SNC 2006a), these impacts would be the result of naturally low 

precipitation rates, and would not be caused by the water withdrawals. 

As discussed in Section 4.5, the other large-scale users of groundwater in the area are located 

many miles from VEGP, and are unlikely to be affected by groundwater withdrawal at VEGP.

Domestic groundwater users are located near the facility, but modeling of groundwater 

withdrawals from current use (Units 1 and 2) and future use (Units 1, 2, 3, and 4) indicates that 

these withdrawals are not expected to impact the amount of groundwater available to nearby 

domestic users. The NRC staff concludes that the minimal impacts on surface water and 

groundwater resources from the continued operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2, as well as from the 

potential construction and operation of Units 3 and 4, would not contribute to an overall decline 

in the water resources and would be SMALL Additionally, other past, current, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions are estimated to have little impact on water use resources, and 

therefore, the potential cumulative impact on water resources would be SMALL. 

 4.8.1.2 Water Quality Impacts 

Cumulative impacts may occur with respect to the quality of water within the Savannah River, or 

within local groundwater resources. These cumulative water quality impacts may occur if 

operations of other facilities besides VEGP are degrading water quality in the Savannah River 

or in groundwater aquifers. Water quality degradation may result from changes to water 

temperatures, or from the release of contaminants into the water sources. 

Although it was considered to be a Category 1 issue in the GEIS (NRC 1996), and therefore 

was concluded to have the potential only for SMALL impacts in Section 4.1, cumulative impacts 

from heat shock could occur if there were others sources of heated discharge to the Savannah 

River during the license renewal period. Although several other power plants that may 

discharge heated water exist on the Savannah River, these are expected to be far enough from 

VEGP that there is no potential for the thermal plumes to overlap with that from VEGP. 

The future operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4 will result in an additional thermal burden on the 

river at a location near the existing thermal discharge from Units 1 and 2 during the license 

renewal period. In support of the evaluation of the Early Site Permit (ESP) license for VEGP 

Units 3 and 4, the NRC Staff performed modeling of the extent of the thermal plume that may 

result during concurrent operations of all four units. Using a 5o

F temperature difference as the 

standard, this analysis concluded that the maximum possible extent of the plume that would be 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-54 December 2008 

generated would be 97 ft long by 15 ft wide (NRC 2007). Therefore, cumulative impacts from 

the thermal discharges would be SMALL. 

In Section 2.2.3.1, the release of contaminants into the Savannah River from the operation of 

VEGP Units 1 and 2 was found to be minor. All discharges of non-radiological constituents are 

monitored and reported under the NPDES permit (SNC 2007b), while discharges of 

radionuclides are evaluated as part of the facility REMP (SNC 2007d), as well as the 

corresponding GEDP radiological monitoring program (GDNR 2004). Both non-radiological and 

radiological releases were found to be non-existing or minor. Although other facilities in the 

area (such as SRS) discharge radionuclides to the Savannah River, the REMP and GEDP 

programs did not identify any concentrations that could potentially cause unacceptable dose 

rates (SNC 2007d; GDNR 2004). The additional releases from the potential future operation of 

Units 3 and 4 are not likely to change this conclusion. 

Groundwater quality concerns exist in the lower Savannah River basin due to saltwater intrusion 

into the Floridan Aquifer, resulting from long-term withdrawal of groundwater from this 

unconfined aquifer near the coast. In 2006, the GDNR issued the “Coastal Georgia Water and 

Wastewater Permitting Plan for Managing Salt Water Intrusion” (GEPD 2006). This plan 

documented the degradation of groundwater due to withdrawal near the coast, and developed a 

plan for reviewing and managing future groundwater permit applications to reduce the problem. 

Although Burke County is not near the coast, and is not one of the counties where salt water 

intrusion has been documented, it is one of the counties where future groundwater applications 

will be reviewed to verify that a justified need exists, and that the permittee will use aggressive 

and practical conservation and reuse principles (GEPD 2006). The groundwater withdrawals 

associated with the operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2 are already governed by the facility’s 

Water Conservation Plan (SNC 2007e), and future withdrawals to support operation of Units 3 

and 4 will be governed by the Water and Wastewater Permitting Plan for Managing Salt Water 

Intrusion (GEPD 2006). 

Additional cumulative impacts to groundwater quality could occur should the facility release 

radionuclides or other contaminants to the groundwater. As discussed in Section 2.2.3, 

groundwater monitoring has not historically been a requirement of the facility REMP (SNC 

2007d), but measures have recently been taken to implement a monitoring program (SNC 

2007f), impacts only existed in the unconfined aquifer, and were the result of atmospheric 

releases from SRS. There are no known groundwater impacts resulting from VEGP operations, 

and any future releases from current Units 1 and 2, or from potential future Units 3 and 4, are 

likely to be strictly monitored according to this new program. While groundwater impacts are 

known to exist at the SRS, these are not expected to impact the VEGP site across the river. In 

addition, investigation of elevated tritium concentrations in water wells near VEGP starting in 

1988 concluded that the majority of tritium impacts were from SRS (GDNR 2004). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

As described above, the NRC staff concludes that the minimal impacts on water quality from the 

continued operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2, as well as from potential construction and operation 

of Units 3 and 4, would not contribute to an overall decline in the condition of water quality and 

would be SMALL. Additionally, other past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

are estimated to have little impact on water quality and therefore, the potentially cumulative 

impact of water quality would be SMALL. 

4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources 

For the purposes of this analysis, the geographic area considered for cumulative impacts on 

aquatic resources at the VEGP site includes the Savannah River from Augusta to Savannah, 

Georgia, Beaverdam Creek, and the waterways crossed by transmission line ROWs. As 

discussed in Section 4.1, the NRC staff found no new and significant information that would 

indicate that the conclusions regarding the operation of the VEGP closed-cycle cooling system 

are inconsistent with the conclusions in the GEIS (NRC 1996). The GEIS concludes that the 

impacts from issues potentially affecting aquatic resources, such as entrainment, impingement, 

and heat shock, are small for closed-cycle cooling systems. Accordingly, operation of the 

VEGP cooling system would not contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on aquatic 

resources of the Savannah River or its tributaries. 

The current and future conditions of the local aquatic resources are influenced by the 

cumulative effects of past actions. Entrainment and impingement at intake structures of other 

facilities located on the Savannah River, thermal effects from cooling water discharges, 

chemical contaminants, environmental changes associated with changes in regional water use, 

fishing pressures, and habitat modification and loss may have altered the aquatic ecosystem. In 

addition, changes to water and sediment quality from runoff, urbanization, and industrial 

activities may act as stressors on the river. 

As shown in table 4-12, several facilities currently intake from or discharge into the Savannah 

River in the area between Augusta and Savanna, Georgia, including SRS, several electric 

generation facilities located on the Savannah River, a paper mill, and municipal water supply 

systems; the permitted withdrawal volumes are also listed. Also included are facilities that no 

longer operate (K and L Reactors at SRS) and facilities that have a reasonably foreseeable 

potential to operate during the license renewal period (VEGP Units 3 and 4). 

Studies on the entrainment due to past reactor operations at SRS have been conducted 

(DuPont 1987). One study found that in 1983 and 1985, 8 to 12 percent of the ichthyoplankton 

drifting past the three SRS intake pumphouses on the Savannah River were entrained. 

However, the study concluded that these high levels of entrainment might not be significant, 

because: there are many spawning sites for the entrained species in the Savannah River, 

including downstream; ichthyoplankton typically have naturally high rates of mortality; and there 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-56 December 2008 

was no evidence to indicate that numbers of ichthyoplankton in the river were decreasing 

(DuPont 1987). Impingement studies at SRS found very low impingement rates for adult and 

juvenile fish in general (DuPont 1987), and no impingement of juvenile or adult shortnose 

sturgeon was found at SRS (Muska and Matthews 1983). The studies conducted in the 

Savannah River to determine the effects of SRS thermal discharges found no evidence of 

adverse impacts on the river ecosystem (DuPont 1987). These studies and their conclusions 

indicate that the historical effects on the aquatic resources of the Savannah River from the 

operations of SRS facilities were minor, and the current effects of the operation of the D-Area 

powerhouse are much smaller. 

The largest change that is reasonably foreseeable for the area is the possible construction and 

operation of two additional nuclear units at VEGP, Units 3 and 4. If the units are built, the 

potential impacts to the Savannah River could include the intake and consumption of water, the 

discharge of heated effluents, the discharge of chemicals, and the physical impact of some 

bottom scouring from the discharge. However, due to the design of the new units, including a 

closed-cycle cooling system, the impact of the potential construction and operation of the new 

units on the aquatic resources would be minor. 

The NRC staff concludes that the minimal impacts on aquatic resources of the Savannah River 

from the continued operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2, as well as from the potential construction 

and operation of Units 3 and 4, would not contribute to an overall decline in the condition of the 

aquatic habitat and associated species, and would be SMALL. Additionally, other past, current, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions are estimated to have little impact on aquatic 

resources, and therefore, the potential cumulative impact on the aquatic resources would be 

SMALL.

4.8.3 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial Resources 

This section addresses past, present, and future actions that could result in cumulative impacts 

on terrestrial resources, including wildlife populations, vegetation communities of uplands, 

wetlands, and riparian zones, protected species, and land use. For purposes of this analysis, 

the geographic area considered includes the VEGP site, its immediate surroundings, and its 

associated transmission line ROWs. 

Prior to construction of the VEGP site, terrestrial communities supported forest habitat, 

floodplain habitat, riparian areas, wetlands, and waterbodies. Construction of the VEGP site 

caused impacts in the past to terrestrial resources through habitat loss. The clearing of forest 

communities for the construction of the transmission line ROWs resulted in a subsequent 

change to the wildlife and plant habitats present at the time and contributed to habitat 

fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation is a process in which previously contiguous habitats, such 

as forest, become separated, by clearing of land for roads, agriculture, ROWs, and other 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

development (Franklin, Noon, and George 2002). The six current transmission line ROWs, 

totaling 6395 ac (2588 ha) of area, traverse mainly agricultural and forest lands and are 

maintained through a vegetation management program (SNC 2007a). ROW maintenance has 

likely had impacts on the terrestrial habitats, which may include the spraying of chemicals, 

prevention of natural succession stages, an increase in edge species, a decrease in interior 

species, and an increase in invasive species. 

There are four generating stations within 90 mi (145 km) of the VEGP site: the SCE&G 

Urquhart station, 21 mi (34 km) from the VEGP site; the SCE&G D area powerhouse station, 6 

mi (10 km) from the VEGP site; the GPC plant McIntosh, 83 mi (134 km) from the VEGP site; 

and the GPC Port Wentworth, 77 mi (124 km) from the VEGP site. Fossil plants release carbon 

dioxide, mercury, nitrous oxides, and sulfur dioxide, among other air emissions. Nitrous oxides 

and sulfur dioxides can combine with water to form acid rain, which can lead to erosion and 

changes in soil pH levels. Mercury can deposit on soils and surface water, which may then be 

taken up by terrestrial plant and animal species, and poses the risk of bioaccumulation. For 

these reasons, the four generating stations are likely to have current and future impacts to the 

environment on the VEGP site and surrounding area. 

There are three non-power generating plants that are on the Savannah River within the 

geographic area: the International Paper Corporation, the Savannah Industrial and Domestic 

Water plant and the Beaufort-Jasper Water and Sewer authority wastewater treatment plant. 

Chemical discharges and the resulting bioaccumulation from these plants have the potential to 

have impacts on the surrounding area, including vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands. 

The SRS, discussed at the beginning of section 4.8, could have impacts on terrestrial habitats. 

Included in the SRS facility are former nuclear reactors, current operational coal-fired generating 

plant, and a proposed facility to convert weapons-grade plutonium into nuclear reactor fuel. 

SRS, when originally constructed, added runoff from additional roads and impervious surfaces, 

increased development on wetlands and riparian zones, and caused a decrease in the forest 

habitat. Current operations at SRS, through chemical discharges and water withdrawal, could 

also have a cumulative impact on the geographic area. Future actions, such as additional 

construction and maintenance of buildings and facilities could affect the VEGP site and 

surrounding area. 

SNC applied for an ESP for up to two new reactor units (VEGP Units 3 and 4) in 2006 that 

would be primarily located on previously disturbed land adjacent to the two current units (NRC 

2007). In August 2008, NRC staff completed an ESP Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for 

the two new reactors, including a detailed evaluation of the impacts to terrestrial resources, from 

the construction of new facilities and disturbance of additional land both on-and off-site (NRC 

2007). On March 28, 2008 SNC submitted an application for combined licenses (COLs) for two 

AP1000 advanced passive pressurized water reactors. These reactors are proposed to be 

located on the existing VEGP site in Burke County, Georgia. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-58 December 2008 

If the new units are built, one new transmission line ROW would be constructed from the VEGP 

site to a substation west of Augusta, Georgia. This new transmission line would have a length 

of 60 mi (96 km) and its associated ROW would have a width of 150 ft (46 m) (NRC 2007). 

Terrestrial and wetland habitats and the wildlife they support could potentially be affected in the 

areas where these facilities are constructed. 

The NRC staff concludes that the minimal impacts on terrestrial habitat and associated species 

from the continued operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2, as well as from the potential construction 

and operation of Units 3 and 4, would not contribute to an overall decline in the condition of the 

terrestrial resource, and would be SMALL. Additionally, other past, current, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions are estimated to have little impact on terrestrial resources, and 

therefore, the potential cumulative impact on the terrestrial resource would be SMALL. 

4.8.4 Cumulative Human Health Impacts 

Cumulative adverse impacts on human health potentially could occur as a result of thermophilic 

microbiological organisms, electromagnetic fields associated with the transmission lines, and 

radiological exposures. 

 4.8.4.1 Cumulative Thermophilic Microorganism Impacts 

The continued operation of VEGP has a low risk of causing outbreaks from thermophilic 

microbiological organisms associated with thermal discharges (GDHR 2002, 2006; SCDHEC 

2007). Outbreaks of legionellosis, salmonellosis, or shigellosis that occurred in Georgia or 

South Carolina were within the range of national trends (CDC 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002a, 

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007c) in terms of cases per 100,000 population or total cases per 

year, and the outbreaks were associated with pools, spas, or lakes. As part of its evaluation of 

cumulative impacts, the NRC staff also considered the effects of thermal discharges from other 

facilities producing thermal effluents that could promote the growth of thermophilic 

microbiological organisms. Although several other power plants may discharge heated water to 

the Savannah River, including the D-Area powerhouse on SRS, these are far enough from 

VEGP that there is a negligible potential for the thermal plumes to overlap with that from VEGP 

and result in significant thermal enhancement of the thermophilic microbiological organism 

populations in the vicinity of VEGP. SNC has indicated that it intends to add additional nuclear 

power reactors on the VEGP site. The maximum projected cooling tower blowdown from 

operating two new units is about 1.81 cms (64 cfs), which, when combined with the current 

blowdown rate of 0.65 cms (22.8 cfs), is still less than 1 percent of the minimum monthly 

average flow rate of the Savannah River (SNC 2007b). Modeling performed by SNC (SNC 

2007b) using the CORMIX mixing zone model predicted a maximum blowdown temperature of 

33.1°C (91.5°F). Therefore, this discharge would not cause significant thermal enhancement of 

the thermophilic microbiological organism populations in the vicinity of VEGP. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

On the basis of these considerations, NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impacts to 

public health from thermophilic microbiological organisms resulting from the VEGP thermal 

discharge to the aquatic environment or in the vicinity of the site will be SMALL. 

 4.8.4.2 Cumulative Electromagnetic Field Impacts 

The NRC staff has determined that the electric-field-induced currents from the VEGP 

transmission lines are below the NESC recommendations for preventing electric shock from 

induced currents. Therefore, the VEGP transmission lines do not significantly affect the overall 

potential for electric shock from induced currents within the analysis area. The separation 

distances between VEGP transmission lines and other transmission lines are substantial and 

prevent cumulative acute effects from electric-field-induced currents. 

With respect to chronic effects from electromagnetic fields, although the NRC staff considers the 

GEIS finding of “not-applicable” to be appropriate in regard to VEGP, the VEGP transmission 

lines do not significantly contribute to human exposures to extremely low frequency electric and 

magnetic fields in the region. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that the cumulative 

impacts of the continued operation of the VEGP transmission lines will be SMALL. 

 4.8.4.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts 

The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and workers have been developed by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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 10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 190. For the purpose of this analysis, the area 

within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of the VEGP site was included. The radiological environmental 

monitoring program conducted by SNC in the vicinity of the VEGP site measures radiation and 

radioactive materials from all sources, including the SRS; therefore, the monitoring program 

measures cumulative radiological impacts. Within the 50-mi (80.4 km) radius of the VEGP site 

is the SRS. SRS was constructed during the early 1950s to produce basic materials (such as 

plutonium-239 and tritium) used in nuclear weapons. The site covers approximately 310 square 

miles (803 square kilometers) in South Carolina and borders the Savannah River. As part of 

normal operations, SRS also releases radioactive effluents, contributing to the cumulative dose 

impacts to members of the public and the environment. 

Monitoring results for the 5-year period from 2002 to 2006 were reviewed as part of the 

cumulative impacts assessment. In section 2.2.7 and 4.3, the staff concluded that impacts of 

radiation exposure from VEGP’s operation during the renewal term to the public and workers 

(occupational) are SMALL. The NRC and the State of Georgia would regulate any future 

actions in the vicinity of the VEGP site that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-60 December 2008 

SNC has indicated that it intends to add additional nuclear power reactors on the VEGP site. 

However, cumulative radiological impacts from all uranium fuel cycle facilities, within a 50-mi 

(80.4 km) radius of the VEGP site, are limited by the dose limits codified in 10 CFR Part 20 and 

40 CFR Part 190. 

Therefore, the staff concludes that cumulative radiological impacts of continued operations of 

VEGP are SMALL. 

4.8.5 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts 

As discussed in Section 4.4 of this SEIS, the continued operation of VEGP during the license 

renewal term would have no impact on socioeconomic conditions in the region beyond those 

already being experienced. Since SNC has indicated that there would be no major plant 

refurbishment, overall expenditures and employment levels at VEGP would remain relatively 

constant with no additional demand for housing, public utilities, and public services. In addition, 

since employment levels and the value of VEGP would not change, there would be no 

population and tax revenue-related land use impacts. There would also be no 

disproportionately high or adverse health or environmental impacts on minority and low-income 

populations in the region. Based on this and other information presented in this SEIS, there 

would be no cumulative socioeconomic impacts from VEGP operations during the license 

renewal term. 

If SNC decides to proceed and construct one or two new nuclear power plant units at the VEGP 

site, the cumulative short-term construction impacts of this action could be MODERATE to LARGE 

in counties located in the immediate vicinity of VEGP. These impacts would be caused by the shortterm increased demand for rental housing and other commercial and public services used by 

construction workers during the years of power plant construction. During peak construction periods 

there would be a noticeable increase in the number and volume of construction vehicles on roads in 

the immediate vicinity of the VEGP site. 

The cumulative long-term operations impacts of this action during the operation of the new power 

plant unit(s) would be SMALL to MODERATE. These impacts would be caused by the increased 

demand for permanent housing and other commercial and public services, such as schools, police 

and fire, and public water and electric services, by the addition of operations workers at the VEGP 

site during the years of new plant operations. During shift changes there would be a noticeable 

increase in the number of commuter vehicles on roads in the immediate vicinity of the VEGP site. 

Since Burke County is relatively small with less housing and public services available to handle the 

influx of construction workers in comparison to Columbia and Richmond counties, the cumulative 

short-term socioeconomic construction impacts on Burke County would likely be MODERATE to 

LARGE. Over the long-term, cumulative operations impacts on Burke County would likely be 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

SMALL to MODERATE since new operations workers would likely reside in the same counties and 

in the same pattern as the current VEGP workforce. Most of the operations workers would be 

expected to settle where there is more readily available housing in Columbia and Richmond 

counties. 

Because Columbia County is one of the fastest growing counties in the region, the cumulative 

socioeconomic construction and operations impact are likely to be SMALL when combined with all 

of the other ongoing public and commercial development projects in the region. Since the majority 

of the current VEGP workforce and available housing reside in Columbia and Richmond counties, 

most cumulative socioeconomic impacts would be experienced in these two counties. For the 

foreseeable future, members of the public would also continue to experience the cumulative 

socioeconomic impacts from the rapid development of Columbia County. If SNC decides to 

construct one or two new nuclear power plant units at the VEGP site, the cumulative impacts of this 

action would likely be SMALL on the three-county socioeconomic region of influence. 

The specific impact of this action will ultimately depend on the actual design, characteristics, and 

construction practices proposed by the applicant. Such details were not available to the staff when 

this SEIS was originally prepared. On March 2008 the NRC received a COL application for the 

Vogtle site. The NRC staff will prepare a separate NEPA document to analyze the detailed 

socioeconomic impacts of this action at the VEGP site. 

4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal 

Term

Neither SNC nor the NRC staff is aware of information that is both new and significant related to 

any of the applicable Category 1 issues associated with the VEGP operation during the 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. 

Twelve Category 2 issues (including eleven Category 2 issues plus the severe accident 

mitigation alternatives [SAMAs] issue from Chapter 5) 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. For the 12 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. 

Research is continuing in the area of chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, and a scientific 

consensus has not been reached. Therefore, the Staff did not conduct an evaluation of this 

issue.
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-62 December 2008 

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

considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 

other actions. The Staff concluded that cumulative impacts of VEGP license renewal would be 

SMALL for all potentially affected resources. 

4.10 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 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 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operation.” 

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

1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994. "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations." Federal Register.

69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice 

Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register. 

Adkins, C.J. 1984. Equilibrium Thermodynamics, 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press. 

Aserkoff, B., S. A. Schroeder, and P. S. Brachman. 1970. Salmonellosis in the U.S.-a five year 

review. Am. J. Epidemiol. 92:13-24. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1997. Summary of Notifiable Diseases,

United States 1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 45, No. 53. Atlanta, Georgia. 

October 31, 1997. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1998. Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

United States 1997. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 46, No. 54. Atlanta, Georgia. 

November 20, 1998. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

United States 1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 47, No. 53. Atlanta, Georgia. 

December 31, 1999. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2001. Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

United States 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 48, No. 53. Atlanta, Georgia. 

April 6, 2001. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002a. Summary of Notifiable Diseases 

United States, 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 49, No. 53. Atlanta, Georgia. 

June 14, 2002. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002b. Surveillance for WaterborneDisease Outbreaks - United States, 1999-2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 51 

(SS08). Atlanta, Georgia. November 22, 2002. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2003. Summary of Notifiable Diseases -

United States, 2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 52, No. 40. Atlanta, Georgia. 

May 2, 2003. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2004. Surveillance for WaterborneDisease Outbreaks Associated with Recreational Water-United States, 2001-2002. Morbidity

and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 53 (SS08). Atlanta, Georgia. October 22, 2004. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2005. Summary of Notifiable Diseases -

United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 52, No. 54. Atlanta, Georgia. 

April 22, 2005.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2006. Summary of Notifiable Diseases -

United States, 2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 53, No. 53. Atlanta, Georgia.

June 16, 2006.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007a. Online access at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/legionellosis_g.htm on July 27, 2007 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007b. Online access at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/salmonellosis_g.htm on July 27, 2007. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007c. Summary of Notifiable Diseases -

United States, 2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 54, No. 53. Atlanta, Georgia.

March 30, 2007. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-64 December 2008 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC. 

Department of Energy (DOE). 1995. Savannah River Site Waste Management Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0217. 

E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (DuPont). 1987. Comprehensive Cooling Water Study, Final 

Report, Savannah River Plant. Volume I (DP-1739-1) and Volume V (DP-1739-5). Savannah 

River Laboratory, Aiken, SC.

Fanning, J.L. 2003. Water Use in Georgia for 2000 and Water-Use trends for 1980-2000. U.S. 

Geological Survey. Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 106. 

Fish and Wildlife (FWS). 2007. Bachman’s Warbler (Vermivora bachmanii), 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Charleston, South Carolina. 

Franklin, A. B., B. R. Noon, and T. L. George. 2002. “What is Habitat Fragmentation?” Studies 

in Avian Biology, No. 25: 20-29. 

Georgia Department of Human Resources (GDHR). 2002. Georgia Epidemiology Report. Vol.

18, No. 1. Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Branch, Atlanta, Georgia.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2004. Georgia Environmental Radiation 

Surveillance Report 2000-2002. 

Georgia Department of Human Resources (GDHR). 2006. Georgia Epidemiology Report. Vol.

22, No. 8. Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Branch: Atlanta, Georgia. August 2006. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007a. List of Surface Water Permittees. 

Accessed at http://www.gaepd.org/Files_PDF/regcomm/wpb/swdmuind.pdf on December 24, 

2007.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007b. List of Groundwater Permittees.

Accessed at http://www.gaepd.org/Files_PDF/regcomm/wpb/gwdmunind_Sept2005.pdf on 

December 24, 2007 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2008. Letter from K. Anderson-Cordova, 

Historical Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources to L. Lund, Division 

of License Renewal, NRC. Comments on the draft SEIS regarding Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant license renewal. ML081640402. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD). 2004. Environmental Radiation 

Surveillance Report 2000 – 2002. Environmental Radiation Program. Accessed at 

http://www.georgiaepd.org/Documents/radrpt2002.html on October 24, 2007.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD). 2006. Coastal Georgia Water & 

Wastewater Permitting Plan for Managing Saltwater Intrusion. 

Georgia Power Company. (GPC). 1997. “Maintenance of Plant Vogtle Transmission Line 

Corridors.” Georgia Power Transmission Bulletin Number 6-10. Atlanta, Georgia. May 8. 

Gotvald, A. J., J. T. Fisher, C. E. Oberst, and D. L. Calhoun (Gotvald et al). 2005. Water 

Resources Data-Georgia, 2004. Volume 1: Continuous water-level, streamflow water-quality, 

and periodic water-quality data, Water Year 2004, B.E. McCallum and D.V. Alhadeff (compilers): 

Reston, Va., U.S. Geological Survey Water Data Report GA 04-1. 

Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). 2002. Accessed at: 

http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/science/risk-profiles/salmonella-in-poultrymeat.pdf?bcsi_scan_513F405096A035F7=0&bcsi_scan_filename=salmonella-in-poultrymeat.pdf on July 27, 2007. 

Joklik, W.K. and D.T. Smith. 1972. Zinsser Microbiology. Addleton-Century-Croft, New York. 

Joklik, W. K, and H. P. Willet. 1976. Zinsser microbiology, 16th ed. Appleton-Century-Crofts, 

New York. 

Muska, C.F. and R.A. Matthews. 1983. Biological Assessment for the Shortnose Sturgeon, 

Acipenser brevirostrum, LeSueur 1818, The Savannah River Plant. DPST-83-754. E.I. DuPont 

de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, SC. 

National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). 1997. Institute of Electrical and Electric Engineers, 

New York. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon

(Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pages.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Letter from D. M. Bernhart, Assistant 

Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, to R. Franovich, Branch Chief, 

Environmental Branch B, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

NRC. Response to letter of August 22, 2007 from NRC requesting information on federally 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-66 December 2008 

listed, proposed, and candidate species, critical habitat, and designated essential fish habitat in 

the vicinity of VEGP and its associated transmission line corridors. September 11. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Letter from R. E. Crabtree, Regional 

Administrator, to L. Lund, Branch Chief, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, NRC. NMFS concurrence with Biological Assessment prepared by the NRC related 

to the license renewal of VEGP. ML082490542 

New South Associates (NSA). 2006a. Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Proposed 

Expansion Areas at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Burke County, Georgia. New South 

Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. 

New South Associates (NSA). 2006b. Addendum Report: Intensive Archaeological Survey of

the Proposed Expansion Areas at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Burke County, Georgia. 

New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1985. Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

Operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1087, Washington, D.C. 

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1437 Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

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.” NUREG1437 Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Construction and Operation of a Proposed Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the 

Savannah River Site, South Carolina. NUREG-1767, Washington, DC. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Early Site Permit for Two Additional Reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Docket 

Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, NUREG-1872, Washington, D.C. August. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Letter from L. Lund, Division of License 

Renewal, NRC to R. Luce, Historical Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources. Request for comments on the draft SEIS and the preliminary conclusions on 

historic properties. ML080800063. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Portier, C. J., and M. S. Wolfe, eds. 1999. Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure to 

Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Field. Working Group Report, National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. p. 508. 

Reed, M. B., M. T. Swanson, S. Gaither, J. W. Joseph, and W. R. Henry. 2002. Savannah

River Site at Fifty. U. S. Government Printing Office. Accessed at: 

www.srs.gov/general/about/50anniv/50anniv.htm on February 5, 2008.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2003. Watershed 

Water Quality Assessment, Savannah River Basin. October 2003. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007. 2005 

South Carolina Annual Report on Reportable Conditions. Bureau of Disease Control, 

Columbia, South Carolina. April 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2006a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant- Units 1 

and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report Revision 13. Burke County, Georgia. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2006b. “Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early 

Site Permit Application, Part 3 -Environmental Report.” Public Disclosure Version. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007a. Applicant’s Environmental Report 

– Operating License Renewal Stage, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. Docket 

Numbers 50-424 and 50-425. June. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007b. Enclosure 2 to NL-07-2097. 

Annual Environmental Operating Reports (Nonradiological). Contained in: Letter from Tom 

Tynan, Southern Nuclear Operating Company to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

regarding Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-425: Supplementary Environmental Information to 

Support the Application for Renewed Operating License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 1 and 2. NL-07-2097. November 5, 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007c. Enclosure 2 to NL-07-2097. 

Monthly Surface Water Withdrawal Reports, 2006. Contained in: Letter from Tom Tynan, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding 

Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-425: Supplementary Environmental Information to Support the 

Application for Renewed Operating License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. 

NL-07-2097. November 5, 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007d. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2006.
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 4-68 December 2008 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007e. Enclosure 2 to NL-07-2097. 

Groundwater Use Permit 017-0003. Contained in: Letter from Tom Tynan, Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding Docket Numbers 50-424 

and 50-425: Supplementary Environmental Information to Support the Application for Renewed 

Operating License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. NL-07-2097. November 

5, 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007f. Enclosure 2 to NL-07-2097. 

Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Radionuclides. Contained in: Letter from Tom Tynan, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding 

Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-425: Supplementary Environmental Information to Support the 

Application for Renewed Operating License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. 

NL-07-2097. November 5, 2007. 

Third Rock Consultants (TRC). 2006. Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Final 

Report, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and Associated Transmission Corridors. January 16. 

Todar, K. 2007. Todar’s Online Textbook of Bacteriology. Online access at: 

http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net on July 27, 2007. 

Tyndall, R. L., K. S. Ironside, P. L. Metler, E. L. Tan, T. C. Hazen, and C. B. Fliermans. 1989.

Effect of thermal additions on the density and distribution of thermophilic amoebae and 

pathogenic Naegleria fowleri in a newly created cooling lake. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55:722–

732.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. Concepts of the Savannah River Basin 

Drought Contingency Plan. Accessed at http://water.sas.usace.army.mil/drought/dcp.cfm on 

December 24, 2007. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. “Fact Sheets: Census 2000 Demographic Profile 

Highlights”; Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties, Georgia, and South Carolina.” 

Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov on December 27, 2007. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. “P92. Poverty Status in 1999 of Households by 

Household Type by Age of Householder [59] – Universe: Households. Data Set: Census 2000 

Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data.” Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov/ on January 4, 

2008.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007a. Savannah River Flow, Annual Statistics, near 

Augusta, Georgia. Accessed at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/annual on December 24, 2007. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

December 2008 4-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007b. Savannah River Flow near Augusta, Georgia.

Accessed at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv on December 24, 2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007c. Drought Watch - USGS State Information on Drought. 

Accessed at http://water.usgs.gov/waterwatch on September 14, 2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007d. Savannah River Flow near Waynesboro, Georgia.

Accessed at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv/ on December 4, 2007. 

University of Georgia (UGA) Carl Vinson Institute of Government. 2006. Balancing Instream 

and Offstream Uses: Instream Flows, Surface Storage and Aquifer Management. A Report to 

the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Athens, Georgia. 

December 2008 5-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

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-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 off-site 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 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 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all 

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1. 
Postulated Accidents 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 5-2 December 2008 

5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents 

In order to receive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval to operate a nuclear 

power facility, an applicant for an initial operating license must submit a Safety Analysis Report 

(SAR) as part of its 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, Part 50 and Part 100, of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 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. The results of these evaluations are found in license 

documentation such as the applicant’s Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), the NRC staff’s 

Safety Evaluation Report (SER), the Final Environmental Statement (FES), and Section 5.1 of 

this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). A 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 

maximally 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 period. Accordingly, the design of the plant relative to 

DBAs during the extended period 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 

basis of the plant is to be maintained by the licensee under its current license and, therefore, 
Postulated Accidents 

December 2008 5-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

under the provisions of 10 CFR 54.30, is not subject to review under license renewal. This 

issue, applicable to Vogtle Electric Generating Station (VEGP), is listed in Table 5-1. 

Table 5-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the 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. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), stated in its Environmental Report 

(SNC 2007a) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the 

renewal of the VEGP operating license. The NRC staff has not identified any new and 

significant information during its independent review of the VEGP Environmental Report, the site 

visit, the scoping process, or the evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC 

staff concludes that there are no impacts related to DBAs 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, regardless of offsite consequences. In the GEIS, the 

NRC staff assessed the impacts of severe accidents 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 period. 

Severe accidents initiated by external phenomena, such as tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, 

fires, and sabotage, traditionally have not been discussed in quantitative terms in FESs and 

were not specifically considered for the VEGP site in the GEIS (NRC 1996). However, in the 

GEIS, the NRC staff did evaluate existing impact assessments performed by the NRC and by 

the industry at 44 nuclear plants in the United States and concluded that the risk from beyonddesign-basis earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants is SMALL. Additionally, compliance 

with the NRC regulatory requirements under 10 CFR Part 73 provide reasonable assurance that 

the risk from sabotage is SMALL. Even if such events were to occur, the Commission would 

expect that resultant core damage and radiological releases would be no worse than those 

expected from internally initiated events. Based on the above, the Commission concludes that 
Postulated Accidents 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 5-4 December 2008 

the risk from sabotage and beyond design-basis earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants is 

small and additionally, that the risks from other external events, are adequately addressed by a 

generic consideration of internally initiated severe accidents. 

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 groundwater, 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. 

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 VEGP, is listed 

in Table 5-2. 

Table 5-2. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term 

ISSUE—10 CFR PART 51, SUBPART A,

APPENDIX B, TABLE B-1 

GEIS SECTION 10 CFR 51.53(C)(3)(III)

SUBPARAGRAPH

SEIS SECTION

POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

Severe Accidents 5.3.3; 5.3.3.2; 

5.3.3.3; 5.3.3.4; 

5.3.3.5; 5.4; 5.5.2 

L 5.2 

5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) 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 (EIS) 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 VEGP; therefore, 

the remainder of Chapter 5 addresses those alternatives. 

5.2.1 Introduction 

This section presents a summary of the Severe Accident and Mitigation Alternative (SAMA) 

evaluation for VEGP conducted by SNC and the NRC staff's review of that evaluation. The 

NRC staff=s review is available in full in Appendix G; the SAMA evaluation is available in full in 

SNC’s ER (SNC 2007a). 
Postulated Accidents 

December 2008 5-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

The SAMA evaluation for VEGP was conducted with a four-step approach. In the first step SNC 

quantified the level of risk associated with potential reactor accidents using the plant-specific 

probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and other risk models. 

In the second step SNC examined the major risk contributors and identified possible ways 

(SAMAs) of reducing that risk. Common ways of reducing risk are changes to components, 

systems, procedures, and training. SNC initially identified 16 potential SAMAs for VEGP. SNC 

screened out four SAMAs from further consideration because they were determined to provide 

no measurable benefit or to have estimated costs that would exceed the dollar value associated 

with completely eliminating all severe accident risk at VEGP. The remaining 12 SAMAs were 

subjected to further evaluation. 

In the third step SNC estimated the benefits and the costs associated with each of the 

remaining 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 the proposed SAMAs was also 

estimated. 

Finally, in the fourth step, the costs and benefits of each of the remaining 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). SNC found two SAMAs to be 

potentially cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis, and two additional SAMAs to be potentially 

cost-beneficial when analysis uncertainties are considered (SNC 2007a). However, based on 

more realistic estimates of implementation costs and benefits, SNC determined that the latter 

two SAMAs would not be cost-beneficial (SNC 2007b). 

The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs do not 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. SNC's SAMA analyses and the NRC's review are 

discussed in more detail below. 

5.2.2 Estimate of Risk 

SNC submitted an assessment of SAMAs for VEGP as part of the ER (SNC 2007a). This 

assessment was based on the most recent VEGP PRA 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 VEGP Individual Plant 

Examination (IPE) (SNC 1992) and Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) 

(SNC 1995). 
Postulated Accidents 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 5-6 December 2008 

The baseline core damage frequency (CDF) for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is 

approximately 1.55 x 10-5 per year. This CDF is based on the risk assessment for internallyinitiated events. SNC did not include the contribution to risk from external events within the 

VEGP risk estimates; 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 is provided in Table 5-3. The results shown are for 

Unit 1, but are also representative of those for Unit 2. 

Table 5-3. VEGP Core Damage Frequency 

Initiating Event CDF 

(Per Year) 

% Contribution 

to CDF 

Station Blackout 8.2 x 10-6 54 

Loss of Offsite Power 2.4 x 10-6 16 

Loss of Nuclear Service Water 1.7 x 10-6 11 

LOCA 5.0 x 10-7 3 

Loss of DC Bus 4.3 x 10-7 3 

Loss of 4.16KV Bus 4.0 x 10-7 3 

Loss of Condenser 2.8 x 10-7 2 

Steam Generator Tube Rupture 2.8 x 10-7 2 

Other Transients 2.0 x 10-7 1 

Loss of Feedwater 1.8 x 10-7 1 

Turbine Trip 1.4 x 10-7 <1 

Reactor Trip 1.2 x 10-7 <1 

Spontaneous Reactor Vessel Failure 1.0 x 10-7 <1 

Loss of Seal Injection 9.3 x 10-8 <1 

Secondary Side Steamline Break 8.9 x 10-8 <1 

ATWS 6.2 x 10-8 <1 

Inadvertent SI Injection 6.0 x 10-8 <1 

Interfacing Systems LOCA 3.0 x 10-8 <1 

Loss of ACCW 1.4 x 10-8 <1 

Loss of 120V AC Panels 9.8 x 10-9 <1 

Loss of Instrument Air 3.7 x 10-9 <1 

Total CDF (internal events) 1.55 x 10-5 100 
Postulated Accidents 

December 2008 5-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

As shown in Table 5-3, events initiated by station blackout, loss of offsite power, and loss of 

nuclear service water are the dominant contributors to CDF. 

SNC estimated the dose to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the VEGP site to be 

approximately 0.0156 person-sievert (Sv)(1.56 person-rem) per year. The breakdown of the 

total population dose by containment release mode is summarized in Table 5-4. Containment 

over-pressure failures and containment bypass sequences, such as a steam generator tube 

rupture accidents, are the dominant contributors to population dose risk at VEGP. 

 

Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode 

Containment Release Mode Population Dose(PersonRem1

 Per Year) 

% 

Contribution 

Intact containment Negligible <<1 

Containment isolation failure (early) 0.019 1 

Containment bypass - ISLOCA (early) 0.166 11 

Containment bypass - SGTR (early) 0.337 22 

Containment bypass - SGTR (late) 0.198 13 

Containment over-pressure failure (late) 0.587 37 

Basemat melt-through (late) 0.248 16 

Total 1.56 100 

 1One person-rem = 0.01 person-Sv 

 

The NRC staff has reviewed SNC'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 

offsite doses reported by SNC. 

5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements 

Once the dominant contributors to plant risk were identified, SNC searched for ways to reduce 

that risk. In identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs, SNC considered insights from the 

plant-specific PRA, and SAMA analyses performed for other operating plants that have 

submitted license renewal applications. SNC identified 16 potential risk-reducing improvements 

(SAMAs) to plant components, systems, procedures and training. 

SNC removed four SAMAs from further consideration because they were determined to provide 

no measurable benefit or to have estimated costs that would exceed the dollar value associated 
Postulated Accidents 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 5-8 December 2008 

with completely eliminating all severe accident risk at VEGP. A detailed cost-benefit analysis 

was performed for each of the 12 remaining SAMAs. 

The Staff concludes that SNC used a systematic and comprehensive process for identifying 

potential plant improvements for VEGP, and that the set of potential plant improvements 

identified by SNC is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, acceptable. 

5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements 

SNC evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the remaining 12 SAMAs. The majority of the 

SAMA evaluations were performed in a bounding fashion in that the SAMA was assumed to 

completely eliminate the risk associated with the proposed enhancement. 

SNC estimated the costs of implementing the 12 candidate SAMAs through the application of 

engineering judgment, and use of other licensees= estimates for similar improvements. The cost 

estimates conservatively did not include the cost of replacement power during extended 

outages required to implement the modifications, nor did they generally include contingency 

costs associated with unforeseen implementation obstacles. 

The Staff reviewed SNC=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 generally 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 SNC=s risk reduction estimates. 

The Staff reviewed the bases for the applicant=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 licensee’s 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 SNC are 

sufficient and appropriate for use in the SAMA evaluation. 

5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison 

The cost-benefit analysis performed by SNC was based primarily on 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 of NUREG/BR-0058 

states that two sets of estimates should be developed B one at three percent and one at seven 
Postulated Accidents 

December 2008 5-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

percent (NRC 2004). SNC provided both sets of estimates (SNC 2007a, SNC 2007b, SNC 

2008). 

SNC identified two potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs in the baseline analysis contained in the 

ER (using a three percent discount rate). The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs are: 

$ SAMA 2 B Maintain full-time black start capability of the Plant Wilson combustion 

turbines. 

$ SAMA 4 B Prepare procedures and operator training for cross-tying an opposite unit 

diesel generator. 

SNC performed additional analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices and 

uncertainties on the results of the SAMA assessment (SNC 2007a). If the benefits are 

increased by a factor of 2 to account for uncertainties, two additional SAMA candidates were 

determined to be potentially cost-beneficial: 

$ SAMA 6 – Implementation of a bypass line for the cooling tower return isolation valves. 

$ SAMA 16 – Enhance procedures for Interfacing Systems Loss of Coolant Accidents 

(ISLOCA) response. 

However, based on more realistic estimates of implementation costs and benefits, SNC 

determined that the latter two SAMAs would not be cost-beneficial (SNC 2007b). 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. 

5.2.6 Conclusions 

The Staff reviewed SNC=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 SNC 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 PRA, the likelihood of 

there being cost-beneficial enhancements in this area was minimized by improvements that 

have been realized as a result of the IPEEE process, and increasing the estimated SAMA 

benefits for internal events by a factor of two to account for potential benefits in external events. 

Based on its review of the SAMA analysis, the Staff concurs with SNC=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 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. Given the potential for cost-beneficial risk 

reduction, the Staff considers that further evaluation of the two potentially cost-beneficial 

SAMAs by SNC is warranted. However, none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs relate to 
Postulated Accidents 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 5-10 December 2008 

adequately managing the effects of aging during the period 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 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 Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

10 CFR Part 73. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 73, “Physical Protection of 

Plants and Materials.” 

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site 

Criteria.” 

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1437 Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, DC. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C. 

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.” NUREG1437 Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, DC. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, Washington, D.C. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 1992. AVogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1 

and 2, Individual Plant Examination Report,@ November 1992. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 1995. AVogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1 

and 2, Individual Plant Examination of External Events,@ November 1995. 
Postulated Accidents 

December 2008 5-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007a. Applicant=s Environmental ReportOperating License Renewal Stage for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2, Appendix 

E - Environmental Report, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Birmingham, Alabama. June 

2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007b. Letter from Tom E. Tynan, Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk. 

Subject: ASouthern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle License Renewal Application, Request 

for Additional Information Regarding the Analysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives,@

dated December 20, 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2008. Letter from Tom E. Tynan, Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk. 

Subject: ASouthern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle License Renewal Application, Follow 

Up to Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Request for Additional Information, Review 

Questions,@ dated February 1, 2008 

December 2008 6-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

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 off-site 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; 

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 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 Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP). 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 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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

 

(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.
Fuel Cycle 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 6-2 December 2008 

Commission (NRC) 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 

VEGP 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 Renewal Term

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

Off-site radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the 

disposal of spent fuel and high level waste)

6.1; 6.2.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.2.3; 

6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

Off-site radiological impacts (collective effects) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

Off-site radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level waste disposal) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 6.1; 6.2.2.6; 6.2.2.7; 6.2.2.8; 

6.2.2.9; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

Low-level waste storage and disposal 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

Mixed waste storage and disposal 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

On-site spent fuel 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

Nonradiological waste 6.1; 6.5; 6.5.1; 6.5.2; 6.5.3; 

6.6

Transportation 6.1; 6.3.1; 6.3.2.3; 6.3.3; 

6.3.4; 6.6, Addendum 1

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) stated in its Environmental Report 

(Environmental Report; SNC 2007) that it is not aware of any new and significant information 

associated with the renewal of the VEGP operating license. The Staff has not identified any 
Fuel Cycle 

December 2008 6-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

new and significant information during its independent review of the VEGP Environmental 

Report (SNC 2007), the site audit, the scoping process, or evaluation of other available 

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 concluded in the GEIS that the 

impacts are SMALL except for the collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and 

from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal, as discussed below, and that additional plantspecific 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 Table B-1, 10 

CFR Part 51, for each of these issues follows: 

• Off-site radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel 

and high level waste). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that: 

Off-site 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the site audit, the scoping process, 

or evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there are no 

off-site radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term beyond those 

discussed in the GEIS. 

• Off-site 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 

cancer cure in the next one 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 
Fuel Cycle 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 6-4 December 2008 

very small fractions of regulatory limits and even smaller fractions of natural 

background exposure to the same populations. 

Nevertheless, despite all of the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory 

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended) 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the Staff’s site visit, the scoping 

process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that 

there are no off-site radiological impacts (collective effects) from the uranium fuel cycle 

during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

• Off-site 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 off-site 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” (NAS 1995), and that in accordance with the Commission’s Waste 

Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository can and likely will be developed at 

some site 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, 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 × 10-3. 

Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously compromise the 
Fuel Cycle 

December 2008 6-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

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, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(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 of 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 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 high-level waste. 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. 
Fuel Cycle 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 6-6 December 2008 

On July 23, 2002, the President signed House Joint Resolution 87 into law; Public Law 

107-200, 116 Stat. 735 (2002) designates Yucca Mountain as the repository for spent 

nuclear waste. On June 3, 2008, the NRC received an application from the DOE for a 

license to construct and operate a high-level nuclear waste geologic repository at Yucca 

Mountain. The NRC is in the process of reviewing this application and determining 

whether to authorize construction of the Yucca Mountain repository. These 

developments do not represent new and significant information that would alter the 

conclusions in this SEIS concerning offsite radiological impacts from the disposal of 

spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste. 

The EPA developed Yucca Mountain-specific repository standards, which were 

subsequently adopted by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 63. In an opinion, issued July 9, 

2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated 

EPA's radiation protection standards for the candidate repository, which required 

compliance with certain dose limits over a 10,000 year period. 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 high-level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, 

there is some uncertainty with respect to regulatory limits for off-site releases of 

radioactive nuclides for the current candidate repository site. However, prior to 

promulgation of the affected provisions of the Commission's regulations, it was assumed 

that limits would be developed in line with the 1995 NAS report, Technical Bases for 

Yucca Mountain Standards (NAS 1995), 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 would be 100 mrem per year or less. 

Despite the current uncertainty with respect to these rules, some judgment as to the 

1969 NEPA implications of off-site 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the site audit, the scoping process, 

or evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there are no 

off-site radiological impacts related to spent fuel and high-level waste disposal during the 

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Fuel Cycle 

December 2008 6-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

• Nonradiological 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the Staff’s site visit, the scoping 

process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that 

there are no nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the 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 

low-level 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the site audit, the scoping process, 

or evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there are no 

impacts of low-level waste storage and disposal associated with the 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 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 longterm 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 
Fuel Cycle 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 6-8 December 2008 

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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the site audit, the scoping process, 

or evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there are no 

impacts of mixed waste storage and disposal associated with the renewal term beyond 

those discussed in the GEIS. 

• On-site spent 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 on site 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the site audit, the scoping process, 

or evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there are no 

impacts of on-site 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the site, the scoping process, or 

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there are no 

nonradiological waste impacts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

• 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 (megawatt-days per metric ton of uranium) 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 
Fuel Cycle 

December 2008 6-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an assessment of the implications for 

the environmental impact values reported in § 51.52. 

VEGP 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the site audit, the 

scoping process, or evaluation of other available information. 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, “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.” 

10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 63, “Disposal of HighLevel Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” 

40 CFR Part 191. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 191, 

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear 

Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste.” 

Department of Energy (DOE). 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Management of 

Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste. DOE/EIS-0046F, Washington, DC. 

Joint Resolution 87, 2002. Public Law 107-200, 116 Stat 735. 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. 

Washington, DC. 

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

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1437 Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, DC. 
Fuel Cycle 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 6-10 December 2008 

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants.”

NUREG-1437 Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, DC. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Corporation (SNC). 2007. Applicant’s Environmental Report – 

Operating License Renewal Stage, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. Docket 

Numbers 50-424 and 50-425. 
December 2008 7-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

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 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the 

Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002). The 

Staff's evaluation of the environmental impacts of decommissioning presented in NUREG-0586, 

Supplement 1 identifies a range of impacts for each environmental issue. 

Additionally, the incremental environmental impacts associated with decommissioning activities 

resulting from continued plant operation 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 issue could be applied to all plants and whether additional 

mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues were 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. 

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. There are no Category 2 

issues related to decommissioning. 

 

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

 references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1. 
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 7-2 December 2008 

7.1 Decommissioning

Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, 

Subpart A, Appendix B that are applicable to Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) 

decommissioning following the renewal term are listed in Table 7-1. Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) stated in its Environmental Report (Environmental Report; SNC 

2007) that it is not aware of any new and significant information regarding the environmental 

impacts of VEGP license renewal. The Staff has not identified any new and significant 

information during its independent review of the VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the 

site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available information. 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 VEGP 

Following the 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, 10 

CFR Part 51, for each of the issues follows: 

• 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 man-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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the site visit, the scoping process, or 
 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning 

December 2008 7-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

its evaluation of other available information. 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the site visit, the scoping process, or 

its evaluation of other available information. 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 GEIS. 

• 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the site visit, the scoping process, or 

its evaluation of other available information. 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. 

• 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the site visit, the scoping process, or 

its evaluation of other available information. 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. 
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 7-4 December 2008 

• 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the site visit, the scoping process, or 

its evaluation of other available information. 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 Impacts. 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 VEGP Environmental Report (SNC 2007), the site visit, the scoping process, or 

its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there are no 

socioeconomic impacts associated with decommissioning following the license renewal term 

beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

7.2 References

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1437 Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, DC. 

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants.” 

NUREG-1437 Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, DC. 

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 Volumes 1 and 2, Supplement 1, Washington, DC. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007. Applicant’s Environmental Report – 

Operating License Renewal Stage, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. Docket 

Numbers 50-424 and 50-425. 
December 2008 8-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

to License Renewal

In this chapter, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff examines the potential 

environmental impacts associated with alternatives to renewing the Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant (VEGP) Units 1 and 2 operating licenses. NRC staff considers the following alternatives: 

1) denying the renewal of an operating license (i.e., the no-action alternative); 2) implementing 

electric generating sources other than VEGP; 3) relying on conservation to offset a portion of 

VEGP’s capacity; 4) purchasing electric power from other sources; and 5) implementing a 

combination of generation and conservation measures. In addition, NRC staff briefly discusses 

other generation alternatives that they deemed incapable of individually replacing the power 

generated by VEGP. 

The NRC staff evaluates environmental impacts across 11 categories (land use, ecology, water 

use and quality, air quality, waste, human health, socioeconomics, transportation, aesthetics, 

historical and archaeological resources, and environmental justice) using the NRC’s three-level 

standard of significance—SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. NRC developed these standards 

by using the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines. NRC staff outlines these 

standards 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 NRC staff used in this chapter are the same categories NRC staff used in 

the license renewal Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437 Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999)(a), with the additional impact 

category of environmental justice. 

In examining various energy alternatives for this supplemental environmental impact statement 

(SEIS), NRC staff evaluated information presented in the Environmental Report. As part of its 

independent review, NRC staff conducted additional research and analysis that at times led 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.
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-2 December 2008 

conclusions that diverge from the applicant's. Where appropriate, these differences are 

discussed in this chapter. 

8.1 No-Action Alternative 

NRC regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

(NEPA), require NRC staff to discuss the no-action alternative in any NRC environmental impact 

statement (EIS, see 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A(4)). For license renewal, the noaction alternative means that NRC does not renew the VEGP operating licenses. The VEGP 

operating licenses would then expire in 2027, and 2029 causing Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Inc. (SNC) to cease plant operations. 

If, after performing safety and environmental reviews of VEGP’s license renewal application, 

NRC acts to renew those operating licenses, then SNC may choose to continue operating 

VEGP throughout the renewal term. If this occurs, then shutdown of the unit and 

decommissioning activities would be postponed for up to an additional 20 years. NRC staff 

expects that the impacts of decommissioning after 60 years of operation would not differ 

significantly from those that would occur after 40 years of operation. 

NRC staff addresses the environmental impacts of decommissioning in several documents, 

including the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear 

Facilities, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002); the license renewal GEIS (NRC 1996); 

and Chapter 7 of this SEIS. These analyses either directly address or bound the environmental 

impacts of decommissioning whenever SNC ceases operating VEGP. 

These documents do not, however, address environmental impacts that occur after plant 

shutdown and before the actual decommissioning process begins. In the following section, 

NRC staff considers the immediate impacts from plant shutdown. The impacts are summarized 

in Table 8-1. 

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

Impact Category Impact Comment 

Land Use SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because plant 

shutdown is not expected to result in changes to onsite 

or offsite land use. 

Ecology SMALL Impacts from shutdown are expected to be SMALL 

because aquatic impacts are generally reduced and 

terrestrial impacts are not expected because there 

would not be any land use or maintenance changes. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 8-1. (cont’d) 

Impact Category Impact Comment 

Water Use and Quality— 

Surface Water 

SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because surface 

water intake and discharges would decrease. 

Water Use and Quality— 

Groundwater 

SMALL The current plant uses groundwater for several 

services. Shutdown would reduce groundwater 

withdrawals. 

Air Quality SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because emissions 

related to plant operation and worker transportation 

would decrease. 

Waste SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because 

generation of high-level waste would stop, and 

generation of low-level and mixed waste would 

decrease. 

Human Health SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because 

radiological doses to workers and members of the 

public, which are currently within regulatory limits, 

would be reduced. 

Socioeconomics MODERATE to 

LARGE 

Impacts in Burke County because of lost jobs and tax 

revenue. 

Socioeconomics 

(Transportation) 

SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because of the 

decrease in commuter traffic to the plant. 

Aesthetics SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because plant 

structures would remain in place. 

Historic and Archaeological 

Resources 

SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because shutdown 

of the plant would not change land use or disturbance. 

Environmental Justice MODERATE to 

LARGE 

Economic impacts in Burke County include loss of jobs 

and tax revenue, resulting in reduced services available 

to minority and low-income populations in the county. 

• Land Use 

Onsite land use would not be affected immediately by the cessation of operations. Plant 

structures and other facilities would likely remain in place until decommissioning. In the near 

term, transmission lines associated with VEGP are likely to remain in-place until 

decommissioning. In the long run, the transmission lines could be used to deliver the output 

of any new capacity additions made on the VEGP site. As a result, maintenance of the 

right-of-ways would continue as before. Since continued operations would have no 

significant impact on onsite and offsite land use, and as plant shutdown would have little or 

no immediate effect on land use practices, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to land 

use from plant shutdown would be SMALL. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-4 December 2008 

• Ecology 

Ecology would be minimally affected by plant shutdown. VEGP utilizes two natural draft 

cooling towers rather than once-through cooling; the cooling tower makeup requirements 

represent approximately one percent of Savannah River discharges (at Augusta, Georgia) 

under average flow conditions and less than two percent of River discharges under drought 

conditions. As a result aquatic ecological impacts from continued plant operations are 

expected to be SMALL (see Chapter 4) and, therefore, the impacts of the No Action 

Alternative are also expected to be SMALL (but positive). SNC would most likely continue 

to maintain VEGP’s transmission line right-of-ways (ROWs) as discussed above (see Land 

Use). Since the NRC staff determined that continued operation of VEGP into the license 

renewal term would have SMALL impacts to ecology, and since few changes would occur to 

ecological resources following shutdown, the NRC staff concludes that ecological impacts 

from shutdown of the plant would be SMALL. 

• Water Use and Quality—Surface Water 

When the plant stops operating, consumptive water use for cooling tower makeup would 

immediately cease and VEGP would also cease discharging a cooling tower blow-down 

stream to the Savannah River. As a consequence, termination of operations at VEGP 

would have a positive impact to surface water use and quality. Since the NRC staff 

determined in Chapter 4 that continued operation would have a SMALL impact on surface 

water quality and use, cessation of these impacts would also be SMALL. 

• Water Use and Quality—Groundwater 

VEGP currently relies on surface water from the Savannah River for cooling tower makeup. 

However, groundwater is used for nuclear service system cooling, plant water treatment, fire 

protection, potable and sanitary purposes and irrigation. Groundwater is provided from two 

main production wells and a number of secondary withdrawal points. In the recent past, 

groundwater withdrawals at VEGP have averaged approximately 1.05 million gallons per 

day (mgd) while the site is permitted to withdraw 5.5 mgd. If the VEGP license is not 

renewed and SNC, as a result, shuts the plant down, groundwater needs would significantly 

diminish but would not entirely cease. Since NRC staff determined in Chapter 4 that 

continued operation of VEGP would have no impact on groundwater resources, a small, 

positive impact from plant shutdown would result in a SMALL overall impact to groundwater 

use and quality from plant shutdown. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

• Air Quality 

When the plant stops operating, there would be a reduction in emissions from activities 

related to plant operation such as use of diesel generators and workers’ vehicles. In 

Chapter 4, NRC staff determined that these emissions would have a SMALL impact on air 

quality during the renewal term. Therefore, if the emissions decrease, the impact to air 

quality would also decrease and would be SMALL. 

• Waste 

When the plant stops operating, it would stop generating high-level waste, and it would 

generate less low-level and mixed waste from plant operation and maintenance. Since the 

NRC staff determined in Chapter 6 that continued low-level and mixed waste generation 

would have a SMALL impact, a reduction in waste generation would have an even smaller 

impact. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that waste impacts from plant shutdown would 

be SMALL, and less than during operation. 

• Human Health 

After shutdown the plant would release smaller amounts of radioactive gaseous and liquid 

materials to the environment than it did while operating. In addition, the variety of potential 

accidents at the plant would decline to a limited set associated with shutdown events and 

fuel handling. Since NRC staff determined in Chapter 4 that continued plant operations 

would have a SMALL impact on human health, and since NRC staff also determined in 

Chapter 5 that potential accidents during the renewal term would have a SMALL impact, 

then reducing the amounts of gaseous and liquid releases while simplifying and limiting the 

types of potential accidents the plant may experience would further reduce impacts to 

human health. Impacts to human health from plant shutdown, then, are SMALL. 

• Socioeconomics 

Should the VEGP operating licenses not be renewed, the loss of local tax revenues could 

have a MODERATE to LARGE socioeconomic impact within Burke County. These effects 

could be somewhat offset by the relatively long term decommissioning activities that would 

accompany shut down. Construction of an alternative energy technology at the site would 

also tend to offset socioeconomic impacts, as discussed in the following sections. The NRC 

staff determined in Chapter 4 that continued plant operations would have no effect on 

socioeconomic conditions in the region since the impacts from plant operations have long 

since become a part of Burke County and the region’s socioeconomic condition. See 

Appendix J to NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002), for additional discussion of the 

potential socioeconomic impacts of plant decommissioning. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-6 December 2008 

• Transportation 

Cessation of operations would be accompanied by reduced traffic in the vicinity of the plant. 

This reduction occurs largely because the post-shutdown workforce would be smaller than 

the operating workforce. Shipments of materials to and from the plant would also decrease. 

As the NRC staff determined in Chapter 4 that continued operational transportation impacts 

would have a SMALL impact, a reduction in these effects means that impacts remain 

SMALL if the plant shuts down. 

• Aesthetics 

Plant structures and other facilities are likely to remain in place until decommissioning. 

Plumes from the cooling towers would cease or greatly decrease after shutdown. 

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the aesthetic impacts of plant closure would be 

SMALL. 

• Historic and Archaeological Resources 

Onsite lands and underlying archaeological resources would not be affected immediately by 

shutdown, as plant structures and other facilities are likely to remain in place until 

decommissioning. SNC may continue to maintain the transmission line corridors leading 

from VEGP, at least through the period of decommissioning, and continue that maintenance 

activity as part of the process of developing alternative capacity at the site. As NRC staff 

determined in Chapter 4 that these practices would have a SMALL impact on historic and 

archaeological resources, then continuation of these practices after plant shutdown would 

also have SMALL impacts. 

• Environmental Justice 

Impacts to minority and low-income populations if VEGP ceased operation would depend on 

the number of jobs and the amount of tax revenues lost by the communities surrounding the 

power plant. Closure of VEGP would reduce the overall number of jobs (there are currently 

862 permanent positions at the plant) and the tax revenue attributed to plant operations 

(approximately 75 percent of Burke County’s tax revenues are from VEGP). Since VEGP’s 

tax payments represent such a significant percentage of Burke County’s total annual 

property tax revenue, it is likely that economic impacts would range from MODERATE to 

LARGE should VEGP be shutdown and closed. Therefore, minority and low-income 

populations in the vicinity of VEGP could experience a disproportionately high and adverse 

socioeconomic impact from plant shutdown. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

8.2 Alternative Energy Sources 

In this section, NRC staff discusses the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal 

that would meet system energy needs after the expiration of VEGP’s current licenses or 

whenever SNC elects to cease operating VEGP. These alternatives include alternate sources 

of electric power (generation alternatives and purchased power), as well as energy 

conservation. If NRC renews the VEGP operating licenses, the decision of whether to continue 

operating the plant or whether to rely on an alternative is left to SNC and state-level energy 

decision makers. 

The NRC staff considers the following generation alternatives in detail: 

• Supercritical coal-fired generation at the VEGP site and at an alternate site (Section 

8.2.1) 

• Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) coal-fired generation at the VEGP site 

and at an alternate site (Section 8.2.2) 

• Natural gas combined-cycle generation at the VEGP site and at an alternate site 

(Section 8.2.3) 

• New nuclear generation at the VEGP site and an alternate site (Section 8.2.4) 

The NRC staff considers the following non-generation alternatives to license renewal in detail: 

• Utility-sponsored conservation(b) programs (Section 8.2.5) 

• Purchased power (Section 8.2.6) 

The order of alternatives does not imply which alternatives the NRC staff considers most likely 

or most environmentally benign. 

The NRC staff addresses other alternatives considered in Section 8.2.7. Section 8.2.8 presents 

the environmental impacts of a combination of alternatives that the NRC staff determined to be 

insufficient as stand-alone alternatives to VEGP license renewals, but could potentially replace 

VEGP when presented collectively. 

Each year the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a branch of the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE), issues the updated Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). The AEO is a forecasting 

document that analyzes trends and issues in energy production, supply, and consumption in 

 

(b) NRC staff notes that conservation typically refers to all programs that reduce energy consumption, 

while energy efficiency refers to programs that reduce consumption without reducing services. For 

this section, NRC staff will use the terms interchangeably. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-8 December 2008 

order to project future energy developments. The projections in the AEO vary from year to year 

based on current events. Its comprehensiveness and policy-neutrality is unique among 

forecasting documents. In the Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030, EIA 

projects a continued nationwide increase in energy consumption and generating capacity 

(DOE/EIA 2007a). Early in this period, through 2010, EIA projects that gas-fired combinedcycle or combustion turbine technology will account for most generating capacity additions. As 

natural gas prices increase, coal-fired generation begins to account for the largest share of 

capacity additions. EIA projects that coal will account for the majority (54 percent) of new 

capacity through 2030. EIA also projects that advanced coal technologies, such as coal-fueled 

integrated gasification combined-cycle generation, will decline in cost relative to improved 

natural-gas-fired combined-cycle technologies. EIA projections indicate that U.S. generators 

will increase total nuclear and renewable generation capacity throughout the forecast term, due 

partly to tax credits and other incentives. As a proportion of installed capacity, however, nuclear 

generation will decrease slightly through 2030, while renewables share will remain relatively 

constant (DOE/EIA 2007a). EIA indicates that changes in electricity generation costs, which are 

highly dependent on emissions-control costs, will drive utilities’ choices in generating 

technologies. 

EIA asserts that oil-fired plants will account for virtually no new generation capacity in the U.S. 

through 2030, and furthermore projects a 0.6 percent annual decrease in electric sector oil 

consumption because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies relative to other technologies 

(DOE/EIA 2007a). Given EIA’s analysis, NRC staff will not consider an oil-fired alternative for 

VEGP. 

VEGP has an approximate net electrical output of 2,686 megawatts electric (MW[e]) total. To 

simplify the alternatives analysis in the Environmental Report, SNC developed a set of fossilfueled alternatives that would approximately, but not completely; replace this capacity (SNC 

2007a). The staff, however, as part of their independent review of the Environmental Report, 

has decided to consider alternatives that have the capability to deliver the approximate net 

electrical output of the VEGP units and, thus, has not followed the approach taken in the 

Environmental Report. This applies to the gas-fired, supercritical coal-fired, and integrated 

gasification combined-cycle coal-fired alternatives(c) evaluated in the following sections. 

Given that the VEGP is situated on a 3,169-acre (ac) site, along the Savannah River, and the 

fact that considerable power plant infrastructure is already in-place there, including transmission 

facilities, administrative facilities and rail link, the NRC staff believes that the site can readily 

 

(c) While supercritical coal-fired plants rely on conventional boiler technology operated at higher 

pressures and temperatures, integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) plants use coal (or other 

solid or liquid feedstock) to produce syngas that burns in a combined-cycle plant similar to that used 

for natural gas. Thus, an approximation of this sort is also necessary for the IGCC alternative. 

Boiler-based coal plants of this size are typically built-to-specifications.
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

support construction and operation of the alternatives evaluated herein. NRC staff notes that 

SNC’s plans for two additional nuclear units at the VEGP site would encumber some land area 

that could potentially be used for the alternatives being considered herein. However, even 

accounting for those new nuclear units, sufficient land should be available for the development 

of alternatives. In addition to considering impacts from alternatives developed at the VEGP site, 

the NRC staff will also generally characterize impacts for alternate sites. These sites could 

potentially be located on either previously undisturbed land (i.e. greenfield sites) or areas 

previously used for various commercial or industrial purposes (i.e. brownfield sites). Similarly, 

alternative sites may be located near either urban or rural areas. As such, the potential impacts 

outlined for alternative sites capture a range of corresponding impacts. 

Although the operating license renewal period is only 20 years, NRC staff analyzed the impact 

of operating the coal, gas, and nuclear alternatives for 40 years, as this is a reasonable 

projection of the operating life of such plants. This means that only half of certain impacts (land 

use for waste disposal and coal mining, for example) are directly attributable to the 20 year 

license renewal period. 

8.2.1 Supercritical Conventional Coal-Fired Generation 

In this section, NRC staff analyzes new supercritical coal-fired boilers as the first of two coalfired alternatives. Supercritical coal-fired plants are similar to other coal burners except they 

operate at somewhat higher temperatures and pressures, which allows for greater thermal 

efficiency. Supercritical coal-fired boilers are commercially proven and represent an increasing 

proportion of new coal-fired power plants. In Section 8.2.2, NRC staff presents the second coal 

based alternative, i.e., an IGCC plant. 

NRC staff considers constructing supercritical coal-fired power plants at both the VEGP site and 

at an alternate site. Developing a coal-fired facility at an alternate site may involve 

developments not needed at VEGP such as new transmission lines connecting the alternate site 

to the SNC system and a new rail connection for coal and lime deliveries. The impacts of 

building and operating a transmission and rail corridor would vary depending on location of the 

alternate site. 

NRC staff’s analysis assumes a plant efficiency or heat rate of 8,844 British thermal units (BTU) 

per kilowatt-hour (kWh), the value EIA reports as the heat rate for new, scrubbed coal plants in 

2005 (DOE/EIA 2006). Additionally, the staff assumes that the alternative technologies 

evaluated herein would have to be capable of providing the full net electrical capacity of VEGP 

(2,686 MW[e]). 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-10 December 2008 

To do so, three units having an approximate gross capacity of 949 MW(e) (895 MW[e] net 

output per unit), would need to be constructed when account is taken of the approximately 6 

percent plant output that would be needed on site. 

The supercritical coal-fired facility with a gross output of approximately 2,847 MW(e) would 

consume approximately 7 million tons per year (yr) of bituminous coal with an ash content of 

approximately 8.83 percent (based on averages for Georgia coal consumption; (DOE/EIA 

2007b) and sulfur content of 0.8 percent. As in SNC’s analysis, NRC staff assumed a capacity 

factor(d) of 0.85 for the supercritical coal-fired alternative (SNC 2007b). 

At the VEGP site, a coal-fired alternative would likely receive coal and lime (used to scrub sulfur 

oxides from flue gases) by rail. The coal-fired option would likely receive between 1 and 2 unit 

trainloads of coal per day (assuming each train has 100 cars with 100 tons of coal per car). 

SNC would have to improve VEGP’s existing rail connection to facilitate these deliveries. 

Impacts from improving the rail spur onto the VEGP site would be SMALL since the rail line is 

already in-place and it is not expected that ROW acquisitions would be necessary. 

In evaluating the supercritical coal-fired alternative, the NRC staff assumed that a new plant 

located at either the VEGP site or an alternate site would use a closed-cycle cooling system, as 

is the case for the two nuclear units at VEGP. NRC staff discusses the overall impacts of the 

supercritical coal-fired generating alternative in the following sections and summarizes these 

impacts in Table 8-2. As mentioned, the extent of impacts at an alternate site would depend on 

the location and characteristics of the particular site selected. 

Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Supercritical Conventional Coal-Fired Generation at 

VEGP Site and at an Alternate Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Land Use MODERATE Uses approximately 800 

additional on-site acres for 

plant and waste disposal; 

additional offsite land 

impacts for coal and 

limestone mining affects 

thousands of acres. 

MODERATE 

To LARGE 

Uses approximately 

1,340 acres for plant, 

offices, parking, and 

waste disposal; additional 

impacts from 

transmission line, and rail 

spur, as well as coal and 

limestone mining. 

 

(d) 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. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 8-2. (cont’d) 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Ecology MODERATE Uses undeveloped areas 

at current VEGP site, plus 

existing rail and 

transmission corridors; 

impacts also dependent on 

land used for coal and 

limestone mining. 

MODERATE 

to LARGE 

Impact depends on 

location and ecological 

value of site, surface 

water body used for 

intake and discharge, 

and transmission line and 

rail routes; may cause 

habitat loss and 

fragmentation, as well as 

reduced productivity and 

biological diversity; 

impact also dependent 

on coal and limestone 

mining. 

Water Use and 

Quality—Surface 

Water 

SMALL Uses existing cooling tower 

system. Reduced heat 

rate allows the supercritical 

coal-fired alternative to use 

less water than the existing 

plant. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

With closed-cycle 

cooling, the impact would 

likely be SMALL, though 

it would depend on the 

volume of water 

withdrawn and 

discharged and the 

characteristics of the 

surface water body. 

Water Use and 

Quality—

Groundwater 

SMALL A new plant onsite would 

likely continue to rely on 

groundwater for only 

miscellaneous plant 

services. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impacts would depend on 

the volume of water 

withdrawn and 

discharged and the 

characteristics of the 

aquifers, though 

groundwater would not 

likely be used for cooling 

tower makeup purposes. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-12 December 2008 

Table 8-2. (cont’d) 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Air Quality MODERATE • Sulfur oxides 

(5,600 tons/yr) 

• Nitrogen oxides 

(1,820 tons/yr) 

• Total suspended 

particulates 

(320 tons/yr) 

• PM10

(73 tons/yr) 

• Carbon monoxide 

(1,820 tons/yr) 

• Small amounts of 

mercury and other 

hazardous air 

pollutants. 

MODERATE Potentially the same 

impacts as the VEGP 

site, although pollutioncontrol standards may 

vary. 

Waste MODERATE Total waste production 

would be approximately 

64,000 tons /yr of ash 

(after 90 percent recycling) 

and 355,000 tons/yr 

scrubber sludge requiring 

approximately 220 on-site 

acres for disposal over the 

40-year life of the plant. 

The plant would also 

generate relatively small 

amounts of conventional, 

hazardous, and universal 

wastes during operation. 

MODERATE Same impacts as at 

VEGP site; waste 

disposal constraints may 

vary. 

Human Health SMALL Impacts are uncertain, but 

considered SMALL as the 

plant would comply with 

health-informed standards 

in the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and other relevant 

emissions regulations. 

SMALL Similar impacts to those 

at the VEGP site. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 8-2. (cont’d) 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Socioeconomics SMALL to 

MODERATE 

During construction, 

impacts would be SMALL 

to MODERATE. Up to 

2,000 workers would be 

onsite during the peak 

period of construction, 

followed by a reduction 

from the current VEGP 

work force of 862. Tax 

base would be preserved 

and, therefore, long term 

impacts considered to be 

SMALL to MODERATE. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Construction impacts 

depend on location, but 

would be MODERATE to 

LARGE if the plant is 

located in an area that is 

rural. Burke County will 

lose approximately 75 

percent of tax revenue 

resulting in a potentially 

MODERATE to LARGE 

impact to the County. 

Employment loss would 

be offset over time as 

regional economy grows. 

Impacts near an urban 

area may be SMALL. 

Socioeconomics 

(Transportation) 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Construction phase 

transportation impacts 

would be SMALL to 

MODERATE. 

For rail transportation of 

coal and lime, the impacts 

would likely affect traffic on 

roadways along rail 

corridor at grade crossings. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Transportation impacts 

could be SMALL to 

LARGE, during 

construction. 

For rail transportation of 

coal and lime, the impact 

is likely to be SMALL to 

LARGE depending on the 

routing of coal trains. 

Aesthetics SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Some aesthetic impact due 

to tall stacks. Current site 

usage mitigates impacts. 

Noise impacts of nighttime 

coal and lime delivery via 

rail to VEGP site. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

The greatest impacts 

would be from new 

transmission lines, plant 

stacks, and rail lines to 

transport coal and lime. 

Impacts range from 

SMALL to LARGE 

depending on the nature 

of the site. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-14 December 2008 

Table 8-2. (cont’d) 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Historic and 

Archeological 

Resources 

SMALL Most construction would 

affect previously 

developed parts of the 

VEGP site; a cultural 

resource inventory and 

mitigation measures 

would minimize any 

impacts on undeveloped 

lands. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

An alternate location 

would necessitate 

cultural resource studies; 

construction would likely 

avoid highly sensitive 

areas. Impacts would be 

managed or mitigated. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL Impacts on minority and 

low-income communities 

would be similar to those 

experienced by the 

population as a whole, 

which are SMALL. Some 

additional impacts on 

rental housing may occur 

during construction, 

though these likely would 

not be noticeable. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Impacts to minority and 

low income populations 

in Burke County would be 

due to lost tax revenue 

based services and jobs. 

Impacts at alternate sites 

would vary depending on 

population distribution 

and location of the site. 

• Land Use 

Using the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) 2007 Coal Power Plant Database 

(NETL 2007) the NRC staff evaluated land requirements for large (greater than 700 MW[e]) 

coal-fired generating stations. Land requirements were estimated for each large generating 

station using aerial photography available on-line. As a result of that evaluation NRC staff 

noted that there appears to be little correlation between plant area and plant capacity. For 

example, an Ohio plant, W.H. Zimmer, with a net capacity of 1,426 MW(e) has an 

approximate footprint of 111 acres (0.08 ac/MW[e]) while the Shelburne Station (Minnesota), 

with a net capacity of 809 MW(e), has an approximate footprint of 1,937 acres (2.4 

ac/MW[e]). Inspection of various aerial photos led to the conclusion that plant area was 

dependent on a number of factors including cooling system type, the extent of on-site coal 

storage, waste management practices, and the method of fuel delivery, among others. 

However, by excluding outliers, and plotting data from over 40 relatively large capacity coal 

burners, it was determined that typically large coal burning generating stations have land 

area requirements in the range of 0.5 to 1 ac/MW(e) (net). 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Applying this result to a coal-fired replacement for VEGP (2,686 MW[e] net) results in land 

requirements in the range of 1,340 to 2,690 acres. In their Environmental Report, SNC 

estimated that about 800 acres would be needed at the VEGP site to accommodate a coal 

fired alternate. Given that some of the existing infrastructure at VEGP could be used to 

support operations of a coal fired complex, (cooling tower system, switch yard, offices, 

transmission lines, etc.), the 800 acre estimate by SNC is generally consistent with the lower 

limit of spatial requirements derived by the NRC staff. Thus, for the present analysis, it will 

be assumed that land requirements for a coal fired alternate at the VEGP site are 

approximately 800 acres and at an alternate site about 1,340 acres would be needed (based 

on the staff’s lower limit). 

In the GEIS, the NRC staff estimated that supplying coal to a 1,000 MW(e) plant would 

disturb approximately 22,000 acres (8,900 hectare [ha]) of land for mining the coal and 

disposing of the wastes during the 40-year operational life. A coal-fired alternative to 

replace VEGP (a 2,686 MW[e] capacity plant) would thus require approximately 59,000 

acres (23,900 ha) of land. Coal mining would likely take place in existing coal-mining 

regions and in accordance with applicable mining regulations. In the GEIS, the NRC staff 

estimated that approximately 2,700 acres would be affected by the mining and processing of 

uranium over the operating life of a plant with VEGP’s capacity. 

 

Overall, when consideration is given to the extent of land disturbance associated with both 

power plant site development and coal mining operations, the NRC staff concludes that 

impacts to land use of developing a coal-fired alternate to VEGP would be MODERATE if 

the development occurs at the VEGP site, and MODERATE to LARGE if the development 

occurs at an alternate site. 

• Ecology 

Locating a coal-fired plant at the VEGP site would affect terrestrial ecological resources 

since much of the area available for development is covered with secondary growth forest 

(possibly tree plantations) and old field growth. Also several streams with abutting wetlands 

meander across the site. However, the undeveloped portions of the VEGP site are not 

unique in terms of vegetative cover or stream habitat within the larger Savannah River 

drainage basin. Development of a three unit coal burning facility at the site that utilizes 

existing infrastructure to the maximum extent practicable is expected to generate terrestrial 

ecological impacts that are best characterized as MODERATE. At an alternate site, the 

need to clear land for a transmission line and potentially a rail corridor would increase the 

scale of terrestrial impacts. At an alternate site the NRC staff characterizes development of 

a coal fired replacement for VEGP as having MODERATE to LARGE impacts depending on 

the length of transmission and rail corridors required. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-16 December 2008 

Aquatic impacts of a supercritical coal-fired alternative would likely be similar to impacts of 

the existing VEGP, facility as the on-site option could make use of the existing cooling, 

intake and outflow structures. The improved heat rate of the coal-fired alternative compared 

to the existing nuclear facility means that less cooling water would be withdrawn from the 

Savannah River and blowdown flows back to the River would also be reduced. Based on 

the staff’s finding that continued operation of the existing VEGP unit would result in SMALL 

impacts to aquatic ecology, it is reasonable to conclude the supercritical coal-fired option 

would also result in SMALL aquatic ecology impacts. A coal plant at an alternate site would 

likely also make use of cooling towers, and would incur similar aquatic impacts, which would 

range from SMALL to MODERATE, depending on characteristics of the water body used for 

cooling makeup. 

• Water Use and Quality 

Surface Water. NRC staff assumes that the coal-fired alternate at the VEGP site would use 

cooling towers for condenser cooling (possibly re-using the existing towers) and rely on the 

Savannah River for makeup. Given the improved heat rate of the supercritical alternative, it 

would require less cooling makeup than the existing nuclear plant and blowdown flows to 

the Savannah would also be reduced. Surface-water impacts would be SMALL, and slightly 

smaller than the proposed action. 

The supercritical coal-fired alternative at an alternate site would likely use a closed-cycle 

cooling system with cooling towers. For alternate sites, impacts to surface waters would 

depend on the volume of water needed for makeup and the characteristics of the water body 

from which water is withdrawn. Intake from and discharge to any surface body of water 

would be regulated by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), Watershed 

Protection Branch. These impacts would range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

Groundwater. VEGP currently uses approximately 1.05 mgd of groundwater for a variety of 

plant services and a coal-fired alternative on the VEGP site would likely continue to rely on 

groundwater for various auxiliary services. On site management of coal piles and coal 

wastes could, however, have an impact on groundwater resources should runoff from these 

materials storage and disposal facilities result in discharges of contaminants to groundwater. 

NRC staff expects, however, that runoff and other potential discharges from on-site coal 

operations would be regulated by GDNR in a manner similar to regulation of discharges to 

surface waters. Consequently, impacts of a coal-fired alternative at the VEGP site are 

expected to be SMALL. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

At an alternate site, impacts to groundwater would depend on the extent to which the plant 

would utilize groundwater. NRC considers it unlikely that a coal-fired plant would depend on 

groundwater for cooling purposes and would likely use groundwater for only domestic and 

other auxiliary purposes. Consequently, the impact to groundwater resources at an 

alternate could be SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the nature of the aquifers 

occurring there. 

• Air Quality 

The air-quality impacts of coal-fired generation can be substantial and include emissions of 

sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates, carbon monoxide (CO), hazardous 

air pollutants such as mercury, and naturally occurring radioactive materials. Many of these 

pollutants, however, can be effectively controlled by various technologies. 

Burke County, and the entire Augusta-Aiken Air Quality Control Region within which the 

county is situated, meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards established by U.S. 

Environmental Protective Agency (EPA) under the CAA (42 United States Code [USC] 

7491). A new coal-fired generating plant developed at the VEGP site would need to comply 

with the new source performance standards for coal-fired plants set forth in 40 CFR 60 

Subpart D(a). The standards establish limits for particulate matter and opacity (40 CFR 

60.42(a)), SO2 (40 CFR 60.43(a)), and NOx (40 CFR 60.44(a)). A coal-fired power plant 

constructed elsewhere in Georgia would need to comply with applicable provisions of the 

CAA, as well, based on the attainment status of the selected alternate site. 

 

Section 169A of the CAA (42 USC 7401) establishes a national goal of preventing future 

and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when 

impairment results from man-made air pollution. EPA issued a new regional haze rule in 

1999 (64 Federal Register [FR] 35714: EPA 1999). 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 

visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). If a coalfired plant were located close to a mandatory Class I area, additional air pollution control 

requirements would be imposed. Georgia has three designated Class I wilderness areas 

and South Carolina has one: 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-18 December 2008 

Table 8-3. Class I Areas in Georgia and South Carolina 

State Class I Area Size (acres) Distance to VEGP 

(miles) 

Georgia Cohutta 

Wilderness 

40,000 190 

Georgia Okefenokee 

Wilderness 

343, 776 146 

Georgia Wolf Island 

Wilderness 

5,126 125 

South Carolina Cape Romaine 

Wilderness 

28,000 119 

A coal-fired alternate located at the VEGP site would not likely impact visibility at any Class I 

areas since the nearest such area, as can be noted from Table 8.3 above, is approximately 

119 miles from VEGP. For an alternate site, consideration may have to be given to 

installation of addition air emission control systems if that site were in proximity to any Class 

I areas. In addition to regulating under the regional haze rule, EPA also regulates visibility, 

in general, pursuant to rules at 40 CFR 51, Subpart P. 

The State of Georgia regulates air emissions from steam electric utility boilers pursuant to 

terms of the Georgia Air Quality Act (Part I of Chapter 9 of Title 12 of the Official Code of 

Georgia Annotated [O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq.]). Regulations issued by GDNR 

(Chapter 391-3-1) adopt the EPA’s CAA rules, with modifications, to limit power plant 

emissions of SOx, NOx, particulate matter, and hazardous air pollutants, among other 

matters. Depending where a new coal-fired facility is located within the State that facility will 

need to comply with the applicable Federal and State air regulations. 

The supercritical coal-fired alternative would produce the following quantities of air 

pollutants: 

Sulfur oxides emissions. This coal-fired alternative at the VEGP site would likely use wet, 

lime-based scrubbers to remove SOx. EPA indicates that this technology can remove more 

than 95 percent of SOx from flue gases (EPA 2002). NRC staff projects total SOx emissions 

would be 5,600 tons per year. 

SOx emissions from 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 sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and NOx

, the two principal precursors of acid rain, by restricting emissions of these 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

pollutants from power plants. Title IV caps aggregate annual power plant SO2 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 purchase allowances from owners of other power plants 

or reduce SO2 emissions at other power plants they own. Allowances can be banked for 

use in future years. Thus, provided a new coal-fired power plant is able to purchase 

sufficient allowances to operate, it would not add to net regional SO2 emissions, although it 

might do so locally. 

Nitrogen oxides emissions. A coal fired alternate at the VEGP site would most likely employ 

various available NOx-control technologies including low-NOx burners, over-fire air, and 

selective catalytic reduction. EPA notes that when these emissions controls are used in 

concert, they can reduce NOx emissions by up to 95 percent (EPA 1998a). Assuming the 

use of such technologies at VEGP site, NOx emissions are estimated to be in the range of 

1,820 tons annually. 

Section 407 of the Clean Air Act establishes technology-based emission limitations for NOx

emissions. A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the new source performance 

standards for such plants as indicated in 40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1). This regulation, issued on 

September 16, 1998 (63 FR 49453; EPA 1998b), limits the discharge of any gases that 

contain nitrogen oxides (NO2) to 200 nanograms (ng) per joule (J) of gross energy output 

(equivalent to 1.6 pound [lb]/megawatt hours [MWh]), based on a 30-day rolling average. 

NRC staff estimates that the total annual NOx emissions for a new coal-fired power plant 

would be approximately 12.5 percent of the new source performance standard mission rate. 

EPA further restricts the total amount of NOx that can be emitted on a State level basis. In 

the 2008 ozone season (May 1–September 30) Georgia may emit 188,572 tons of NOx. A 

new coal-fired power plant would need to offset emissions through credit purchases or from 

a set-aside pool. 

Particulate emissions. This new coal-fired power plant would use fabric filters or 

electrostatic precipitators to remove particulates from flue gases. SNC indicates that fabric 

filters would remove 99.9 percent of particulate matter (SNC 2007a). EPA notes that filters 

or precipitators are each capable of removing in excess of 99 percent of particulate matter, 

and that SO2 scrubbers further reduce particulate matter emissions (EPA 2002). As such, 

NRC staff believes SNC’s removal factor is appropriate. Based on this, the new supercritical 

coal-fired plant would emit 320 tons of total suspended particulates and approximately 73 

tons of particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns 

(PM10) annually. In addition, coal burning would also result in approximately 0.3 tons of 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-20 December 2008 

particulate emissions with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and coalhandling equipment would introduce fugitive dust emissions when fuel is being transferred to 

on-site storage and then reclaimed from storage for use in the plant. 

During the construction of a coal-fired plant, on-site activities would also generate fugitive 

dust. In addition, vehicles and motorized equipment would create exhaust emissions during 

the construction process. These impacts would be intermittent and short-lived, however. In 

addition, to minimize dust generation, construction crews would use applicable dust-control 

measures. 

Carbon monoxide emissions. Based on EPA emission factors (EPA 1998a), NRC staff 

estimates that the total CO emissions would be approximately 1,820 tons per year. 

Hazardous air pollutants including mercury. In December 2000, EPA issued regulatory 

findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steam-generating units 

(EPA 2000a). EPA determined that coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units 

are significant emitters of hazardous air pollutants. Coal-fired power plants were found by 

EPA to emit arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, dioxins, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen 

fluoride, lead, manganese, and mercury (EPA 2000b). EPA concluded that mercury is the 

hazardous air pollutant of greatest concern. EPA found that (1) there is a link between coal 

consumption and mercury emissions; (2) electric utility steam-generating units are the 

largest domestic source of mercury emissions; and (3) 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 resulting from 

consumption of contaminated fish (EPA 2000b). Accordingly, on March 15, 2005, EPA 

issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from 

coal-fired power plants (EPA 2007). A new coal-fired power plant would need to comply 

with performance standards contained in 40 CFR 60.45(a), requiring that the plant emit no 

more than 0.0025 ng/J output (20 x 10-6 lbs /MWh). In addition, to the extent the plant would 

emit any mercury, the plant owners would need to purchase mercury allowances or reduce 

emissions to ensure that Georgia emits no more than 1.166 tons of mercury containing 

gases in 2010, and 0.460 tons of mercury containing gases in 2018 (EPA 2006). 

Uranium and thorium. Coal contains uranium and thorium, among other naturally occurring 

elements. Alex Gabbard, a researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, indicates that 

uranium concentrations are generally in the range of one to ten parts per million (ppm) and 

thorium concentrations are generally about two and a half times this level (Gabbard 1993). 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates that Western and Illinois Basin coals contain 

uranium and thorium at roughly equal concentrations, mostly between 1 and 4 ppm, but also 

indicates that some coals may contain concentrations as high as 20 ppm of both elements 

(USGS 1997). Gabbard indicates that a 1,000 MW(e) coal-fired plant would release roughly 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

5.2 tons of uranium and 12.8 tons of thorium annually (Gabbard 1993). Both USGS and 

Gabbard indicate that almost all of the uranium, thorium, and most decay products remain in 

solid coal wastes, especially in the fine glass spheres that constitute much of coal’s fly ash. 

Modern emissions controls, such as those included for this coal-fired alternative, allow for 

recovery of greater than 99 percent of these solid wastes (EPA 2002), thus retaining most of 

coal’s radioactive elements in solid form rather than releasing it to the atmosphere. Even 

after concentration in coal waste, the level of radioactive elements remains relatively low 

(typically 10 to 100 ppm) and consistent with levels found in naturally occurring granites, 

shales, and phosphate rocks (USGS 1997). The level of uranium and thorium contained in 

coal wastes and disposed of in the environment exceed the levels of uranium and thorium 

released to the environment by the existing nuclear power plant. 

Carbon dioxide. A coal-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide (CO2) 

emissions during operations as well as during coal mining and processing, and coal and 

lime transportation. Burning bituminous coal in the U.S. emits roughly 205.3 lbs CO2 per 

million BTU (Hong and Slatick 1994). The supercritical coal-fired plant would emit 

approximately 20 million tons of CO2 per year. 

Summary of air quality. While the GEIS analysis mentions global warming from unregulated 

carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from SOx and NOx emissions as potential impacts, it 

did not quantify emissions from coal fired power plants. However, the GEIS analysis did 

imply that air impacts would be substantial (NRC 1996). The above analysis shows that 

emissions of air pollutants, including SOx, NOx, carbon monoxide, and particulates, exceed 

those produced by the existing nuclear power plant, as well as those of the other 

alternatives considered in this section. Operational emissions of carbon dioxide are also 

much greater under the coal-fired alternative.(e) 

Adverse human health effects such as cancer and emphysema have also been associated 

with air emissions from coal combustion. NRC analysis for a coal-fired alternative at the 

VEGP site and an alternative site indicates that impacts from the coal-fired alternative would 

have clearly noticeable effects, but given existing regulatory regimes, permit requirements, 

and emissions controls, the coal-fired alternative would not destabilize air quality. Thus, the 

appropriate characterization of air impacts from coal-fired generation would be MODERATE. 

Siting a coal-fired generation plant at a site other than VEGP would not significantly change 

air-quality impacts, although it would result in installing more- or less-stringent pollutioncontrol equipment to meet applicable local requirements, or cause the plant’s owner to 

more- or less-actively participate in various emissions trading schemes. Impacts to air 

quality at an alternate site would also be MODERATE. 

 

(e) Table S-3 in 10 CFR 51.51 indicates that electrical energy consumed during the uranium fuel cycle to 

supply a 1,000 MW(e) is equivalent to the electricity produced by a 45 MW(e) coal-fired power plant. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-22 December 2008 

• Waste 

Coal combustion generates several waste streams including ash (a dry solid) and sludge (a 

semi-solid by-product of emission control system operation). The NRC staff estimates that 

three 895 net MW(e) coal-fired units would generate approximately 747,000 tons of ash and 

355,000 tons of sludge each year. This estimate is based on data provided by SNC in the 

Environmental Report with appropriate scaling applied to the SNC estimates to account for 

assumed differences in plant heat rates and net electrical output. Of this waste, 

approximately 90 percent of the ash could be recycled according to SNC with the remainder 

being disposed in an on-site land fill. On-site disposal is likely to encompass approximately 

220 acres of the VEGP site over 40 years of operation. As mentioned in the air quality 

section, this waste would also contain levels of uranium and thorium in concentrations 

similar to those found in naturally occurring granites, shales, and phosphate rocks (USGS 

1997). In addition to coal combustion wastes, a supercritical coal-fired alternative would 

also produce small amounts of domestic and hazardous wastes. 

Waste impacts to groundwater and surface water would extend beyond the operating life of 

the plant if leaching and runoff from the waste storage area makes its way into groundwater 

or surface water. Disposal of the waste would noticeably affect land use and groundwater 

quality if not properly managed, but with appropriate management and monitoring, effects 

on groundwater water resources would be prevented. After closure of the landfill and revegetation, the disposal area would be available for other uses. Impacts of the waste 

generated by a coal fired alternative are considered by the NRC staff to be SMALL to 

MODERATE. 

Considerable debris would be generated during construction of three coal units to replace 

VEGP. Most of such waste material would be disposed or recycled off-site though some 

could be land filled on-site as well. Overall, the mass of waste generated during 

construction would be small compared to the quantity generated during operation of the coal 

burning replacement and, as such, impacts of construction-stage waste would be SMALL. 

For all of the preceding reasons, the appropriate characterization of impacts from waste 

generated by the supercritical coal-fired alternative would be MODERATE; the impacts 

would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize any important resource. Siting the 

facility at a site other than VEGP would not alter waste generation, although alternate sites 

could pose unique waste disposal constraints. Overall, the NRC staff considers waste 

impacts at an alternate site to also be MODERATE. 

• Human Health 

Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, from 

coal and lime transportation, and from disposal of coal combustion waste. In addition there 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

are public risks from inhalation of stack emissions. Emission impacts can be widespread 

and health risks difficult to quantify. The coal-fired alternative also introduces the risk of 

coal-pile fires and attendant inhalation risks. 

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 

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 and has 

taken action to address mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. In the absence of 

more quantitative data, human health impacts from radiological doses and inhaling toxins 

and particulates generated by burning coal would be characterized as SMALL. 

• Socioeconomics 

Construction of the supercritical coal-fired alternative would take approximately 5 to 6 years 

(DOE/EIA 2007c). The NRC staff assumed that construction would take place while VEGP 

continues operation and would be completed by the time the two units permanently cease 

operations in 2027 and 2029. The construction work force would be expected to include up 

to 2,000 workers at peak times (NRC 1996). These workers would be in addition to the 

approximately 862 workers currently employed at VEGP. During construction, the 

surrounding communities could experience an increased demand for rental housing and 

public services, though this would be moderated by the relative proximity of the site to 

Augusta/Aiken. After construction, communities that provided housing and other support 

during construction would be somewhat affected by loss of the temporary constructionrelated activity. 

If the coal-fired replacement plant were constructed at the VEGP site, and VEGP were to be 

decommissioned, the area would experience a loss of approximately 488 permanent, 

relatively high-paying jobs (from 862 employees for VEGP to about 400 for the coal-fired 

plant) with a commensurate reduction in purchasing activity and tax contributions to the 

regional economy. The impact of the job loss is, however, expected to be SMALL given the 

relatively large area from which plant personnel are currently drawn and the extensive 

timeframe over which construction of a new plant and decommissioning of the existing 

facility would occur. The coal-fired plant would provide a new tax base in Burke County to 

offset the loss of taxes that would occur when VEGP is decommissioned. While it is difficult 

to estimate the impact of this scenario on Burke County resources, it would not be 

unreasonable to assume that, on balance, the County’s tax base would not be significantly 

altered and that resulting impacts could be best characterized as being SMALL to 

MODERATE. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-24 December 2008 

The magnitude of socioeconomic impacts would vary at an alternate site depending on 

location. During peak construction, there could be up to 2,000 workers at the site, and 

surrounding communities would experience increased demands on rental housing and 

public services that could result in SMALL to MODERATE impacts. Upon completion of the 

new coal-fired power plant, host communities would be affected by the loss of construction 

jobs but would be offset by approximately 400 new long-term operations jobs at the new 

plant. Overall, operational impacts could range from SMALL to LARGE, socioeconomic 

impacts would be greater (up to LARGE) if the new coal-fired power plant were constructed 

at a rural location rather than if it were constructed in a more developed urban site. 

 

There would also be a noticeable impact on Burke County due to the loss of jobs and tax 

revenues should VEGP cease operations and no replacement power plant was built at 

VEGP. Since Burke County currently relies on VEGP for approximately 75 percent of its tax 

revenue, the loss of that revenue could represent a MODERATE to LARGE socioeconomic 

impact if the coal-fired power plant were to be constructed at an alternate site. 

• Socioeconomics (Transportation) 

During the four to five-year construction period of replacement coal-fired units, up to 2,000 

construction workers would be commuting to the VEGP site in addition to the current 862 

workers already at VEGP. The addition of these workers would increase traffic loads on 

existing highways and, particularly, on local roads leading to the plant site. Given the limited 

number of access points to the site, transportation impacts associated with commuting 

construction workers would likely be in the range of SMALL to MODERATE. Transportationrelated impacts associated with commuting construction workers at an alternate site are site 

dependent and characterized as being in the range of SMALL to LARGE. 

Transportation impacts of commuting plant operating personnel are expected to be SMALL. 

The number of operations personnel working at a coal-fired power plant would be 

approximately 400 compared to the current VEGP work force of 862. At an alternate site it 

is expected approximately 400 operating personnel commuting to the power plant would not 

likely overload nearby access roadways. 

Approximately 1 to 2 unit trains per day (each with 100 cars carrying 100 tons of fuel) would 

deliver coal to the new plant at the VEGP site. Since each train load generates an empty 

return load, the number of movements per day along the rail spur to the VEGP site would 

actually be 2 to 4 trains per day. The rail line leading to the site crosses a number of local 

roadways and extensive delays could be experienced by waiting for trains to clear grade 

crossings. Consequently, rail transportation impacts of coal and lime delivery to the VEGP 

site are expected to be SMALL to MODERATE. At an alternate site, coal and lime would be 

delivered by rail and transportation impacts could range from SMALL to LARGE depending 

on site location and other characteristics. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

• Aesthetics 

If constructed and operated at the VEGP, the coal-fired units would have boiler houses 

rising about 200 feet above ground level; these would not be particularly visible from 

significant distances offsite due to the undulating terrain and the considerable tree plantation 

farming in the plant vicinity. The three exhaust stacks of the coal-fired units would rise 

about 500 feet above grade high and would be visible for a considerable distance offsite. 

Given the current presence of cooling towers and their vapor plumes, as well as other onsite plant structures, the addition of power plant stacks to the visual setting would not 

drastically increase visual impacts there. The coal-fired units would also be visible at night 

because of mandated safety lighting on the stacks and along the plant perimeter. Overall, 

construction and operation of three coal-fired units at the VEGP site would likely result in a 

SMALL to MODERATE aesthetic impacts. 

Coal-fired generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible 

offsite, although given the low population near the plant’s periphery, nuisance impacts are 

not expected. Sources contributing to total noise produced by plant operation would be 

classified as 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 delivery, use of outside loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant employees. The 

nuisance impacts of plant noise emissions are expected to be SMALL due to the large area 

encompassed by the VEGP site and the fact that few sensitive land sues occur in the 

immediate plant vicinity. 

Noise impacts associated with rail delivery of coal and lime to a coal fired facility at VEGP 

would be most significant for residents living along the 20 mile rail corridor that leads to the 

plant site. Depending on ambient noise levels and the number of coal deliveries occurring 

at night, it is possible that rail related noise impacts (including sounding of safety horns at 

grade crossings) would range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

At an alternate site, plant buildings, exhaust stacks, cooling towers, and cooling tower 

plumes would create aesthetic impacts. There would also be an aesthetic impact 

associated with construction of a new transmission line. Noise and light from the plant could 

be detectable offsite depending on site characteristics. Aesthetic impacts at the plant site 

would be mitigated if the plant were located in an industrial area adjacent to other power 

plants or industrial facilities. Noise impacts from offsite rail operations could encompass a 

wide range of impacts also depending on site characteristics. Overall the aesthetic impacts 

associated with locating at an alternate site would be categorized as SMALL to LARGE, with 

impacts potentially being less at a previously developed industrial site. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-26 December 2008 

• Historic and Archaeological Resources 

At the VEGP site or an alternate site, a cultural resource inventory would be needed for any 

onsite property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired 

to support the coal-fired alternate would also need an inventory of field cultural resources, 

identification and recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible 

mitigation of adverse effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical 

expansion of the plant site. 

Before beginning construction at an alternate site, surveys would likely be needed to 

identify, evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant construction 

on cultural resources. The 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 corridors, rail lines, or other ROWs). 

Historic and archaeological resource impacts can generally be effectively managed and as 

such would be considered SMALL for the existing site and likely SMALL to MODERATE at a 

new site. For a previously developed site, most of which would have already been 

intensively developed, the impact on cultural and historic resources would also be SMALL. 

Previous development would likely have either removed or surveyed items of archaeological 

interest. 

• Environmental Justice 

No environmental impacts were 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 VEGP site. Some impacts on rental and other temporary 

housing availability and lease prices during construction might occur, and this could 

disproportionately affect the minority and low-income populations. 

Impacts on minority and low-income populations due to the shutdown of VEGP would 

depend on the number of jobs and the amount of tax revenue lost by Burke County and the 

communities surrounding the power plant. Closure of VEGP would eliminate jobs and 

reduce tax revenue in the region that were directly and indirectly attributed to plant 

operations. However, given the economic growth of Columbia County and the Augusta 

area, it is likely that these losses could be replaced by the development of new businesses 

and new sources of tax revenue in the region. Since SNC’s tax payments represent a large 

percentage of Burke County’s total annual property tax revenue, it is likely that social 

services in Burke County would be seriously affected. Therefore, minority and low-income 

populations in Burke County could experience disproportionately high and adverse 

socioeconomic impacts from the shutdown of VEGP. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

The shutdown of VEGP would reduce operational impacts on the environment. Therefore, 

minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of VEGP would not likely experience any 

disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts from the shutdown of VEGP. 

The impact of constructing a new coal-fired power plant at an alternative site would depend 

on its location in relation to minority and low-income populations. Environmental and 

economic impacts could range from SMALL to LARGE. Impacts could be larger at 

previously undeveloped sites, depending on its proximity to minority and low-income 

populations. 

8.2.2 Coal Based Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) Generation 

The second coal based option considered by NRC as an alternative to VEGP license renewal is 

an IGCC plant. In both concept and practice, IGCC plants can be fueled with a variety of 

feedstock, and large IGCC plants are often fueled by byproducts of petroleum refining. For the 

purpose of this analysis, it assumed that an IGCC replacement for VEGP would be a standalone facility and would not be co-located at a refinery; therefore, only IGCC plants using coal 

as the primary fuel are considered. 

Coal based IGCC plants operate very differently from conventional coal plants, and were not 

considered by NRC staff in the GEIS. A coal IGCC plant first heats coal in a gasifier with 

carefully controlled amounts of water and oxygen. The resulting gas stream (called synthesis 

gas or syngas) contains primarily carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Most coal impurities remain 

in gasifier waste material, called slag, while gasifiers convert sulfur-containing compounds to 

either elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid, both of which can be marketed as commodities. 

Gaseous pollutants, mercury among them, can be removed from the syngas stream prior to 

combustion. Following gasification and pollutant removal, the gas stream travels to a 

conventional combined-cycle power plant, similar in construction to a natural-gas-fired 

combined-cycle power plant. First, the gas stream burns in a combustion turbine. Then, the 

still-hot gas mixture gives up most of the remaining heat to water in a heat recovery steam 

generator. 

While IGCC plants can theoretically achieve thermal efficiencies approaching 50 percent 

(DOE/EIA 2005), the technology is still relatively young from a utility-scale commercial 

perspective, and actual efficiencies tend to be on the order of 40 percent (Ekbom 2007). No 

IGCC plant with a capacity as large as VEGP has yet been constructed. The largest IGCC plant 

is the ATI Sulcis plant in Portoscuso, Italy, which has a net output of 471 MW(e) (roughly 18 

percent of VEGP’s net capacity of 2,686 MW[e]). The largest IGCC plant in the U.S. is the 

Wabash River plant in Terre Haute, IN, with a net capacity of 262 MW(e) (10 percent of VEGP’s 

net capacity). A 603 MW(e) net output plant, equivalent to 23 percent of VEGP’s capacity, is 

proposed for completion in the Mesaba Iron Range in Minnesota by 2011, and regulator 

approval was recently granted for the construction of a 630 MW(e) net capacity plant in 

Edwardsport, Indiana (WSJ 2007). 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-28 December 2008 

Despite the lack of IGCC plants of similar capacity to VEGP, NRC staff notes considerable utility 

interest in this technology for its ability to effectively reduce emissions of many air pollutants as 

well as to potentially produce a separate carbon dioxide stream for eventual sequestration. 

Given IGCC’s limited commercial implementation in the U.S., EPA has not yet developed 

detailed emissions factors for the technology. In general, NRC staff has adopted emissions 

factors from DOE (DOE 1999) in order to characterize emissions from the IGCC alternative. 

DOE/EIA adopted a heat rate of 8,309 BTU/kWh for coal-fueled IGCC alternatives for 

forecasting purposes (DOE/EIA 2005), and NRC staff will adopt EIA’s assumed heat rate for this 

analysis, as it closely approximates data from existing IGCC plants (e.g., Tampa Electric 

Company’s Polk Plant and the Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project; DOE 2004 

and 2004). The analysis also assumes 10% onsite power consumption; this level of onsite 

consumption is consistent with experience at the Wabash River site (DOE 2000). Therefore, a 

coal IGCC replacement alternative for VEGP would require a total gross output rating of 2,960 

MW(e). For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that VEGP would be replaced by 4 

generating stations, each with a net capacity of 740 MW(e). This reflects a modest increase of 

only 2 percent beyond the largest currently proposed IGCC installation, and is therefore 

considered technically feasible. A capacity factor of 0.85, as used by SNC and adopted by NRC 

for its analysis of the supercritical coal-fired alternative, is also used for the IGCC alternative. It 

should also be noted that the prediction of 10% onsite power consumption is reflective of the 

power needs for the basic technology. Advanced options, such as the addition of processes to 

sequester carbon emissions, can increase onsite power requirements to as much as 30 percent 

of the gross capacity. As there is no current regulatory framework regulating carbon emissions, 

carbon sequestration is not considered in this analysis. 

Although the operating license renewal period is only 20 years, NRC staff analyzed the impact 

of operating the coal IGCC alternative for 40 years, as this may be a reasonable projection of 

the operating life of an IGCC plant and is consistent with the analysis NRC staff conducted for 

the supercritical coal-fired alternative. 

Volumes of feedstock and waste product for the IGCC alternative were calculated by NRC staff 

on the basis of the gross MW(e) rating of the replacement plant, using average heat, sulfur and 

ash contents of coal delivered to Georgia for electric generation. These calculations assumed 

an average heat value of 11,058 BTU/lb, and average sulfur and ash contents of 0.81 and 8.83 

percent by weight, respectively (DOE/EIA 2007b). On this basis, NRC estimates that an IGCC 

plant with a gross output of 2,960 MW(e) would consume approximately 6.51 million metric 

tonnes (MT) (7.15 million tons) of bituminous coal per year, and produce approximately 575,000 

MT (631,500 tons) of slag and 52,750 MT (57,900 tons) of elemental sulfur in a year. 

SNC indicated in the Environmental Report that both slag and sulfur are considered marketable 

commodities, although no estimation of the percentage of these waste streams that might be 

saleable was provided. Slag has several reuse opportunities, including in concrete and asphalt 

aggregate, as backfill material, and as landfill daily cover. Historically, the primary technical 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

obstacle to the beneficial reuse of slag has been excessive carbon content. However, 

technologies to recover and recycle unconverted carbon are now feasible, resulting in a slag 

waste stream that is consistently of saleable quality (Ratafia-Brown et al. 2002). Depending on 

the specific process installed, sulfur is recovered from the IGCC power generation as either 

elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid. The elemental sulfur is typically about 99.99 percent pure, 

while the sulfuric acid is generally about 98 percent pure (Rosenberg et al. 2004). These 

products are both valuable commodities that can be employed in numerous industries, including 

fertilizer manufacture and wastewater treatment. The Environmental Report also notes IGCC’s 

ability to remove wastes prior to syngas combustion (SNC 2007a). As such, it is expected that 

no additional scrubbing of the exhaust stream would be necessary. 

At the VEGP site, coal would likely be delivered by rail, while slag and sulfur for reuse would 

likely be removed by rail or by truck. The IGCC coal fired option would likely require 

approximately 615 unit trains (100 car consists) per year, or roughly 14 round trips per week. 

As noted in the Environmental Report (SNC 2007a), it is expected that the existing rail spur 

would need to be improved to allow for these deliveries. For purposes of this section, the NRC 

staff assumed that a coal IGCC plant located at either the VEGP site or an alternate site would 

use a closed-cycle cooling system, as the current VEGP units do. 

The NRC staff discusses the overall impacts of the coal IGCC generating system in the 

following sections and summarizes the analysis in Table 8-4. The extent of impacts at an 

alternate site would depend on the location of the particular site selected. 

• Land Use 

The existing facilities and infrastructure at the VEGP site would be used to the extent 

practicable, limiting the amount of new construction. A new coal IGCC plant may be able to 

use the existing cooling tower system, switchyard, offices, and transmission line. Much of 

the land that would be used has been previously disturbed. As noted in Section 8.2.1 

improvements to the existing rail line that leads to the VEGP site would be needed to 

support coal based operations. 

While the power block of an IGCC complex may be somewhat larger than that of a 

comparable capacity pulverized coal complex, land needs for on-site waste disposal can be 

considerably less since most IGCC by-products can be marketed. Overall, the staff views its 

land area estimates for pulverized coal facilities to be generally applicable to the land 

requirements for IGCC. It is, therefore, the staff’s view that land requirements estimated for 

pulverized coal burning at the VEGP site (800 acres) and at an alternate site (1,340 acres) 

are also applicable to the IGCC alternate. 

Additional land-use changes would occur in an undetermined coal-mining area from which 

coal would be shipped to the plant. Assuming a mix of coal supply similar to Georgia’s 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-30 December 2008 

current coal supply, this land disturbance would likely occur mostly in Kentucky and 

Wyoming, with disturbance occurring to a lesser degree in Virginia as well (DOE/EIA 

2007b). Based on analyses presented in the GEIS, an IGCC alternative to replace VEGP 

would require approximately 49,450 acres (20,470 ha) of land. Coal mining would likely 

take place in existing coal-mining regions and in accordance with applicable mining 

regulations. Based on analyses presented in the GEIS, it is estimated that approximately 

2,960 acres (1,185 ha) would be affected for mining the uranium and processing it during 

the operating life of a 2,960 MW(e) nuclear power plant. 

 

The impacts of an IGCC complex, developed at the VEGP site, could to be MODERATE An 

IGCC alternative at an alternate site could also generate MODERATE to LARGE land use 

impacts. 

• Ecology 

Locating a coal IGCC plant at the VEGP site would affect terrestrial ecological resources 

since much of the available land is currently used as tree plantation and some undeveloped 

portions of the VEGP site support wetland and stream habitats. As a result, the staff 

estimates terrestrial ecological impacts of developing and IGCC complex at the VEGP site to 

be MODERATE. At an alternate site, clearing land for transmission lines and possibly a rail 

spur would be needed in addition to land for plant facilities and infrastructure. The scale of 

land use impacts associated with developing and IGCC complex at an alternate site are, 

therefore, considered to be in the range of MODERATE to LARGE. 

It is expected that an IGCC complex constructed at the VEGP site would operate with 

cooling towers, as does the existing VEGP facility. Aquatic ecological impacts of an IGCC 

complex at the VEGP site would be approximately the same as those generated by the 

existing nuclear facility even though IGCC production is probably more thermally efficient 

than a nuclear plant (i.e., for the same gross electrical output an IGCC alternative will 

release less heat to the environment than would a nuclear plant). The improved thermal 

efficiency is, however, balanced somewhat by an increased demand for on-site power by 

the IGCC facility. Since aquatic ecological impacts of the existing VEGP facility, which are a 

result of water withdrawals for cooling tower makeup, have been determined to be SMALL, 

the IGCC alternate will also have SMALL aquatic impacts. An IGCC facility at an alternate 

site would also make use of cooling towers, and would incur aquatic impacts that would 

range from SMALL to MODERATE, depending on characteristics of the water body used for 

cooling. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal IGCC Generation at VEGP Site 

and an Alternate Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Land Use MODERATE Uses approximately 800 

additional on-site acres; 

additional offsite land impacts 

for coal mining affects 

thousands of acres. 

MODERATE 

to LARGE 

Uses approximately 1,340 

acres for plant, offices, 

parking, and potential 

waste disposal; additional 

impacts from transmission 

line, and rail spur, as well 

as coal mining 

Ecology MODERATE Uses undeveloped areas at 

current VEGP site, plus existing 

rail and transmission corridors; 

impacts also dependent on 

lands used for coal mining. 

MODERATE 

to LARGE 

Impact depends on 

location and ecological 

value of site, surface water 

body used for intake and 

discharge, and 

transmission line and rail 

routes; may cause habitat 

loss and fragmentation, as 

well as reduced 

productivity and biological 

diversity; impact also 

dependent on coal mining. 

Water Use and 

Quality—Surface 

Water 

SMALL Uses existing cooling tower 

system, and potentially less 

water than the existing VEGP. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Closed-cycle cooling, 

impact likely to be SMALL, 

though it would depend on 

the volume of water 

withdrawn and discharged, 

as well as the 

characteristics of the 

surface water body. 

Water Use and 

Quality—

Groundwater 

SMALL IGCC complex would likely 

continue to rely on groundwater 

for only miscellaneous plant 

services. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impacts would depend on 

the volume of water 

withdrawn and discharged 

and the characteristics of 

the aquifers, though 

groundwater would not 

likely be used for cooling 

tower makeup purposes. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-32 December 2008 

Table 8-4. (cont’d) 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Air Quality MODERATE • Sulfur oxides 

(1,344 tons/yr) 

• Nitrogen oxides 

(1,898 tons/yr) 

• PM10 

(158 tons/yr) 

• Carbon monoxide 

(2,370 tons/yr) 

• Mercury removed by 

syngas-stage controls 

MODERATE Potentially the same 

impacts as at the VEGP 

site, although pollutioncontrol requirements may 

vary. 

Waste SMALL It is expected that most 

byproducts from an IGCC 

alternative would be saleable 

commodities, and minimal (if 

any) on-site disposal would be 

required. 

SMALL Same impacts as at the 

VEGP site; waste disposal 

constraints may vary. 

Human Health SMALL Impacts are uncertain, but 

considered SMALL as the plant 

would comply with healthinformed standards in the Clean 

Air Act and other relevant 

emissions regulations. 

SMALL Similar impacts as at the 

VEGP site. 

Socioeconomics SMALL to 

MODERATE 

During construction, impacts 

would be MODERATE. Up to 

2,000 workers during the peak 

period of the 5- to 6-year 

construction period, followed by 

an as-yet unspecified reduction 

from current VEGP work force 

of 862. Tax base would be 

preserved in Burke County. 

Impacts during operation would 

be SMALL. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Construction impacts 

depend on location, but 

would be LARGE if the 

plant is located in an area 

that is rural or is growing 

less quickly than areas 

near the VEGP site. 

Impacts at a site near to an 

urban area may be SMALL 

to MODERATE. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 8-4. (cont’d) 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Socioeconomics 

(Transportation) 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Transportation impacts would 

be SMALL to MODERATE 

during the construction phase. 

For rail transportation of coal 

and waste products, the 

impacts would likely be 

MODERATE as a result of rail 

delivery impacts. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Transportation impacts 

would be SMALL to 

LARGE due to construction 

activities. 

For rail transportation of 

coal, the impact would be 

SMALL to LARGE and 

depend on routing of coal 

trains. 

Aesthetics SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Aesthetic impact due to plant 

units and stacks would be 

SMALL.

Rail transportation of coal 

would have a SMALL to 

MODERATE aesthetic impact. 

Noise impact would be SMALL 

given the size of the site. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Overall impacts could vary 

widely, with the greatest 

impacts from new 

transmission lines, rail lines 

to transport coal, and 

cooling towers. 

Historic and 

Archeological 

Resources 

SMALL Most construction would affect 

previously developed parts of 

the VEGP site; a cultural 

resource inventory and 

mitigation measures would 

manage impacts on 

undeveloped areas. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Alternate location would 

necessitate cultural 

resource studies; 

construction would likely 

avoid highly sensitive 

areas. Impacts would be 

managed. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL Impacts on minority and lowincome communities would be 

similar to those experienced by 

the population as a whole. 

Some impacts on rental 

housing may occur during 

construction 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Impacts would vary 

depending on population 

distribution and location of 

the alternate site. 

Significant impacts would 

occur in Burke County due 

to loss of tax base and 

jobs. 

Impacts to minority and 

low-income populations in 

Burke County would be 

due to lost tax revenue 

based services and jobs. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-34 December 2008 

• Water Use and Quality 

Surface Water. The IGCC alternate at the VEGP site would likely use the existing cooling 

tower system if at all practicable. Given that the IGCC would likely need to dissipate a 

similar level of thermal energy as the existing VEGP facility, as noted above, it would also 

utilize approximately the same quantity of cooling water as VEGP. As such, impacts to 

surface water use and water quality would be SMALL, should an IGCC complex operate the 

VEGP site. 

At an alternate site, an IGCC complex would also likely be designed with closed cycle 

cooling and therefore, the impacts to surface waters would depend on the volume of water 

needed for makeup water, the discharge volume, and the characteristics of the water body 

used for intake and discharge. Intake from and discharge to any surface body of water 

would be regulated by GDNR via various state-level discharge permit programs. The NRC 

staff considers the impacts to potentially range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

Groundwater. VEGP uses an average of 1.05 mgd of groundwater drawn from on-site 

wells, and is permitted to draw up to 5.5 mgd on average. Groundwater is used at VEGP for 

nuclear service cooling water, utility service water, and makeup for the water treatment 

plant, fire protection system, and potable and sanitary water systems. As an IGCC 

alternative on the VEGP site would likely require approximately the same quantity of water 

for these auxiliary purposes, the impact to groundwater, of IGCC operations would be 

SMALL, as is the case for continued operation of the VEGP facility. 

On-site management of coal piles and coal wastes (from IGCC operations) could, however, 

have an impact on groundwater resources should runoff from these materials storage and 

disposal facilities result in discharges of contaminants to groundwater. NRC staff expects, 

however, that runoff and other potential discharges from on-site coal operations would be 

regulated by GDNR in a manner similar to regulation of discharges to surface waters. Thus, 

NRC staff considers overall groundwater impacts of IGCC operations to be SMALL at the 

VEGP site. 

At an alternate site, impacts to groundwater would depend on the extent to which the plant 

utilizes groundwater, though NRC finds it unlikely that an IGCC plant would depend on 

groundwater for cooling purposes. Given that a plant would likely use groundwater only for 

domestic and some service purposes, the impact could be SMALL to MODERATE, 

depending on the nature of the aquifers used. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

• Air Quality 

The air-quality impacts of coal IGCC generation can be substantial, though markedly less 

than conventional coal technologies in several important areas. These include lower 

emissions of mercury as well as particulate matter. Pre-scrubbed levels of SOx and NOx are 

also typically much lower than conventional coal technologies. In addition, naturally 

occurring radioactive materials would likely remain in slag much as they remain in solid ash 

products in conventional coal plants. 

Burke County, and the entire Augusta-Aiken Air Quality Control Region within which the 

county is situated, meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards established by EPA 

under the CAA (42 USC 7401). A new coal IGCC generating plant developed at the VEGP 

site would need to comply with the new source performance standards for coal-fired plants 

set forth in 40 CFR 60 Subpart D(a). The standards establish limits for particulate matter 

and opacity (40 CFR 60.42(a)), SO2 (40 CFR 60.43(a)), and NOX (40 CFR 60.44(a)). A coal 

IGCC power plant constructed elsewhere in Georgia would need to comply with applicable 

provisions of the Clean Air Act, as well, based on the attainment status of the selected 

alternate site. 

Section 169A of the CAA (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing future 

and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when 

impairment results from man-made air pollution. EPA issued a new regional haze rule in 

1999 (64 FR 35714; EPA 1999). 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 least-impaired days 

over the same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). If a coal-fired plant were located close to a 

mandatory Class I area, additional air pollution control requirements would be imposed. 

Georgia has three designated Class I wilderness areas and South Carolina has one. 

A coal IGCC alternate located at the VEGP site would not likely impact visibility in any Class 

I areas since the nearest such area, as can be noted from Table 8.3, is approximately 119 

miles from VEGP. For an alternate site, consideration may have to be given to installation 

of additional air emission control systems if that site were in proximity to any one of the 

Class I areas. In addition to the regional haze rule, EPA also regulates visibility, in general, 

pursuant to rules at 40 CFR 51, Subpart P. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-36 December 2008 

The coal IGCC alternative would produce the following annual emissions of air pollutants: 

Sulfur oxides emissions. DOE indicated that a coal IGCC plant would emit 0.0077 kilograms 

(kg) (0.017 lb) of SOx per million BTU of thermal input (DOE 1999). Based on this emission 

rate, NRC staff projects total SOx emissions are of 1,218 MT (1,344 tons) per year without 

any additional emissions control technology. 

A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the requirements in Title IV of the CAA. 

Title IV was enacted to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOx, the two principal precursors of 

acid rain, by restricting emissions of these pollutants from power plants. Title IV caps 

aggregate annual power plant SO2 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 purchase 

allowances from owners of other power plants or reduce SO2 emissions at other power 

plants they own. Allowances can be banked for use in future years. Thus, a new coal IGCC 

power plant would not add to net regional SO2 emissions, although it might do so locally. 

Nitrogen oxides emissions. DOE indicated that a coal IGCC plant would emit 0.0109 kg 

(0.024 lb) of NOX per million BTU of thermal input (DOE 1999). In the absence of additional 

control technologies, the IGCC alternative would produce 1,724 MT (1,898 tons) of NOx per 

year, based on DOE emissions projections (DOE 1999). 

Section 407 of the CAA 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 as indicated in 40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1). This 

regulation, issued on September 16, 1998 (63 FR 49453; EPA 1998b), limits the discharge 

of any gases that contain NO2 in excess of 200 ng/J of gross energy output (1.6 lb/MWh), 

based on a 30-day rolling average. NRC staff estimates that the total annual NOx emissions 

for a new IGCC plant would be approximately 12.4 percent of the new source performance 

standard emission rate. This level of NOx emissions would be greater, however, than the 

operating license renewal alternative. 

EPA further restricts the total amount of NOx that can be emitted on a State level basis. In 

the 2007 ozone season (May 1–September 30) Georgia may emit 171,285 MT (188,572 

tons) of NOx. A new coal IGCC power plant would need to offset emissions through credit 

purchases or from a set-aside pool. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Particulate emissions. Unlike SOX and NOX, where DOE has calculated approximate 

emission rates, DOE has indicated only that a coal IGCC plant would emit less than 0.001 

kg (0.002 lb) of particulate matter per million BTU of thermal input (DOE 1999). Assuming 

the maximum particulate emissions rate, NRC staff estimates that the total annual stack 

emissions would include approximately 144 MT (158 tons) of filterable total suspended 

particulates, all of which have an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns 

(PM10) (40 CFR 50.6). In addition, coal-handling equipment would introduce fugitive 

particulate emissions. Particulate emissions would be greater under the coal IGCC 

alternative than the operating license renewal alternative. 

During the construction of a coal IGCC plant, fugitive dust would be generated. In addition, 

exhaust emissions would come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the 

construction process. These impacts are intermittent and short-lived. To minimize dust 

generation, construction crews would use applicable dust-control measures. 

Carbon monoxide emissions. In the absence of DOE or EPA emissions data, a CO 

emissions rate of 0.03 lb/million BTU, previously used in the analysis of an IGCC alternative 

for a separate relicensing application (Progress Energy 2006) and adopted by NRC staff, is 

used. At that emissions rate, total carbon monoxide emissions would be approximately 

2,153 MT (2,370 tons) per year. This level of emissions would be greater than the operating 

license renewal alternative. 

Hazardous air pollutants including mercury. In December 2000, EPA issued regulatory 

findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steam-generating units 

(EPA 2000b). EPA determined that coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units 

are significant emitters of hazardous air pollutants. Coal-fired power plants were found by 

EPA to emit arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, dioxins, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen 

fluoride, lead, manganese, and mercury (EPA 2000b). EPA concluded that mercury is the 

hazardous air pollutant of greatest concern, and found that (1) there is a link between coal 

consumption and mercury emissions; (2) electric utility steam-generating units are the 

largest domestic source of mercury emissions; and (3) 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 resulting from 

consumption of contaminated fish (EPA 2000b). Accordingly, EPA added coal- and oil-fired 

electric utility steam-generating units to the list of source categories under Section 112(c) of 

the Clean Air Act for which emission standards for hazardous air pollutants will be issued 

(EPA 2000b). 

Also, on March 15, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule to permanently cap and 

reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants (EPA 2007). A new coal IGCC 

power plant would need to comply with performance standards contained in 40 CFR 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-38 December 2008 

60.45(a), requiring that the plant emit no more than 0.0025 ng/J output (20 x 10-6 lbs/MWh). 

In addition, to the extent the plant would emit any mercury, the plant owners would need to 

purchase mercury allowances or reduce emissions to ensure that Georgia emits no more 

than 1.166 tons of mercury containing gases in 2010, and 0.460 tons of mercury containing 

gases in 2018 (EPA 2007). It should be noted that IGCC units minimize mercury emissions 

by allowing control technologies to extract mercury from syngas prior to combustion in the 

combined-cycle power plant. 

Uranium and thorium. Coal contains uranium and thorium, among other naturally occurring 

elements. Alex Gabbard, a researcher at Oak Ridge National laboratory, indicates that 

uranium concentrations are generally in the range of 1 to 10 ppm and thorium 

concentrations are generally about 2.5 times this level (Gabbard 1993). The USGS 

indicates that Western and Illinois Basin coals contain uranium and thorium at roughly equal 

concentrations, mostly between 1 and 4 ppm, but also indicates that some coals may 

contain concentrations as high as 20 ppm of both elements (USGS 1997). Gabbard 

indicates that a 1,000 MW(e) coal-fired plant would release roughly 4.7 MT (5.2 tons) of 

uranium and 11.6 MT (12.8 tons) of thorium annually (Gabbard 1993). Both USGS and 

Gabbard indicate that almost all of the uranium, thorium, and most decay products remain in 

solid coal wastes. In an IGCC plant, uranium and thorium would remain in slag material. 

Even after concentration in coal slag, the level of radioactive elements remains relatively low 

(typically 10 to 100 ppm) and consistent with levels found in naturally occurring granites, 

shales, and phosphate rocks (USGS 1997). The level of uranium and thorium contained in 

coal wastes and environmentally disposed exceeds the level of uranium and thorium 

released to the environment by continued operation of the VEGP facility. 

Carbon dioxide. A coal IGCC plant would also have unregulated CO2emissions during 

operations of the plant itself as well as during coal mining and processing, as well as coal 

transportation. Burning bituminous coal in the U.S. emits roughly 205.3 lbs CO2 per million 

BTU (Hong and Slatick 1994). The alternative IGCC plant would emit approximately 16.2 

million tons of CO2 per year. 

Summary of air quality impacts. While the GEIS analysis mentions global warming from 

unregulated carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from SOx and NOx emissions as 

potential impacts, it did not quantify emissions from coal fired power plants. However, the 

GEIS analysis did imply that air impacts would be substantial (NRC 1996). Adverse human 

health effects such as cancer and emphysema have been associated with the products of 

coal combustion. NRC staff analysis for a coal IGCC alternative at the VEGP site and an 

alternative site indicates that impacts from the IGCC alternative would have clearly 

noticeable effects, but would not destabilize air quality. Thus, the appropriate 

characterization of air impacts from IGCC operations would be MODERATE. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Siting an IGCC plant at a site other than VEGP would not significantly change air-quality 

impacts, although it would result in installing more or less stringent pollution-control 

equipment to meet applicable local requirements. Therefore, the impacts at an alternate site 

would also be MODERATE. 

• Waste 

IGCC combustion of coal generates waste as slag, a vitreous, sand-like material that must 

be handled in accordance with state and federal regulations. The IGCC alternative would 

generate 575,000 MT (631,500 tons) of slag and 52,750 MT (57,900 tons) of elemental 

sulfur in a year annually for 40 years. SNC considers these waste streams to be saleable 

commodities in the Environmental Report, but did not provide an estimate as to how much 

of this waste could be recycled in that manner. NRC staff expects that the elemental sulfur 

and slag would be saleable due to the relative purity of the waste products, as noted above. 

If on-site disposal of waste is required (potentially due to high carbon content, or market 

conditions), waste impacts to groundwater and surface water would extend beyond the 

operating life of the plant if leachate and runoff from the waste storage area occurs, though 

proper management can prevent this pollution. After closure of the waste site and 

revegetation, the land would be available for other uses 

Debris would be generated during construction activities. This would likely be disposed 

onsite, when possible. Overall, construction phase waste quantities would be small 

compared to operational wastes, and some of the construction waste could potentially be 

recycled. As such, construction-stage waste impacts would be SMALL. 

For the preceding reasons, the appropriate characterization of impacts from waste 

generated by an IGCC plant located at the VEGP site would be SMALL. Siting the facility at 

a site other than VEGP would not alter waste generation, although other sites might have 

more constraints on disposal locations. Overall impacts of managing wastes generated by a 

coal IGCC facility are expected to be SMALL whether it is constructed and operated at the 

VEGP site or an alternate site. 

• Human Health 

Coal IGCC power generation introduces worker risks from coal mining, from coal 

transportation, and from disposal of slag as well as transportation of reusable byproducts. 

In addition there are public risks from inhalation of stack emissions. Emission impacts can 

be widespread and health risks difficult to quantify. In the GEIS, the NRC staff stated that 

there would be human health impacts (cancer and emphysema) from inhalation of toxins 

and particulates, but it did not identify the significance of these impacts (NRC 1996). 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-40 December 2008 

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, 

though these emissions are likely to be smaller from IGCC plants than from conventional 

coal-fired plants. In the absence of more quantitative data, human health impacts from 

radiological doses and inhaling toxins and particulates generated by operation of a coal 

based IGCC would be characterized as SMALL. 

• Socioeconomics 

The construction time-frame for an IGCC plant of a size necessary to replace VEGP is 

unknown as a plant of this size (2,686 MW[e] net) has yet to be constructed. Construction 

of a smaller IGCC coal based alternative has been estimated to require approximately 4 

years (DOE/EIA 2007c); thus, for the present analysis it is assumed that construction would 

cover a 5-6 year interval. The NRC staff assumed that construction would take place while 

VEGP continues operation and would be completed by the time it permanently ceases 

operations in 2027 and 2029. The work force would be expected to be approximately as 

extensive as that required for the pulverized coal alternate, which brings approximately 

2,000 construction workers to the site at the peak of construction activity. These workers 

would be in addition to the 862 full time employees already stationed at VEGP. During 

construction, the surrounding communities would experience an increased demand for 

rental housing and public services, though this demand would be moderated by the 

proximity of the site to the Augusta-Aiken metropolitan area where a considerable pool of 

workers is likely to be found. After construction, there would be some impact as 

construction jobs are lost though these jobs would be absorbed, in the normal course of 

events, by other economic activity in the region. 

If a coal based IGCC plant were constructed at the VEGP site and the nuclear facility shut 

down, there could be a loss of permanent high-paying jobs. However, job losses at the 

nuclear facility could be off-set by employment at the IGCC complex. While an estimate of 

the staff needs for a large IGCC complex is not readily available at this time, it is likely to be 

considerably greater than that for a pulverized coal facility given the relative complexity of 

the IGCC facility, with its various syngas processing and waste scrubbing modules in 

addition to an electric generation block and waste recycling systems. Thus, it is reasonable 

to conclude that employment could range somewhere between the estimate for pulverized 

coal burning (400 employees) and the current staff at VEGP (862 employees). 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Construction and operation of a coal based IGCC plant at the VEGP site would provide a 

new tax base that could offset the loss of taxes paid to Burke County when VEGP is shut 

down. Construction and operation of a coal based IGCC complex at the VEGP site is 

expected to have SMALL to MODERATE socioeconomic impacts when consideration is 

given to both construction and operations employment and impacts on the local tax base. 

The magnitude of socioeconomic impacts would vary at an alternate site depending on 

location. During peak construction, there could be up to 2,000 workers at the site, and 

surrounding communities would experience increased demands on rental housing and 

public services that could result in SMALL to MODERATE impacts. Upon completion of the 

new coal-fired power plant, host communities would be affected by the loss of construction 

jobs but would be offset by approximately 400 new long-term operations jobs at the new 

plant. Overall, operational impacts could range from SMALL to LARGE. Socioeconomic 

impacts would be greater (up to LARGE) if the new coal-fired power plant were constructed 

at a rural location rather than if it were constructed in a more developed urban site. 

 

There would also be a noticeable impact on Burke County due to the loss of jobs and tax 

revenues should VEGP cease operations and no replacement power plant was built at the 

VEGP site. Since Burke County currently relies on VEGP for approximately 75 percent of its 

tax revenue, the loss of that revenue could represent a MODERATE to LARGE 

socioeconomic impact if the coal-fired power plant were to be constructed at an alternate 

site. 

• Socioeconomics (Transportation) 

During the 5 to 6- year construction period of the IGCC complex, as many as 2,000 

construction workers would be commuting to the site together with employees of the 

operating nuclear complex. The addition of construction workers would increase traffic 

loads on existing highways, particularly on local roadways in and around the plant. These 

transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Transportation-related impacts 

associated with commuting construction workers at an alternate site are site dependent, but 

could be SMALL to LARGE. 

Transportation impacts of IGCC facility commuting power plant operations personnel are 

expected to be SMALL. The maximum IGCC operating staff is expected to be no larger 

than that of the current nuclear complex (862 employees). Transportation impacts at an 

alternate site of commuting power plant operations personnel would be site dependent but 

in all likelihood would also be SMALL. 

 

NRC staff estimates that approximately 14 round-trips of unit trains (100 car consists) would 

be required to deliver coal to the site each week. Additional train or truck movements would 

occur as a result of hauling slag and sulfur to off site regional markets. The rail line leading 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-42 December 2008 

to the VEGP site crosses a number of local roadways at-grade and, therefore, extensive 

delays could be experienced by waiting for unit trains to clear grade crossings. 

Consequently, rail transportation impacts of coal delivery to the VEGP site are expected to 

be MODERATE. At an alternate site, coal would also likely be delivered by rail and 

transportation impacts could range from SMALL to LARGE depending on site location and 

other characteristics. 

• Aesthetics 

If an IGCC complex were developed at the VEGP site, the stacks of its gas-fired generators 

would rise as much as 200 feet above local elevation. Given the tree cover, and the 

somewhat undulating terrain in the area, the stacks are not likely to be visible offsite. The 

exhaust stacks would be similar in height to those of a natural gas-fired combined cycle 

plant, and shorter than those of a pulverized coal unit (400 to 600 ft). Furthermore, given 

the presence of cooling towers and associated vapor plumes at the site, as well as other 

structures associated with nuclear operations, the addition of several 200 foot stacks would 

not drastically increase visual impacts. The facility would also be visible at night because of 

the need for outside safety lighting; lighting impacts at night could be mitigated by reducing 

light intensity and installing shields where needed. The NRC staff considers the visual 

impacts of operating an IGCC complex at the VEGP site to be SMALL. 

Coal based IGCC generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise at the site. 

Given the low population in the vicinity significant impacts to sensitive off-site receptors are 

not expected. Sources contributing to total noise produced by plant operation are classified 

as 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 delivery, use of outside 

loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant employees. The incremental noise impacts of an 

IGCC complex compared to existing VEGP operations would be considered SMALL. 

Noise impacts associated with rail delivery of coal to a plant at the VEGP site would be most 

significant for residents living in the vicinity of the rail route. Passing trains raises noise 

levels along the rail corridor intermittently. As such impacts to residents along the rail 

corridor could range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

At an alternate site, there would be aesthetic impacts from erecting new buildings, exhaust 

stacks, cooling towers and, as well, the vapor plumes associated with cooling towers. There 

would be a significant aesthetic impact associated with construction of a new transmission 

line to connect plant output to the regional electric grid. Noise and light from the plant may 

be detectable offsite, depending on site characteristics. Aesthetic impacts at the plant site 

would be mitigated if the plant were located in an industrial area adjacent to other industrial 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

facilities. Noise impacts from a rail spur, if one is required, would be similar to the impacts at 

the VEGP site. Overall the aesthetic impacts associated with locating at an alternate site 

could range from SMALL to LARGE, depending on site characteristics. Some of these 

issues would be rectified if the IGCC coal plant were sited at a previously developed site 

where impacts would be expected to be in the range of SMALL to MODERATE. 

• Historic and Archaeological Resources 

At the VEGP site, a cultural resource inventory would be needed for any onsite property that 

has not been previously surveyed. Other adjacent properties , if any, that are acquired to 

support the IGCC complex would also need an inventory of field cultural resources, 

identification and recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible 

mitigation of adverse effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical 

expansion of the plant site. 

Before construction at an alternate, undeveloped site, studies would be needed to identify, 

evaluate, and develop mitigation measures for the potential impacts of new plant 

construction on cultural resources. The studies would be needed for all areas of potential 

disturbance at the proposed site and along associated corridors where new construction 

would occur (e.g., roads, transmission corridors, rail lines, or other ROWs). 

Historic and archaeological resource impacts can generally be effectively managed and as 

such impacts would be considered SMALL for the existing and SMALL to MODERATE at 

alternate sites. For a previously developed alternate site, impacts on cultural resources 

would be SMALL. Previous development would likely either have removed or surveyed 

items of archaeological interest. 

• Environmental Justice 

No environmental impacts were identified that would result in disproportionately high and 

adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations if the IGCC facility 

were built at the VEGP site. Some impacts on rental and other temporary housing 

availability and lease prices during construction might occur, and this could 

disproportionately affect the minority and low-income populations. 

Impacts on minority and low-income populations due to the shutdown of VEGP would 

depend on the number of jobs and the amount of tax revenue lost by Burke County and the 

communities surrounding the power plant. Closure of VEGP would eliminate jobs and 

reduce tax revenue in the region that were directly and indirectly attributed to plant 

operations. However, given the economic growth of Columbia County and the Augusta 

area, it is likely that these losses could be replaced by the development of new businesses 

and new sources of tax revenue in the region. Since SNC’s tax payments represent a large 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-44 December 2008 

percentage of Burke County’s total annual property tax revenue, it is likely that social 

services in Burke County would be seriously affected. Therefore, minority and low-income 

populations in Burke County could experience disproportionately high and adverse 

socioeconomic impacts from the shutdown of VEGP. 

The shutdown of VEGP would reduce operational impacts on the environment. Therefore, 

minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of VEGP would not likely experience any 

disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts from the shutdown of VEGP. 

The impact of constructing the IGCC facility at an alternative site would depend on its 

location in relation to minority and low-income populations. Environmental and economic 

impacts could range from SMALL to LARGE. Impacts could be larger at previously 

undeveloped sites, depending on its proximity to minority and low-income populations. 

8.2.3 Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Generation 

In this section, NRC staff examines the environmental impacts of the natural gas-fired 

alternative at both the VEGP site and at an alternate site. The NRC staff assumed that a 

natural gas-fired plant would use a closed-cycle cooling system. At the VEGP site, the NRC 

staff assumed that the new plant would make use of the existing cooling system, including 

cooling tower, intake, and outlet. 

Additionally, NRC staff assumed that a replacement natural gas-fired plant would use 

combined-cycle technology. Compared to simple-cycle combustion turbines, combined cycle 

plants are significantly more efficient, and thus provide electricity at lower levelized costs. 

Typically, these plants support intermediate loads but they are capable of supporting a baseload 

duty cycle and thus provide an alternative to renewing the VEGP operating license. In a 

combined-cycle unit, hot combustion gases in a combustion turbine rotate the turbine to 

generate electricity. Waste combustion heat from the combustion turbine is routed through a 

heat-recovery steam generator, which then powers a steam turbine electrical generator. 

If a new natural gas-fired plant were built at the VEGP site, approximately 20 miles of new 16-

inch gas pipeline would be necessary to connect the new facility to existing gas transmission 

lines north of the site (SNC 2007b). The NRC staff estimates that running the new gas line 

would entail disturbance along an approximately 25-foot wide corridor, for 20 miles, resulting in 

temporary impacts to approximately 60 aces of land. Much of the gas line route would likely be 

alongside shoulders of existing roadways thus reducing the significance of routing the new line. 

For its natural gas-fired alternative the staff evaluates impacts of four combined cycle gas-fired 

units each with a gross electrical rating of 602.5 MW(e); it is assumed that these units have the 

same heat rate as used by SNC in their Environmental Report (5,940 Btu/kWh). NRC staff 

discusses the overall impacts of the natural gas-fired generating system in the following 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

sections and summarizes them in Table 8-4. The extent of impacts at an alternate site would 

depend on the location of the site selected. 

• Land Use 

Existing facilities and infrastructure would be used to the extent practicable, if a gas-fired 

complex were to be developed at the VEGP site. Specifically, the NRC staff assumed that 

this alternate would use the existing cooling tower system, switchyard, offices, and 

transmission line ROWs. Much of the land that would be developed has been previously 

disturbed. NRC staff, in the GEIS, asserted that a 1,000 MWe gas-fired plant would require 

110 acres. As such, a plant of the size proposed to replace VEGP’s capacity would require 

approximately 250 acres. SNC estimated in their Environmental Report that 160 acres 

would be needed to accommodate a gas-fired complex at VEGP; since substantial 

infrastructure is already available to support a gas-fired complex, for purposes of the 

analysis herein the NRC adopts the SNC estimate of needed land area. 

For construction at an alternate site, the NRC staff assumed that 250 acres would be 

needed for the plant and associated infrastructure. In addition, considerable land area could 

be disturbed as a result of the need to install gas service to the generating station and the 

need to clear land for new transmission lines. NRC staff expects that this area would be 

reduced if a gas-fired alternate were constructed on a previously-developed industrial site 

since it would be expected that such sites would be near utility transmission systems. 

Regardless of where a gas-fired alternative is built, additional land would be required for 

natural gas wells and collection stations. According to the GEIS, a 1,000 MW(e) gas-fired 

plant requires approximately 3,600 acres (1,500 ha) for wells, collection stations, and 

pipelines (NRC 1996). Much of the land area necessary for the gas-fired alternative would 

be in existing gas-extraction areas. Partially offsetting these offsite land requirements would 

be the elimination of the need for uranium mining to supply fuel for VEGP. In the GEIS 

(NRC 1996), the NRC staff estimated that approximately 1,000 acres would be affected for 

mining the uranium and processing it during the operating life of a 1,000 MW(e) nuclear 

power plant. Overall, land-use impacts could be SMALL to MODERATE for the alternative 

at the VEGP site. Impacts would generally be similar at an undeveloped site, as the primary 

driver for these impacts would be the amount of land necessary for natural gas 

infrastructure. At an alternate site, additional pipelines or transmission lines may also be 

necessary. As such, impacts could be SMALL to LARGE. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-46 December 2008 

Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Generation at VEGP and an 

Alternate Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Land Use SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Approximately 160 acres for 

power block and support 

facilities. Some existing 

infrastructure would be used 

to support gas-fired 

operations. Additional 

impact potentially affecting 

from tens to hundreds of 

acres for construction of gas 

pipeline. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Approximately 250 

acres for power block, 

offices, roads, and 

parking areas. Power 

line and gas pipeline 

impacts may vary 

widely, from tens of 

acres to thousands of 

acres. Previously 

developed sites would 

experience lower 

impacts than 

undeveloped sites. 

Ecology SMALL As the alternative would 

largely use undeveloped 

areas at VEGP, terrestrial 

impacts would be minimal. 

Land disturbance for a new 

gas pipeline would depend 

on its route though use of 

roadway corridors will 

minimize impacts. Aquatic 

ecology benefits from the 

gas-fired alternative, as the 

combined-cycle plant 

requires significantly less 

makeup water and 

discharges less blowdown 

than VEGP. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Impact depends on 

location and ecology of 

the site, surface water 

body used for intake and 

discharge, and 

transmission and 

pipeline routes. At an 

undisturbed location 

there could be habitat 

loss and fragmentation; 

reduced productivity and 

biological diversity. 

These issues would be 

less significant at a 

previously developed 

site. 

Water Use and 

Quality—Surface 

Water 

SMALL Due to higher thermal 

efficiency, less cooling tower 

makeup water needed than 

for VEGP and also reduced 

blowdown flows to river. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impact depends on 

volume of water 

withdrawn and 

discharged, as well as 

characteristics of the 

surface water body. 

Water Use and 

Quality—

Groundwater 

SMALL Somewhat lower 

groundwater usage for plant 

services than VEGP. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impact depends on 

volume of water 

withdrawn and 

characteristics of local 

aquifers. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 8-5. (cont’d) 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Air Quality SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Emissions: 

• Sulfur oxides 

(175 tons/yr) 

• Nitrogen oxides 

(561 tons/yr) 

• Carbon monoxide 

(116 tons/yr) 

• Filterable particulates 

(98 tons/yr) 

• Small amounts of 

hazardous air 

pollutants 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Same emissions as at 

VEGP site. 

Waste SMALL Solid waste primarily due to 

emission controls and plant 

operations. 

SMALL Same waste produced 

as at the VEGP site. 

Human Health SMALL Impacts are uncertain, but 

considered SMALL as the 

plant would comply with 

health-informed standards in 

the Clean Air Act and other 

relevant emissions 

regulations. 

SMALL Similar impacts to those 

at the VEGP site. 

Socioeconomics SMALL to 

MODERATE 

During construction, impacts 

in surrounding communities 

would be SMALL to 

MODERATE, depending on 

site. Up to 1100 additional 

workers during the peak of 

construction period. 

Impacts could occur as a 

result of the decrease in onsite operations employment 

from 862 to 300. Tax base 

would be preserved. 

Impacts during operation 

would be SMALL. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

During construction, 

impacts in surrounding 

communities would be 

SMALL to MODERATE, 

depending on site. Up 

to 1100 additional 

workers during the peak 

of construction period. 

Burke County would 

lose jobs and portion of 

tax base. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-48 December 2008 

Table 8-5. (cont’d) 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Socioeconomics 

(Transportation) 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Transportation impacts 

would occur primarily during 

the peak of construction 

activity. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Expected to be similar to 

those at VEGP. 

 Aesthetics SMALL Aesthetic impact would be 

minor given the large plant 

structures already in-place 

at VEGP. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Greatest impacts from 

clearing for new 

transmission line. 

Overall impact would be 

SMALL for previously 

developed sites and 

SMALL to MODERATE 

for undeveloped sites. 

Historic and 

Archeological 

Resources 

SMALL Any potential impacts could 

be effectively managed 

given the plant and 

pipeline’s small footprint. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Development of a new 

site and clearing for 

pipeline and 

transmission line could 

disturb these resources. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL Environmental impacts on 

minority and low-income 

populations would be similar 

to those experienced by the 

general population in the 

region. Loss of jobs at 

VEGP may 

disproportionately affect 

minority and low-income 

populations in Burke 

County. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Impacts would vary 

depending on population 

distribution and location 

of the site. The loss of 

jobs at VEGP and tax 

revenue could 

disproportionately affect 

minority and low-income 

populations in Burke 

County. 

• Ecology 

At the VEGP site there could be terrestrial ecological impacts associated with siting a gasfired facility, though these impacts are likely to be SMALL since much of the new plant 

would be situated in disturbed areas and impacts to wetland and other useful on-site 

habitats could be avoided. There would also be some ecological impacts associated with 

bringing a new underground gas pipeline to the VEGP site, though the scale of this impact is 

dependent on how much of the pipeline route can follow already disturbed roadway 

corridors. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Given the relatively high efficiency of a combined cycle facility in relationship to a 

comparable capacity nuclear plant, the combined cycle’s requirements for cooling water 

would be noticeably reduced from that of VEGP and the resultant impacts to aquatic 

resources would also be reduced. In addition, cooling tower discharges to the Savannah 

River would diminish more or less in line with the reduction in make-up flows. Thus, aquatic 

ecological impacts of the combine cycle alternative would be less than those of the existing 

VEGP complex and are characterized as SMALL. 

Ecological impacts at an alternate site would depend on the nature of the land converted to 

plant uses and the distances over which new transmission facilities (gas and electric) would 

need to be run. Ecological impacts to the plant site and to transmission rights-of-way would 

include wildlife habitat loss and reduced productivity, habitat fragmentation, and a local 

reduction in biological diversity. At an alternate site, the cooling tower makeup water and 

discharges would have aquatic resource impacts that depend on the quality of the surface 

water body from which withdrawals occur. Overall, ecological impacts of developing a 

combined cycle facility at an alternative site would be considered SMALL if the site were at 

an already disturbed industrial location and range to LARGE for alternate sites with relatively 

undisturbed habitat conditions. 

• Water Use and Quality 

Surface Water. Combined-cycle gas-fired plants are highly efficient and require less cooling 

water than other technologies such as nuclear and pulverized coal plants. Plant discharges 

would consist mostly of cooling tower blowdown, with the discharge having a slightly higher 

temperature and increased concentration of dissolved solids relative to the receiving water 

body. All discharges from a new plant would be regulated through a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit which would be issued by GDNR. Finally, 

some erosion and sedimentation would probably occur during construction (NRC 1996), 

though the GEIS indicates this would be SMALL. Overall, the impacts to water use and 

quality at the VEGP site from a gas-fired alternative would be considered SMALL, and would 

be less than the proposed action. 

 

A natural gas-fired plant at an alternate site is assumed to use closed-cycle cooling. The 

NRC staff assumed that surface water would be used for cooling makeup water and 

blowdown discharge. The impact on the surface water would depend on the volume of 

water needed for makeup water, the discharge volume, and the characteristics of the 

receiving body of water. Intake from and discharges to any surface body of water would be 

regulated by GDNR. The impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE depending on receiving 

water characteristics. 

Groundwater. VEGP currently uses about 1.05 mgd of groundwater and it is likely that a 

gas-fired combined cycle alternative would also use groundwater for various in-plant 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-50 December 2008 

auxiliary services. Since the impacts of current groundwater usage practices by VEGP are 

considered SMALL, the impacts of a combined cycle alternate are also estimated to be 

SMALL. Groundwater usage impacts at an alternate site may vary depending on the nature 

of aquifers at the alternate location. Given that it is unlikely that a plant at an alternate site 

would use groundwater for cooling purposes, impacts at an alternate site could range from 

SMALL to MODERATE. 

• Air Quality 

Burke County, and the entire Augusta-Aiken Air Quality Control Region within which the 

county is situated, meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards established by EPA 

under the CAA (42 USC 7401). A new gas-fired generating plant developed at the VEGP 

site would need to comply with the new source performance standards set forth in 40 CFR 

60 Subpart D(a) and GG. The standards establish limits for particulate matter and opacity 

(40 CFR 60.42(a)), SO2 (40 CFR 60.43(a)), and NOx (40 CFR 60.44(a)). A gas-fired power 

plant constructed elsewhere in Georgia would need to comply with applicable provisions of 

the CAA, as well, based on the attainment status of the selected alternate site. 

Section 169A of the CAA (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing future 

and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when 

impairment results from man-made air pollution. EPA issued a new regional haze rule in 

1999 (64 FR 35714; EPA 1999). 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 least-impaired days 

over the same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). 

If a natural gas-fired plant were located close to a mandatory Class I area, additional air 

pollution control requirements could be imposed. Georgia has three designated Class I 

wilderness areas and South Carolina has one. These areas are listed in Table 8.3. A gasfired alternate located at the VEGP site would not likely impact visibility at any Class I area 

since the nearest such area, as can be noted from Table 8.3, is approximately 119 miles 

from VEGP. For an alternate site, consideration may have to be given to installation of 

addition air emission control systems if that site were in proximity to any one of the Class I 

areas. In addition to regulating under the regional haze rule, USEPA also regulates 

visibility, in general, pursuant to rules at 40 CFR 51, Subpart P. 

The State of Georgia regulates air emissions from power plants pursuant to terms of the 

Georgia Air Quality Act (Part I of Chapter 9 of Title 12 of the Official Code of Georgia 

Annotated [O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq.]). Regulations issued by GDNR (Chapter 391-
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

3-1) adopt the EPA’s CAA rules, with modifications, to limit power plant emissions of SOx, 

NOx, particulate matter, and hazardous air pollutants, among other matters. Depending 

where a new gas-fired facility is located within the State that facility will need to comply with 

the applicable Federal and State air regulations 

NRC staff projects the following emissions for a gas-fired alternative based on EPA 

emissions factors (EPA 2000a): 

o Sulfur oxides – 175 tons/yr 

o Nitrogen oxides – 561 tons/yr 

o Carbon monoxide – 116 tons/yr 

o Filterable particulates – 98 tons/yr 

The total amount of nitrogen oxides which can be emitted by Georgia in the 2008 ozone 

season (May 1–September 30) is set out at 40 CFR 51.121(e). For Georgia the amount is 

150,000 MT (165,306 tons). A new gas-fired power plant would need to buy credits if it was 

likely to cause the State to exceed these limits. 

A natural gas-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions and, in case 

of the alternate to VEGP, would emit approximately 5.6 million tons of CO2 per year. In 

December 2000, EPA issued regulatory findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

from electric utility steam-generating units (EPA 2000b). Natural gas-fired power plants 

were found by EPA to emit arsenic, formaldehyde, and nickel (EPA 2000b). Unlike coal and 

oil-fired plants, EPA did not determine that emissions of hazardous air pollutants from 

natural gas-fired power plants should be regulated under Section 112 of the CAA. 

Construction activities would also result in some air effects, including those from temporary 

fugitive dust, though construction crews would employ dust-control practices to limit this 

impact. Exhaust emissions would also come from vehicles and motorized equipment used 

during the construction process, though these emissions are likely to be intermittent in 

nature and will occur over a limited period of time. As such, construction stage impacts 

would be SMALL. 

The overall air-quality impacts of a new natural gas-fired combined cycle plant sited at 

VEGP or at an alternate site would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

• Waste 

Burning natural gas results in minor quantities of waste compared to other alternates, 

though a plant using selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to control NOx will generate spent 

SCR catalyst from NOx emissions control and small amounts of solid-waste products (i.e., 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-52 December 2008 

ash). In the GEIS, the NRC staff concluded that waste generation from gas-fired technology 

would be minimal (NRC 1996). Constructing a gas-fired alternative would generate small 

amounts of waste, though many construction wastes can be recycled and some debris 

would be land filled onsite. 

Overall, the waste impacts would be SMALL for a natural gas-fired plant sited at VEGP or at 

an alternate site. 

• Human Health 

In Table 8-2 of the GEIS, the NRC staff identifies cancer and emphysema as potential 

health risks from gas-fired plant operations (NRC 1996). The risks may be attributable to 

Nox emissions that contribute to ozone formation, which in turn can contribute to health 

impacts. Nox emissions from any gas-fired plant would be regulated as mentioned in the Air 

Quality section. Overall, the impacts on human health of a natural gas-fired alternate sited 

at VEGP or at an alternate site would be considered SMALL. 

• Socioeconomics 

Construction of a natural gas-fired plant would take approximately 4 years (DOE/EIA 

2007c). Peak employment would be approximately 1,100 workers (NRC 1996). NRC staff 

assumed that construction would take place while VEGP continues operation and would be 

completed by the time it permanently ceases operations. During construction, the 

communities surrounding the site would experience an increased demand for rental housing 

and public services that would have SMALL to MODERATE impacts. These impacts would 

be somewhat reduced if construction workers were to commute to the site from other parts 

of the region including the Augusta-Aiken metropolitan area. 

During operation of the gas-fired complex about 300 full time employees would work at the 

site, a considerable reduction from the 862 permanent employees currently staffing the 

VEGP facility. In addition, the current nuclear plant accounts for approximately 75 percent 

of the property taxes collected by Burke County. Any reduction in taxes paid to the County 

could impact local services. Given the reduced number of operations workers required for a 

gas-fired plant, the socioeconomic impacts of this alternate would be SMALL. 

Should the new gas-fired plant be built at an alternate site, the loss of taxes and 

employment in Burke County would have a LARGE impact. At the alternate site, 

socioeconomic impacts would range from SMALL to MODERATE, depending on site 

specific conditions. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

• Socioeconomics (Transportation) 

Transportation impacts associated with construction of a gas-fired complex at either the 

VEGP site or an alternate site would range from SMALL to MODERATE due to the daily 

arrival of up to 1100 construction workers and associated construction equipment. Once 

operations of the complex begin, transportation system impacts would be SMALL. 

• Aesthetics 

At the VEGP site, the turbine buildings (100 ft tall) and four exhaust stacks (approximately 

200 ft tall) would not be visible from offsite due to trees and the undulating terrain. The 

existing cooling towers are a dominant feature of the VEGP site and would be retained for 

gas-fired operations. Noise and light from the plant may be detectable offsite, but would be 

screened by the site’s trees. The visual impact, from a new gas-fired plant on the current 

VEGP site, would be SMALL. 

At an alternate site, new buildings, cooling towers, cooling tower plumes, and electric 

transmission lines could be visible offsite. Visual impacts from new transmission lines would 

depend on land uses along the transmission corridor. Aesthetic impacts would be mitigated 

if the plant were located in an industrial area where land uses are compatible with electric 

generation activities. Overall, the aesthetic impacts associated with an alternate site could 

range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

• Historic and Archaeological Resources 

At VEGP, a cultural resource inventory would be needed for any onsite property that has not 

been previously surveyed and would be disturbed by the proposed development. 

Construction of a gas line to the VEGP site could disturb undeveloped areas along its route 

and these areas would also need to be surveyed for the presence of archeological 

resources. Impacts to cultural resources would be SMALL. Most impacts could be 

mitigated under an approved resource management plan. 

Before construction at an alternate site, studies would be needed to identify, evaluate, and 

address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant construction on cultural resources. 

Studies would 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 

and pipeline corridors, or other ROWs). Building on a previously developed site would 

minimize the likelihood of affecting historical or archaeological resources. At an alternate 

the impact would be SMALL to MODERATE. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-54 December 2008 

• Environmental Justice 

No environmental impacts were identified that would result in disproportionately high and 

adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations if the gas-fired plant 

were built at the VEGP site. Some impacts on rental and other temporary housing 

availability and lease prices during construction might occur, and this could 

disproportionately affect the minority and low-income populations. 

Impacts on minority and low-income populations due to the shutdown of VEGP would 

depend on the number of jobs and the amount of tax revenue lost to Burke County and the 

communities surrounding the power plant. Closure of VEGP would eliminate jobs and 

reduce tax revenue in the region that were directly and indirectly attributed to plant 

operations. However, given the economic growth of Columbia County and the Augusta 

area, it is likely that these losses could be replaced by the development of new businesses 

and new sources of tax revenue in the region. Since SNC’s tax payments represent a large 

percentage of Burke County’s total annual property tax revenue, it is likely that social 

services in Burke County would be seriously affected. Therefore, minority and low-income 

populations in Burke County could experience disproportionately high and adverse 

socioeconomic impacts from the shutdown of VEGP. 

The shutdown of VEGP would reduce operational impacts on the environment. Therefore, 

minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of VEGP would not likely experience any 

disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts from the shutdown of VEGP. 

The impact of constructing a gas-fired plant at an alternative site would depend on its 

location in relation to minority and low-income populations. Environmental and economic 

impacts could range from SMALL to LARGE. Impacts could be larger at previously 

undeveloped sites, depending on its proximity to minority and low-income populations. 

8.2.4 New Nuclear Generation 

Since 1997 the NRC has certified four new standard designs for nuclear power plants under 10 

CFR 52, Subpart B. These designs are the 1,300 MW(e) U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor 

(10 CFR 52, Appendix A), the 1,300 MW(e) System 80+ Design (10 CFR 52, Appendix B), the 

600 MW(e) AP600 Design (10 CFR 52, Appendix C), and the 1,100 MW(e) AP1000 Design (10 

CFR 52, Appendix D). Four additional designs are under review for certification. All of the 

designs currently certified or awaiting certification are light-water reactors. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

NRC has received several early site permit (ESP) applications, and has approved ESPs at the 

Clinton site near Clinton, Illinois (ESP issued on March 15, 2007), at the Grand Gulf site, in 

Claiborne County, Mississippi (ESP issued on March 27, 2007), and at the North Anna site, 

near Richmond, Virginia (ESP issued on November 27, 2007). In addition, NRC has received 

17 Combined Operating License (COL) Applications for the construction and operation of 26 

new nuclear units throughout the country. 

In August 2006, SNC submitted an ESP requesting approval of the VEGP site for construction 

of two Westinghouse Electric AP1000 nuclear units. In March 2008, SNC submitted a COL 

application for construction and operation of two units at the VEGP site. These applications by 

SNC and other potential nuclear facility operators indicate continuing interest in the possibility of 

licensing new nuclear power plants. 

Given the growing concern over fossil fuel related green house gas emissions and the 

expressed industry interest in new nuclear construction, NRC staff will evaluate new nuclear 

generation as an alternate to renewal of the VEGP operating license. The evaluation will 

consider locating the new nuclear facility at either the VEGP site (and terminating operations of 

the two operating units) or at an alternate site. Impacts of continued nuclear plant operations on 

the VEGP site, beyond the term of the current licenses, are fully evaluated in this SEIS (see 

Chapter 4) and the impact levels presented herein are applicable to a new nuclear plant as well. 

However, construction impacts associated with developing a new nuclear facility at the VEGP 

site have not been addressed in Chapter 4 and will be considered here. 

NRC staff notes that this analysis addresses the potential impacts of a reactor constructed at 

the current VEGP site for the purposes of replacing the existing VEGP units. This analysis is 

not meant to be indicative of the impacts one would expect from the two units SNC has 

indicated they may possibly construct at the VEGP site, should they complete the combined 

construction and license (COL) application process and receive approval from the NRC. During 

that process NRC staff would initiate a separate, detailed environmental impact statement to 

address the design-specific and site-specific impacts from those units. 

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 1000 MW(e) nuclear power plant built to one of the certified 

designs. As such, the impacts outlined in this table need to be adjusted to reflect impacts of two 

AP1000 units (total output of 2,200 MW(e) for the VEGP new nuclear reactor alternative.(f) The 

 

(f) NRC staff notes that while Table S-3 does not estimate impacts from unregulated CO2 emissions 

during the nuclear fuel cycle, Table S-3 does indicate that energy consumed during the cycle is 

roughly equal to that generated by a 45 conventional coal-fired plant, and thus provides a means of 

approximating unregulated CO2 emissions. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-56 December 2008 

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 51.52. NRC staff 

summarize findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants in Table B-1 of 

10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix B. 

NRC staff discusses the overall impacts of constructing and operating a new, two-unit, nuclear 

complex at the VEGP site and at an alternate site in the following paragraphs. Table 8-6 then 

compares the impacts associated with developing the two-unit complex at the two sites. 

Operating phase impacts associated with two new units at the VEGP site are based on the 

analysis presented in Chapter 4 which evaluates impacts of license renewal for the reactors 

currently operating at VEGP. However, the NRC staff assumed that the new nuclear plant 

would have a 40-year lifetime to allow for comparisons between a new nuclear plant and other 

alternatives. This assumed period also coincides with the initial licensing period for a new 

nuclear plant. 

As indicated in the following paragraphs, the extent of impacts at an alternate site would heavily 

depend on the location and characteristics of the particular site: 

• Land Use 

The existing facilities and infrastructure at the VEGP site would be used to the extent 

practicable, limiting the amount of new construction that would be required. Specifically, the 

NRC staff assumed that a replacement nuclear power plant would use the existing cooling 

tower system, switchyard, offices, and transmission line rights-of-way. Much of the land that 

would be used has been previously disturbed. SNC estimates that approximately 400 aces 

of the VEGP site would be disturbed if two new nuclear plants were constructed to replace 

the currently operating complex (SNC 2007a). While some of the area that would be 

needed for the new facility would already be highly disturbed, it is likely that considerable 

area currently used for tree farming or that otherwise has habitat value (including wetlands, 

streams and open water) would be developed. Thus, the land use impacts associated with 

constructing the new nuclear facility would be MODERATE while operation of the new plant 

would have SMALL land use impacts. 

 

Land-use impacts at an alternate site would be similar to siting at VEGP except for the land 

needed for transmission lines necessary to connect to the grid, and a rail spur to allow 

delivery of major components and fuel. Depending on the site, anywhere from tens to 

thousands of acres may be necessary. The need to construct transmission and rail capacity 

would likely be reduced at a previously developed industrial site, though it would likely result 

in MODERATE to LARGE land-use impacts. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

• Ecology 

Due to the 400 acres of land disturbance associated with construction of a new nuclear 

facility at the VEGP site the terrestrial ecological impacts are considered to be SMALL. 

Terrestrial and aquatic ecological impacts related to plant operations would be SMALL as 

presented in Chapter 4 of this SEIS. 

For an alternate site, there would be both on-site and off-site ecological impacts during 

construction and operation of the new nuclear facility. Even assuming siting at a previously 

disturbed location, the impacts could include wildlife habitat loss, reduced productivity, 

habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity, depending on the degree 

to which the site was previously disturbed and how much remediation has taken place. A 

new nuclear plant at an alternate site would likely employ cooling towers and would 

potentially incur aquatic impacts comparable to those of the existing VEGP units. At an 

alternate site ecological impacts would likely be MODERATE to LARGE, due primarily to 

impacts to terrestrial ecology. However, actual impact levels would depend on 

characteristics of the alternate site. 

Table 8-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Power Generation at the VEGP site and 

at an Alternate Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Land Use MODERATE Impacts occur as a result of 

disturbing up to 400 acres of 

existing VEGP site during 

construction. 

MODERATE 

to LARGE 

On-site requirements in 

the range of 500 to 1500 

acres. Off-site 

transmission lines and 

railway potentially 

impact hundreds of 

acres. 

Ecology SMALL Impacts are to terrestrial 

ecosystem as a result of 

land disturbance during 

construction. 

MODERATE 

to LARGE 

Impact depends 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. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-58 December 2008 

Table 8-6. (cont’d) 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Water Use and 

Quality—Surface 

water 

SMALL Impacts are expected to be 

comparable to existing plant. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impact would depend 

on the volume of water 

withdrawn and 

discharged and the 

characteristics of the 

surface water body. 

Water Use and 

Quality—

Groundwater 

SMALL The current plant uses 

groundwater for several 

services and impacts are 

SMALL. New plant would 

have comparable impacts. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impact would depend 

on the volume of water 

withdrawn, as well as 

characteristics of the 

aquifer. Groundwater 

would not be used for 

cooling system makeup 

water. 

Air Quality SMALL Impacts are expected to be 

SMALL because construction 

emissions are short term and 

operational emissions are 

minor. 

SMALL Same impacts as at 

VEGP site. 

Waste SMALL Waste impacts for an 

operating nuclear power 

plant are set out in 10 CFR 

51, Appendix B, Table B-1. 

Debris would be generated 

and removed during 

construction. 

SMALL Same as at VEGP 

Human Health SMALL Human health impacts for an 

operating nuclear power 

plant are set out in 10 CFR 

51, Appendix B, Table B-1. 

SMALL Same as at VEGP site. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 8-6. (cont’d) 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Socioeconomics SMALL to 

MODERATE 

During construction, impacts 

would be MODERATE, with 

up to 4,400 workers during 

the peak of the 6-year 

construction period. The 

operating work force 

assumed to be similar to 

VEGP; tax base preserved in 

Burke County, but may 

change in surrounding 

counties if workers don’t 

transfer from one plant to 

another. Impacts during 

operation would be SMALL. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Construction impacts 

depend on location. 

Impacts at a rural 

location would be 

LARGE. Burke County 

would experience a loss 

of tax revenue while 

surrounding counties 

would lose 

employment, though 

growth in the region 

could offset these 

impacts. 

Socioeconomics 

(Transportation) 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Transportation impacts from 

construction activities would 

be MODERATE. 

Transportation impacts of 

commuting plant personnel 

would be SMALL even if their 

commuting patterns differ 

from current plant 

employees. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Transportation impacts 

would be MODERATE 

to LARGE, primarily 

with construction 

activities. 

Transportation impacts 

of commuting plant 

personnel would be 

SMALL to MODERATE. 

Aesthetics SMALL No new exhaust stacks or 

cooling towers would be 

needed. New containment 

and turbine buildings would 

be visible in the immediate 

vicinity of the plant. Visual 

impact at night would be 

mitigated by reduced use of 

lighting and appropriate 

shielding. Noise impacts 

would be relatively small and 

would be mitigated. 

MODERATE 

to LARGE 

Greatest impact is likely 

from new cooling 

towers. Also, 

transmission lines 

would have noticeable 

impacts. Containment 

and other building 

would also be 

noticeable 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-60 December 2008 

Table 8-6. (cont’d) 

VEGP Site Alternate Site Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Historic and 

Archeological 

Resources 

SMALL Any potential impacts could 

be effectively managed. Any 

offsite land acquired would 

need to be surveyed. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Any undeveloped land 

would need to be 

surveyed prior to 

development. Impact 

likely smaller at 

previously developed 

site and could be 

effectively managed. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL Impacts on minority and lowincome communities would 

be similar to those 

experienced by the general 

population. Some impacts 

on rental housing may occur 

during construction, though 

most personnel are expected 

to travel from nearby urban 

areas. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Impacts would vary 

depending on 

population distribution 

and location of the site. 

The loss of jobs at 

VEGP and tax revenue 

could disproportionately 

affect minority and lowincome populations in 

Burke County. 

However, impacts to 

minority and lowincome populations 

from the closure of 

VEGP would likely to be 

offset by economic 

growth in the region. 

• Water Use and Quality 

Surface Water. Should a new two-unit nuclear facility be constructed and operated at the 

VEGP site to replace the currently operating units, the impacts to surface waters would be 

expected to be SMALL. At an alternate site, plant cooling would be provided by means of a 

closed cycle system. The impact on nearby surface waters would depend on the volume of 

water needed for makeup, the discharge flow rates, and characteristics of the receiving 

water body. Intake from and discharge to any surface water would be regulated by the 

GDNR. The impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

Groundwater. Impacts to groundwater are expected to be SMALL if a new nuclear facility is 

constructed at the VEGP site and the existing facility licenses are not renewed. 

Groundwater use would be an option for a nuclear plant at an alternate site. However, it is 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

unlikely that a new nuclear facility would use groundwater for cooling purposes which is the 

major water demand generated by large steam-electric stations. Groundwater withdrawals 

at an alternate site would require permits from the State permitting authority (GDNR in the 

case of a plant in Georgia). Overall, groundwater impacts at an alternate site would be 

SMALL to MODERATE. 

• Air Quality 

Construction of a new nuclear plant at either the VEGP site or an alternate site would result 

in fugitive dust emissions during the construction process. These impacts would be 

intermittent and short-lived. To minimize dust generation, construction crews would use 

applicable dust-control measures. Exhaust emissions would also come from vehicles and 

motorized equipment used during the construction process, but these would also be of 

limited duration. An operating nuclear plant would have minor air emissions associated with 

diesel generators and other small-scale intermittent sources. Overall, air emissions and 

associated impacts would be SMALL. 

• Waste 

The waste impacts associated with operation of a nuclear power plant are set out in Table 

B-1 of 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. Construction-related debris would be generated 

during construction activities and removed to an appropriate disposal site. Overall, waste 

impacts would be SMALL for either the VEGP site or an alternate site. 

• Human Health 

Human health impacts for an operating nuclear power plant are set out in 10 CFR 51 

Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. Overall, human health impacts would be SMALL. 

• Socioeconomics 

Representative construction period and the peak work force associated with construction of 

a new nuclear power plant at VEGP are presented in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site 

(NUREG-1872) (NRC 2007). NRC staff assumed a construction period of 6 years and a 

peak work force of 4,400. The NRC staff assumed that construction would take place while 

the existing nuclear unit continues operation and would be completed by the time VEGP 

permanently ceases operations. During construction, the communities surrounding the 

VEGP site would experience an increase demand for rental housing and public services that 

would have SMALL to MODERATE impacts. These impacts could be reduced by 

construction workers commuting to the site from other parts of the Augusta area or from 

other counties. After construction, the communities would be impacted by the loss of the 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-62 December 2008 

construction jobs. An alternative site would experience SMALL to LARGE impacts, 

depending on characteristics of the surrounding community and local economy. 

The new nuclear units are assumed to have an operating work force of up to 660 workers. 

The replacement nuclear alternative would provide new and/or additional tax revenue to 

offset the loss of revenue associated with the decommissioning of VEGP. New employment 

at an alternative site, as well as the region’s economic growth, would also likely offset any 

loss of VEGP jobs. Socioeconomic impacts for a replacement nuclear alternative 

constructed at VEGP would be SMALL; the socioeconomic impacts would be noticeable, but 

would be unlikely to destabilize the area. In comparison, socioeconomic impacts for a 

replacement nuclear alternative at a rural site could be LARGE. 

• Socioeconomic (Transportation) 

During the 6-year construction period, up to 4,400 construction workers would commute to 

the VEGP site in addition to the 890 workers at VEGP. The addition of the construction 

workers, equipment, and material would increase traffic loads on existing roads around the 

plant. Such impacts would be MODERATE. Transportation impacts related to commuting 

of plant operating personnel would be similar to current impacts associated with operation of 

VEGP and would be SMALL. 

Construction of a replacement nuclear power plant at an alternate site would relocate some 

socioeconomic impacts, but would not eliminate them. The communities around the VEGP 

site would still experience the impact of operational job loss, though this could be offset by 

economic growth in the region. The communities around the new site would have to absorb 

the impacts of a large, temporary work force (up to 4,400 workers at the peak of 

construction) and a permanent work force of approximately 660 workers. In the GEIS (NRC 

1996), the NRC staff indicated 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. The VEGP site is within commuting distance of the Augusta urban area. 

Transportation-related impacts associated with commuting construction workers at an 

alternate site are site dependent, but would be MODERATE to LARGE. These may be 

mitigated somewhat if the new nuclear power plant would be built on a previously developed 

site nearer to large population centers. Transportation impacts related to commuting of 

plant operating personnel at an alternate site would also be site dependent, but would be 

characterized as SMALL to MODERATE. 

• Aesthetics 

The containment building for a replacement nuclear power plant sited at VEGP, existing 

cooling tower, and as other associated buildings would be visible in daylight hours over 

many miles, though extensive forestation on site may help screen these structures. The 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

replacement nuclear unit may be visible at night because of outside lighting. Visual impacts 

could be mitigated by landscaping and selecting a color for buildings that is consistent with 

the environment. Visual impact at night could be mitigated by reduced use of lighting and 

appropriate use of shielding. No exhaust stacks would be needed. Visual impacts would 

likely be SMALL. 

Noise impacts from a new nuclear plant would be similar to those from the existing VEGP 

units. Given the land area available around the plant, and potential noise mitigation 

measures, such as reduced use of outside loudspeakers, the impact of noise would be 

SMALL. 

At an alternate site, there would be an aesthetic impact from the buildings, cooling towers, 

and the plume associated with the cooling tower. There would also be a significant 

aesthetic impact associated with construction of a new transmission line to connect to other 

lines to enable delivery of electricity. 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 or industrial land uses. Overall the aesthetic 

impacts associated with locating at an alternative site would be categorized as MODERATE 

to LARGE, depending on site characteristics. The greatest contributor to this categorization 

would be the aesthetic impact of the cooling towers and transmission lines. 

• Historic and Archaeological Resources 

At the VEGP site, a cultural resource inventory would likely be needed for any onsite and 

offsite property that has not been previously surveyed. Any land acquired to support the 

new plant would also need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and 

recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of 

adverse effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of 

the plant site. Impacts are expected to be SMALL. 

Before beginning construction at an alternate site, studies would be needed to identify, 

evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant construction on 

cultural resources. Studies would 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 corridors, rail lines, or other rights-of-way). Historic and 

archaeological resource impacts can generally be effectively managed. Effects at an 

undeveloped site would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

• Environmental Justice 

No environmental impacts were identified that would result in disproportionately high and 

adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations if a replacement 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-64 December 2008 

nuclear plant were built at the VEGP site. Some impacts on housing availability and lease 

prices during construction might occur, and this could disproportionately affect the minority 

and low-income populations. 

Impacts on minority and low-income populations due to the shutdown of VEGP would 

depend on the number of jobs and the amount of tax revenue lost to the communities 

surrounding the power plant. Closure of VEGP would reduce the overall number of jobs and 

tax revenue generated in the region that were directly and indirectly attributed to plant 

operations. However, given the economic growth of Columbia County and the Augusta 

area, it is likely that these losses would be replaced by the development of new businesses 

and new sources of tax revenue in the region. Since SNC’s tax payments represent a large 

percentage of Burke County’s total annual property tax revenue, it is likely that social 

services in the county would be seriously affected by the shutdown of VEGP. Therefore, the 

loss of jobs and tax revenue from the shutdown of VEGP could disproportionately affect 

minority and low-income populations in Burke County. 

The environmental effect of plant shutdown would also reduce the amount of operational 

impacts on the environment. Therefore, minority and low-income populations in the vicinity 

of VEGP would not likely experience any disproportionately high and adverse environmental 

impacts from the shutdown of VEGP. 

Impacts at an alternate site would depend upon the site chosen and population distribution, 

and would likely be SMALL to LARGE. 

8.2.5 Conservation 

In this section, NRC staff evaluates conservation(g) as an alternative to license renewal. 

According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) State Energy 

Efficiency Scorecard for 2006, Georgia ranks 38th in the country in terms of implementation of 

energy efficiency programs (Eldridge et al. 2006) suggesting there is considerable opportunity 

for enhancing the State’s conservation efforts. 

The Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) is currently taking a number of steps to 

balance the State’s energy markets through new energy efficiency practices. One such step is 

requiring that State-regulated utilities, such as the Georgia Power Company (GPC), submit an 

Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for its approval every three years. The IRP demonstrates the 

economic, environmental, and other benefits of the utility’s plans to, among other things, 

 

(g) NRC staff notes that conservation typically refers to all programs that reduce energy consumption, 

while energy efficiency refers to programs that reduce consumption without reducing services. For 

this section, NRC staff will use the terms interchangeably. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

improve energy efficiency, operate alternative sources of energy, and expand Demand Side 

Management (DSM). GPC submitted its latest IRP on January 31, 2007 and the GPSC 

approved it by Order dated July 12, 2007 (GPSC 2007). Beyond approving the IRP, the Order 

requires that GPC expand its DSM programs (including conservation programs) beyond those 

proposed in the IRP to “capture more of the economic and achievable potential to improve enduse energy efficiency." 

The GPC IRP proposed five new DSM pilot programs: the Power Credit Multifamily Program, 

the Programmable Thermostat with Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Program, the 

Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb Program, the Electric Water Heater Insulation Program, and 

the Commercial Tax Incentive Program. The GPSC found that each of the five pilot programs 

proposed by the GPC should be approved on a pilot basis and that the GPC shall begin 

implementation of each of these five programs no later than January 1, 2008 (GPSC 2007). In 

addition to the five pilot programs, the GPSC is also requiring that the GPC expand several 

other DSM programs including a weatherization assistance funding program, programs that 

encourage the use of energy efficient appliances, commercial lighting tax incentives programs, 

and commercial and residential building tax incentive programs. 

 In a report prepared for the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority, ICF Consulting (ICF 

2005a) discusses the potential to cost effectively increase energy efficiency in the State if the 

appropriate programs and policies were to be implemented. The intent of the report is to 

identify latent energy efficiency potential that can be readily captured through policy 

interventions over a five to ten year period. 

In their report, ICF uses a series of mathematical models to estimate the energy savings that 

could realistically be attained by efficiency-related policy and program interventions. The firm 

modeled three intervention scenarios identified as Minimally Aggressive, Moderately 

Aggressive, and Very Aggressive. For each scenario an estimate was generated of the 

reduction in peak demand and electric sales that could be achieved by sector (residential, 

commercial, and industrial). In terms of peak energy demand, ICF concluded that the two 

primary contributors were air conditioning and lighting which accounted for 65 percent of the 

peak. 

ICF estimates of potential reductions in peak demand in the fifth year following implementation 

of the policy and program interventions for the three scenarios are 447 MW(e), 1,149 MW(e), 

and 1,608 MW(e). ICP proposes options for reaching these targets in a companion report that 

describes investment programs and policies that would be needed to support a state-wide 

conservation program (ICF 2005b). 

ICF recommends a portfolio of targeted investment programs that could be implemented to 

capture at least a substantial portion of the potential reduction in peak demand (ICP 2005b). 

Target areas of the portfolio include: 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-66 December 2008 

• Residential lighting and appliances 

• Small commercial and industrial (hard-to-reach) users 

• New commercial and industrial construction 

• Custom incentives for commercial and industrial users 

• Prescriptive rebates for commercial and industrial users 

The ICF report also recommends State-sponsored direct intervention policies which produce 

significant energy savings by eliminating the least efficient technologies and practices from the 

market. Direct intervention policies target building codes, appliance/equipment efficiency 

standards, and tax credits to set an efficiency floor. The ICF report also recommends the use of 

State-sponsored enabling policies to stimulate consumer investment in energy saving 

measures. 

While it is not clear as to the extent to which GPSC, in their order to GPC mandating expansion 

of the utility’s demand side management programs, has embraced the analysis and results of 

the ICF study, the principal requirements imposed on GPC by the GPSC Order directly address 

the principal contributors to peak demand established by ICF: lighting and air conditioning. 

Therefore, it appears reasonable to assume that the policies supported by GPSC in their Order 

will, as they are implemented, capture to some extent the energy efficiency benefits estimated 

by ICF. 

 

In the absence of quantifiable peak demand reductions that will result from the GPSC Order, the 

lack of documented commitment to the ICF report recommendations, and the absence of 

quantifiable program achievements to date, NRC staff will not evaluate conservation or 

efficiency programs as replacement for the full output of the VEGP. NRC staff will, however, 

consider conservation as part of a combined alternative. 

For the purpose of the analysis presented in Section 8.2.8 (Combination of Alternative), it is 

assumed that Georgia meets the Moderately Aggressive conservation goal of 1,149 MW(e) 

before the VEGP operating licenses expire. However, GPC anticipates taking approximately 

600 MW(e) base load off line with the retirement of the McDonough Units 1 and 2 coal-fired 

plants resulting in a net conservation of about 550 MW(e) (GPSC 2007). It is further assumed 

that conservation efforts during the license renewal period can result in an additional 450 MW(e) 

demand reduction (the approximate difference in the Moderately Aggressive and Very 

Aggressive savings estimates). Therefore the combined alternative will include 1,000 MW(e) 

from conservation. 

8.2.6 Purchased Electrical Power 

Georgia imported approximately 57.9 gigawatt-hours of electricity in 2004 (EIA 2007c) and 

essentially none of this power, as would be expected, came from international sources. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

According to SNC (Vogtle Environmental Report, 2007) some of the imported power may be the 

result of existing purchase contracts which would prevent it from being used to replace VEGP. 

Additionally, SNC has entered into long term purchase contracts with several entities to provide 

firm capacity and energy. SNC views these contracts as part of their current and future capacity 

and does not consider those purchases to be applicable to replacement of VEGP (Vogtle 

Environmental Report, 2007). In their July 12, 2007 Order, the GPSC mandates that GPC issue 

a request for proposal for base load resources that have been identified in the utility’s 

Integrated Resource Plan, as being needed to meet future demand. Thus, based on the 

language of the Order, resources that would be so purchased would not be intended to replace 

the output of VEGP. 

While it is expected that GPC could purchase additional capacity and energy beyond that 

already being planned, the NRC staff also considers it likely that the technologies that would be 

used to generate the purchased power would be one of those that have already been evaluated 

in this report. These include pulverized coal, gas-fired combined cycle systems, and IGCC 

facilities, among others. Impacts of those technologies have been shown to exceed the impacts 

of license renewal. Thus, the NRC staff does not view purchasing power to be an 

environmentally preferable alternative. 

8.2.7 Other Alternatives 

Other generation technologies NRC staff considered but determined to be individually 

inadequate to serve as alternatives to VEGP are discussed in the following paragraphs. 

8.2.7.1 Oil-Fired Generation 

EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little of the new generation capacity in the 

United States during the 2007 to 2030 time period, and overall oil consumption for electricity 

generation will decrease because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies (DOE/EIA 2007a). 

Oil-fired generation is more expensive to operate than nuclear or coal-fired plants, though it is 

less expensive than either to construct. Future increases in oil prices are expected to make oilfired generation increasingly more expensive than coal-fired generation. The high cost of oil 

has prompted a steady decline for use in electricity generation. For these reasons, oil-fired 

generation will not be evaluated as an alternative to VEGP license renewal. 

 8.2.7.2 Wind Power 

Power generation from wind on an industrial scale is a relatively recent development. The first 

“modern” commercial wind farm was constructed in California in 1981 of individual units capable 

of producing 50 kilowatts (kW). As of 2007, land-based wind turbines with generating capacities 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-68 December 2008 

up to 2.5 MW, and marine-based (offshore) wind turbines up to 5.0 MW, were commercially 

available (Georgia Institute of Technology, Southern Company 2007). The largest single 

coastal wind-farm installation is the Arklow wind farm under construction off Ireland’s eastern 

coast; it will have 200 wind turbines with a total nominal capacity of 520 MWe. In the US, the 

Cape Wind Energy Project, planned for coastal Massachusetts, will, if constructed, have a 

maximum electrical output of 468 MWe and an average output of 182 MWe (Cape Wind Energy 

Project, DEIS, DOI/MMS, January 2008). 

Wind resources in Georgia are generally concentrated off the state’s Atlantic coast. The vast 

majority of the state is a class one (poor) wind power region, with limited areas of class two and 

three (marginal and fair) wind power regions found in the state’s northern areas and near the 

Atlantic coast. Off the Atlantic coast, however, large swaths of class 4 and 5 (good to excellent) 

wind power regions are available. A smaller area of wind power region class 6 (outstanding) is 

also available, but at great distance (more than 45 miles) from the coastline (Georgia Wind 

Working Group 2007). 

Wind power, by itself, has not historically been considered suitable for large base-load capacity, 

due to the high degree of variability associated with wind availability at any given installation. 

Annual capacity factors of individual wind plants are relatively low (on the order of 30 to 40 

percent), compared to other generation technologies, and the potential for no generation 

capacity whatsoever at any given time is incompatible with base-load requirements. However, 

as the installed base of wind power facilities increases, the question of base-load capacity from 

wind is being reevaluated in terms of the probability of minimum continuous generating capacity 

available from networks of multiple wind farms located in different wind regimes (Auswind 

2007). 

The ratio of base-load capacity to total generating capacity from sufficiently dispersed wind 

farms has been described as being in the range of one-third to one-fifth (Diesendorf 2007), with 

the precise ratio dependent upon the aggregate wind characteristics of the entire wind farm 

network. This range is theoretical, however; many utilities assign no base-load capacity to wind 

power, and utilities that do accept wind as base-load capacity typically do so at even lower 

ratios (on the order of one-seventh) than the literature suggests may be possible. 

Assuming that a one-third ratio of total capacity to base-load capacity ultimately proves feasible, 

then replacing VEGP’s safe summertime output of 2,686 MW with widely dispersed wind farm 

installations would require a total capacity in the range of 8,060 MW. If achieved entirely with 5 

MWe, offshore units, 1,611 wind turbines would be required to replace VEGP’s capacity. Such 

an installation would be on the order of seven times the size of any existing installation, and is 

significantly beyond the scale of wind farm installations attempted to date. As such, it is not 

considered feasible at this time. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Given limitations on potential wind power sites, as well as relatively low capacity factors, NRC 

staff does not consider wind power to be a suitable stand-alone alternative to VEGP license 

renewal. NRC staff does, however, does recognize that Georgia likely has utility-scale wind 

resources available, and that supplementing wind power installations with more conventional 

and readily dispatchable power sources (such as gas-fired turbines) alters the estimation of 

what might be considered as base-load capacity from the combined system. Because short- to 

medium-term wind forecasting can be conducted with a high degree of confidence, it is possible 

to predict in advance when shortfalls of base-load capacity solely from wind may occur, and to 

arrange for replacement capacity from more traditional peak-load technologies. As such, NRC 

will include wind power (primarily situated along Georgia’s coast line) in a combination 

alternative addressed in Section 8.2.8. 

8.2.7.3 Solar Power 

Solar technologies, both thermal and photovoltaic, use the sun’s energy to produce electricity 

without producing fuel wastes, air pollution, or greenhouse gases. 

In thermal solar power plants sunlight is first concentrated using mirrors. The concentrated light 

is directed at a heat collector that contains a heat transfer fluid that powers an engine or steam 

turbine. Because thermal solar power plants can use only the direct component of the sunlight 

they appear to be unsuitable in areas with high humidity and frequent cloud cover, both of which 

result in scattering. Moreover, an annual average solar radiation, at ground level, of 6.0 or more 

kilowatt-hours per square meter per day is required for viable solar power generation (Leitner 

2002). Most of the state of Georgia, including the VEGP site, receives an average of 4 to 4.5 

kWh of direct solar radiation per square meter per day (DOE 2007). As a result of the 

inadequate levels of incident radiation and Georgia weather conditions, the NRC staff will not 

evaluate thermal solar power as an alternative to license renewal of VEGP. 

Photovoltaic systems convert sunlight directly into electricity. Photovoltaic collectors, which are 

simply flat panels that can be mounted on a roof or on the ground, are typically fixed in a tilted 

position correlated to the latitude of the location. This allows the collector to best capture the 

sun. These collectors can use both the direct solar rays and reflected light that comes through 

a cloud or off the ground. Because they use all available sunlight, flat-plate collectors are the 

best choice for many northern states with relatively low levels of solar radiation or for 

southeastern states with high humidity and frequent cloud cover. Currently, the VEGP site 

receives an average of 5 to 5.5 kWh of solar radiation (direct and diffusive) per square meter 

per day, as does much of Georgia (DOE 2007). While weather conditions in Georgia suggest 

that photovoltaic cells would be the more likely solar alternate to replace VEGP, land required 

for such systems are about four acres per MW. Assuming that photovoltaic panels can cover 50 

percent of the land area on which they are deployed, a 2,686 MW(e) photovoltaic power plant 

would encompass an area of about 21,400 acres. Even assuming a percentage of panels could 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-70 December 2008 

be mounted on existing structures (rooftops, etc.), the impact of developing such an extensive 

site would be significant in terms of ecological and aesthetic considerations. 

In the GEIS, the NRC staff also noted that solar power is intermittent; therefore, additional 

collectors would be necessary to account for shading. In addition, a solar powered alternative 

would require energy storage or a backup power supply to provide electric power at night. Solar 

power is currently significantly more costly than most other alternatives for a given amount of 

capacity, and as adding energy storage technologies only increases the cost of solar power, 

NRC staff will not evaluate solar power further as an alternative to license renewal of VEGP. 

 8.2.7.4 Hydropower 

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) estimates that Georgia has 275.3 MW of technically 

available, undeveloped hydroelectric resources (INL 1998). This amount occurs entirely in 

installations of 100 MW or less. This potential is 88 percent less than VEGP’s capacity, and 

thus is insufficient to serve as an alternative to license renewal. As such, hydropower would not 

be considered as a feasible alternative to VEGP license renewal at this time. 

However, as part of the DOE Hydropower Program, DOE (in conjunction with several federal, 

private, and public entities) is currently conducting further research and development to improve 

the overall benefits of hydropower and to provide cost-competitive technologies that enable the 

development of new hydropower capacity. This includes new resource assessments of the 

undeveloped conventional hydropower potential in each state (DOE 2007). 

8.2.7.5 Geothermal 

Geothermal resources include a wide variety of heat sources from the earth. This resource 

includes both hydrothermal energy sources and the earth’s deeper, stored thermal energy (MIT, 

2006). Unfortunately, conventional hydrothermal fluid resources are limited in terms of their 

location, in that the most intense and, therefore, the most valuable of these resources are 

located in the western continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii (DOE EERE, 2006). 

In an effort to evaluate the future of geothermal energy, an MIT-led 18-member interdisciplinary 

panel was assembled in September 2005 (MIT, 2006). The panel evaluated the impact of 

Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS)- engineered reservoirs created to extract economical 

amounts of heat from low permeability geothermal resources-and provided expertise on 

resource characterization and assessment, drilling, reservoir stimulation, and economic 

analyses. The panel found that there is great potential for energy recovery using technologies 

for sustainable heat-mining from large volumes of accessible hot rock, available anywhere in the 

United States. The installed capacity of EGS could reach 100,000 MWe within 50 years (MIT, 

2006), however, at the present time these enhanced systems require further funding, research 

and development.
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-71 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

8.2.7.6 Wood Waste and Other Biomass Derived Fuels 

DOE notes that Georgia has excellent biomass resource potential (DOE 2007). In particular, 

Georgia has the largest area of commercially-forested land in the United States at 24.2 million 

acres, and already has significant infrastructure for timber harvesting in place (GDED 2007). 

An analysis conducted by the Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development at the 

University of Georgia found that there are approximately 18.3 million tons of biomass fuels 

available in Georgia on an annual basis, and that these fuels, if fully converted to electricity 

using the applicable best available technologies (without consideration of cost), could supply as 

much as 11.8 percent of Georgia’s 2006 electric demand (Shumaker, George A., Audrey LukeMorgan, Tommie Shepherd and John C. McKissick. 2007. “The Economic Feasibility of Using 

Georgia Biomass for Electrical Energy Production.” University of Georgia Center for 

Agribusiness and Economic Development: Athens, Georgia (Shumaker 2007). While the study 

did not present conversion efficiencies for each of the 14 different types of biomass fuels 

analyzed, the average conversion efficiency for all 18.3 million tons of potentially available 

biomass fuel was approximately 885 kWH/ton. At that conversion efficiency, it is likely that only 

a limited quantity of electricity could be generated on an annual basis at a cost competitive with 

coal-fired generation (Shumaker 2007). However, if consideration is given to fuels with 

generating costs up to 25% higher than a coal-fired alternative (but still less than that of natural 

gas- or petroleum-fired alternatives), it is estimated that considerable biomass derived energy 

could be generated cost effectively. 

However, such estimates of biomass capacity contain substantial uncertainty. Production of 

biomass-source electricity is still a nascent industry, and is not believed to be feasible on an 

industrial scale at this time (Shumaker 2007). Also, potential availability does not mean these 

resources would actually be available at the prices indicated or that resources would be free of 

contamination. Some of these waste streams already have reuse value, and their acquisition on 

a scale necessary to compensate for significant portions of the VEGP output is likely to 

significantly alter their market value (Walsh et al. 1999). The consequence would be higher 

prices for electric generation feedstock as well as a need to identify replacements for waste 

streams diverted to electric generation that are currently used for other purposes. Additionally, 

some feedstock may prove unsustainable to harvest on a regular basis. 

While the GEIS notes that wood-waste plants are able to operate in a base load duty cycle, the 

larger wood-waste power plants have capacities in the range of 50 MW(e). Thus, 54 wood 

waste plants may be necessary to replace the capacity of VEGP, given the current state of the 

technology. Estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overall level of construction impact per MW 

of installed capacity would be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant, although 

facilities using wood waste for fuel would be built at smaller scales. Like coal-fired plants, woodwaste plants require large areas for fuel storage and processing and involve use of similar 

combustion equipment. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-72 December 2008 

It is the NRC Staff’s view that Georgia has utility-scale wood waste resources, but given 

uncertainties in supply estimates, as well as the relatively large number of small units necessary 

to replace VEGP, the NRC staff does not believe wood waste is a viable energy alternative to 

renewal of the VEGP operating license. However, NRC staff will include wood waste facilities in 

a combination alternative addressed in Section 8.2.8. 

8.2.7.7 Municipal Solid Waste 

In the United States, in 2006, 251.3 million tons of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) was generated 

of which 32.5 percent was recycled, 55 percent was discarded to landfills or handled by other 

disposal methods and only 12.5 percent was combusted with energy recovery (EPA OSWER 

2007). 

The practice of incinerating municipal refuse and, in the process, extracting useable energy, has 

increased over the last 50 years (essentially no such facilities existed in the US in 1960). This 

has occurred for two principal reasons: incineration reduces the volume of material that needs 

to land filled and the electricity that can be generated in the process avoids the cost of 

increasingly expensive fossil fuels. Currently there are approximately 89 waste-to-energy plants 

operating in the United States. These plants generate approximately 2,500 MW(e), or about 0.3 

percent of total national power generation (EPA OSWER 2003). 

Estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overall level of construction impact from a MSW 

combustion facility would be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant. Additionally, 

waste-fired plants have operational impacts on the aquatic environment, air, and waste 

disposal. MSW power plants require a similar amount of water per unit of electricity generated 

and combustion of MSW generates atmospheric emissions of NO2, SO2, particulates, and trace 

amounts of toxic pollutants. 

The principal by-product of MSW combustion is ash, which can contain toxic contaminants that 

were present in the initial waste. Under current regulations, MSW ash must be sampled and 

analyzed regularly to determine whether it is hazardous or not, and if hazardous must be 

properly managed. Non-hazardous ash can be recycled for use in projects such as road 

constriction or disposed in a landfill. 

Although combustion of MSW has many of the same environmental impacts as combustion of 

fossil fuels, MSW is recognized as a renewable energy source since the material would 

otherwise be sent to landfills. However, economic factors, regulatory issues, and increasing 

community opposition to MSW combustion at the local level, have limited construction of new 

facilities. There is some possibility that with increasing energy prices municipal waste 

combustion may once again become attractive. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-73 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Given the relatively small scale of MSW plants from an electric output perspective, and the 

complex regulatory environment that would be faced by any proposal to site such facilities, the 

NRC staff does not consider MSW combustion to be a feasible alternative to VEGP license 

renewal and will not consider it further in this SEIS. 

 8.2.7.8 Fuel Cells 

Fuel cells work without combustion and therefore do not present the environmental side effects 

of combustion processes. In a fuel cell, power is produced electrochemically by passing 

hydrogen over an anode and air (or oxygen) over a cathode and separating the two by an 

electrolyte. Hydrogen can be extracted from fuels that contain hydrocarbons such as natural 

gas, methane, coal-based gas, methanol, ethanol, gasoline, biomass and landfill gas. It can 

also be produced from water using renewable solar, wind, hydro or geothermal energy. If pure 

hydrogen is used no discernible pollutants are produced. The principal by-products would be 

water and heat. If hydrocarbon fuels are used, carbon dioxide is also a by-product. However, 

because, in a fuel cell, fuel is converted directly into electricity without going through an 

intermediate combustion step the emission of carbon dioxide is much less than that from 

conventional fossil fueled plants. Direct conversion to electricity also results in fuel cells having 

high efficiencies. According to the DOE, the electrical efficiency of fuel cells is up to 60 percent 

and higher when by-product heat is utilized. This is approximately double the efficiency of 

traditional combustion technologies that have efficiencies of 33 to 35 percent (DOE 2006). 

Land requirements for fuel cells are relatively small in comparison to those of renewable 

technologies. For example the dimensions of the DFC 3000 fuel cell manufactured by Fuel Cell 

Energy with an output of 2,400 kW are 60 x 105 feet. Therefore, a 2,686 MW(e) fuel cell plant 

requires about 162 acres of land area for installation of a fuel cell system. Even assuming 50 

percent additional land for transmission systems, parking, administration, etc., the required area 

is 324 acres or less than half that for a comparable nuclear alternate. 

Fuel cell technology has many advantages. It produces pollution free energy. The fuel cells are 

quiet, reliable, safe and easy to maintain. However, the materials and manufacturing costs 

associated with catalysts, bipolar plates, membranes, and gas diffusion layers are extremely 

expensive. Installed capital cost, in 2010, is predicted to be in the range of 5,466 dollars per 

KW (DOE/EIA 2007a). This is too high to compete with conventional power plants. For the 

stationary fuel cells systems, a price point of 400 to 750 dollars per KW is considered necessary 

for widespread commercialization. Also, to be considered a viable technology for stationary 

power plants the durability of fuel cell systems would have to be increased to the 40,000 hour 

range. 

Even though portable and stationary fuel cells are being used for backup power, at the present 

time, fuel cells are not economically or technologically competitive with other alternatives for 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-74 December 2008 

base load generation. While it may be possible to use a distributed array of fuel cells to provide 

an alternate to VEGP, it would be prohibitive to do so at current costs. 

 8.2.7.9 Delayed Retirement 

Retirement plans are addressed in the GPC IRP and are reviewed by the GPSC in their Order 

dated July 12, 2007. In their IRP, the utility designated two units for retirement, Units 1 and 2 at 

Plant McDonough. A decision approving retirement of these two units has been postponed by 

the Commission to a future proceeding. The two units are coal fired, have been operating since 

1963 and 1964, and each have generator nameplate ratings of 299 MW(e). Apparently, it is 

GPC’s plan to replace these units with a lager natural gas-fired facility at the same site. Given 

that no other retirement options are considered by the GPSC, the NRC staff concludes that 

delay of planned retirements would not be a viable alternate to renewal of the VEGP license. 

8.2.8 Combination of Alternatives 

Even though individual alternatives to license renewal might not be sufficient on their own to 

replace the 2,686 MW(e) total capacity of the two VEGP units due to the lack of costeffectiveness or availability, it is conceivable that a combination of alternatives might be 

sufficient. 

There are many possible combinations of alternatives that could be considered to replace the 

VEGP. One possible combination of alternatives examined in this section consists of a 800 

MW(e) of combined-cycle natural gas-fired plant, 500 MW(e) of purchased power, a net 1,000 

MW(e) from current and future conservation programs, and about 200 MW(e) from a 

combination of wood-fired plants and wind resources. These resources would provide an 

alternative that roughly approximates the amount of power produced by VEGP Units 1 and 2. 

Siting an 800 MW(e) gas-fired unit with closed-cycle cooling at the VEGP site would likely have 

SMALL ecological impacts and socioeconomic impacts The potential environmental impacts of 

the construction and operation of the gas-fired plant are provided in Table 8-5. 

Participating in 1,600 MW(e) of energy conservation programs (1,000 MW[e] net), as described 

in Section 8.2.5, would have overall SMALL impacts. Purchasing 500 MW(e) from other 

sources would also have a SMALL overall impact. As such, these two components of the 

combined alternative are not included in the summary of environmental impacts in Table 8-7. 

The GEIS indicates that wood-fired plants would serve base load capacity, but that they tend to 

operate at low efficiencies and are economic only when feedstocks are very inexpensive. In 

addition, the GEIS notes that gathering fuel for wood-fired plants can have significant 

environmental impacts. However, NRC staff believes that the operation of 100 to 200 MW(e) of 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-75 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

wood-fired generation would have SMALL impacts especially if the plants were widely 

distributed and feedstocks were primarily pre-existing waste streams. Construction impacts of 

the wood-fired plants would be SMALL to MODERATE depending on plant cooling 

configurations and plant locations. These impacts would be mitigated by locating plants on 

previously disturbed land near other industrial applications, including paper/pulp mills or other 

forest-products operations. 

NRC staff notes that Georgia’s coastal areas provide significant wind resources for the 

development of substantial wind power generation and that large scale facilities are being 

planned and constructed at other offshore locations. A 100 to 200 MW(e) peak capacity wind 

installation using 5 MWe turbines (a capacity that is now becoming available) would entail 

placing 20 to 40 wind turbines off coastal Georgia. A wind installation capable of delivering 100 

to 200 MWe on average would require placing approximately 52 to 104 turbines (MMS 2008). 

The principal environmental impacts of such an installation would be those to aquatic ecological 

resources and possibly aesthetic impacts as has been the case at other proposed coastal 

locations. Ecological impacts would occur during the construction phase and could be managed 

by choice of construction methods (for example, avoiding particularly sensitive habitats). 

Aesthetic impacts would occur during operation of the wind installation and would depend on its 

distance form the shore and on its orientation in regard to shoreline communities. The NRC 

staff estimates that the construction and operational impacts of the facility could be managed so 

as to be no greater than MODERATE. 

The combined potential environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the woodfires plants and the off-shore wind farm are summarized in Table 8-7. 

Overall, the impacts of this combination of alternatives would be MODERATE as a result of the 

air emissions associated with the gas-fired portion of the alternative, the loss of permanent jobs 

and tax revenues in Burke County, and the potential aesthetic impacts of the coastal wind 

installation. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-76 December 2008 

Table 8-7. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Alternative 

800MW(e) Gas-fired VEGP Site 

(Closed-cycle Cooling) 

Other Alternatives at Off-site Locations Impact 

Category 

Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Land Use SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impacts of construction 

of the natural gas plant 

on the VEGP site would 

not result in the 

significant use of 

undisturbed areas. 

Additional impact 

potentially affecting 60 

acres for construction of 

gas pipeline. 

SMALL Impacts would depend on 

the site selection for the 

wood-fired plants. 

Ecology SMALL See Table 8-5. SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Impacts would depend on 

the site selection for the 

wood-fired plants and the 

off-shore wind farm 

construction methods. 

Water Use and 

Quality—Surface 

water 

SMALL See Table 8-5. SMALL Impacts would be minor 

because of the small total 

output and possible 

multiple locations of the 

wood-fired plants. Offshore wind farm impacts 

would also be minor. 

Water Use and 

Quality—

Groundwater 

SMALL See Table 8-5. SMALL Impacts would be minor 

because of the small total 

output and possible 

multiple locations of the 

wood-fired plants. An offshore wind farm would not 

impact groundwater 

resources. 

Air Quality MODERATE Table 8-5 emissions 

reduced by a factor of 3 

based on plant size 

reduction. 

SMALL Air emissions of the small 

wood-fired plants would 

be minor considering their 

size and possible multiple 

locations. An off-shore 

wind farm would not 

impact on air quality. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-77 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 8-7. (cont’d) 

800MW(e) Gas-fired VEGP Site Other Alternatives at Off-site Locations Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

 Waste SMALL See Table 8-5. SMALL The overall power output 

from the other alternatives 

would not result in 

significant waste volumes. 

Human Health SMALL See Table 8-5. SMALL The overall power output 

from the other alternatives 

would not result in 

significant waste volumes. 

Socioeconomics SMALL Impacts could occur as 

a result of the decrease 

in on-site employment 

from 862 to 300. Tax 

base would be 

preserved. Impacts 

during operation would 

be SMALL. 

SMALL Small plant sizes, possible 

multiple locations, and offshore construction. 

Socioeconomics 

(Transportation) 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

See Table 8-5. SMALL Transportation impacts 

would be SMALL because 

of small plant sizes, 

possible multiple 

locations, and off-shore 

construction. Minor 

impacts of commuting 

plant personnel. 

Aesthetics SMALL See Table 8-5. MODERATE MODERATE visual and 

noise impacts from new 

off-shore wind turbines, 

depending on the location. 

Limited impact from woodfired plants. 

Historic and 

Archeological 

Resources 

SMALL See Table 8-5 SMALL Small plant sizes, possible 

multiple locations, and offshore construction. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-78 December 2008 

Table 8-7. (cont’d) 

800MW(e) Gas-fired VEGP Site Other Alternatives at Off-site Locations Impact 

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL Impacts on minority and 

low-income populations 

would be similar to 

those experienced by 

the general population 

in the region. Loss of 

jobs at VEGP may 

disproportionately affect 

minority and lowincome populations in 

Burke County. 

SMALL Small plant sizes, possible 

multiple locations, and offshore construction. 

8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered 

In this SEIS the NRC staff has considered alternative actions to license renewal of the VEGP 

plants including the no-action alternative (discussed in Section 8.1), new generation or energy 

conservation alternatives (coal-fired supercritical and IGCC generation, natural gas, nuclear, 

and conservation alternatives discussed in Sections 8.2.1 through 8.2.5, respectively), 

purchased electrical power (discussed in Section 8.2.6), alternative technologies (discussed in 

Section 8.2.7), and a combination of alternatives (discussed in Section 8.2.8). 

As established in the GEIS, the need for power from VEGP is assumed by NRC in the license 

renewal process. Should NRC not renew VEGP’s licenses, this amount of generating capacity 

or load reduction would have to come from an alternative to license renewal. 

Furthermore, even if NRC renews the operating license, SNC could elect to meet its capacity 

and energy needs with an alternative other than continued VEGP operation. Decisions about 

which alternative to implement, regardless of whether or not NRC renews the VEGP operating 

license, are left to utility and state-level decision makers (or non-NRC Federal level decision 

makers where applicable). 

The environmental impacts from those alternatives to license renewal that NRC staff considered 

would be greater than the impacts of continued VEGP operation under a renewed license. 

License renewal would have all SMALL impacts except for collective offsite radiological impacts 

from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal. While the impacts of 

conservation measures are also likely to be SMALL, the Staff has determined, based on 

findings of the GPSC in relationship to the GPC IRP, that conservation cannot reasonably be 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-79 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

forecast to replace the output of VEGP. Conservation, together with other technologies, could 

replace VEGP’s capabilities but the impacts of those other technologies (e.g., coal, gas, wind, 

etc.) are likely to be greater than impacts of renewing the VEGP operating license. 

The NRC staff concludes, then, that the environmentally preferred alternative for meeting future 

electrical needs of the State of Georgia is renewal of the VEGP operating license thereby 

providing decision makers the option of operating VEGP for another 20 years beyond expiration 

of its operating license. 

8.4 References 

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.” 

Australian Wind Energy Association (Auswind). 2007. “Development of the Non-Fossil Fuel 

Energy Industry in Australia.” Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee 

on Industry and Resources, Inquiry into developing Australia’s non-fossil fuel energy industry, 

Case study into selected renewable energy sources. Melbourne, Australia. June. 

Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (CAA). 42 USC 7401, et seq. 

Department of Energy (DOE). 1999. “Market-Based Advanced Coal Power Systems Final 

Report.” DOE/FE-0400. May. Accessed at: 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/refshelf/marketbased_systems_report.pdf on 

December 2, 2007. 

Department of Energy (DOE). 2000. “The Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project: 

Final Technical Report.” Accessed at: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/787567-

a64JvB/native/ on December 2, 2007. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-80 December 2008 

Department of Energy (DOE). 2004. “Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 

Project: Project Performance Summary.” Accessed at: 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/resources/pdfs/tampa/Tampa_PPS.pdf on 

December 2, 2007. 

Department of Energy (DOE). 2006. Hydrogen Fuel Program. “Hydrogen Fuel Cells” fact 

sheet. October. Accessed at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/doe_h2_fuelcell_factsheet.pdf on 

December 18, 2007. 

Department of Energy (DOE). 2007. “State Energy Alternatives: Alternative Energy Resources 

in Georgia.” Accessed at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/resources_ga.cfm on 

December 17, 2007. 

Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE/EERE). 2006. “EERE 

State Partnerships and Activities: State energy alternatives.” Accessed at: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/geothermal.cfm?print on January 9, 2008.

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2004. “Energy 

Consumption by Source and Total Consumption per Capita, Ranked by State, 2004.” Accessed 

at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/plain_html/rank_use_per_cap.html on 

December 5, 2007. 

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2005. “Annual Energy 

Review 2005.” Washington, D.C. Accessed at: 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/multifuel/038405.pdf on December 3, 2007. 

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2006. “Annual Energy 

Review 2006.” DOE/EIA-0384 (2006). Washington, D.C. Accessed at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/ on December 3, 2007. 

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2007a. “Annual Energy 

Outlook 2007 With Projections to 2030.“ DOE/EIA-0383 (2007). Washington, D.C. Accessed 

at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/0383(2007).pdf on December 3, 2007. 

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2007b. “Cost and 

Quality of Fuel for Electric Plants.” DOE/EIA-0191 (2007). Washington, D.C. Accessed at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/cq/cq_sum.html on December 3, 2007. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-81 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2007c. “Assumptions to 

the Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030.” DOE/EIA-0554 (2007). 

Washington, D.C. Accessed at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/index.html on 

December 3, 2007. 

Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (DOE/NREL). 2004. “Biomass 

and Biofuels.” Accessed at: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/il_biomass.html on May 23, 2007. 

Diesendorf, Mark. 2007. “The Base Load Fallacy.” EnergyScience Coalition. March. 

Accessed at: http://www.cana.net.au/documents/Diesendorf_TheBaseLoadFallacy_FS16.pdf on 

December 18, 2007. 

Ekbom, Tomas. 2007. “Major IGCC Projects World-Wide.” Nykomb Synergetics AB, 

Stockholm, Sweden. February 1. Accessed at: http://www.nykomb.se/index.php?s=Projects on 

December 12, 2007. 

Eldridge, Maggie, Bill Prindle, Dan York, Steve Nadel. 2006. “The State Energy Efficiency 

Scorecard for 2006.” American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Report Number E075. 

June. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 

Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources: AP 42, Fifth Edition. “Section 1.1: Bituminous 

and Sub-bituminous Coal Combustion: Final Section Supplement E.” Accessed at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/index.html on December 3, 2007. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998b. "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. 63 FR 49453. Federal Register Volume 63, Number 179, 

pp. 49442-49455. Washington, D.C. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. "Regional Haze Regulations, Final Rule." 64 

FR 35714. Federal Register Volume 64, Number 126, pp. 35714-3577. Washington, D.C. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 

Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources: AP 42, Fifth Edition. “Section 3.1: Stationary 

Gas Turbines: Final Section Supplement F.” Accessed at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/index.html on December 3, 2007. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000b. “Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.” Federal Register. 

Volume 65, Number 245, pp. 79825-79831. Washington, D.C. 
Alternatives 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-82 December 2008 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

“EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition.” EPA/452/B-02-001. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. “Revision of December 2000 Clean Air Act 

Section 112(n), Finding Regarding electric Utility Steam Generating Units; and standards of 

Performance for New and Existing Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.” Accessed at: 

http://www.epa.gov/camr/pdfs/camr_recon_fr_final_053106.pdf on December 5, 2007. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. “Clean Air Mercury Rule.” Accessed at: 

http://www.epa.gov/camr on December 3, 2007. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). 

2007. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts 

and figures for 2006.” EPA-530-F-07-030. November. Accessed at: 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/msw06.pdf on December 17, 2007. 

Gabbard, Alex. 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 December 

5, 2007. 

Georgia Department of Economic Development (GDED). 2007. “Georgia’s Biomass Industry – 

Backgrounder.” Accessed at: http://www.georgia.org/NR/rdonlyres/38BCF806-AF1F-419FA93A-C397EEEB5110/0/GABiomassBackgrounderFINAL.pdf on December 18, 2007. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Air Division 

Branch. 2007. Amendments to the Rules of the Department of Natural Resources 

Environmental Protection Division Relating to Air Quality, Chapter 391-3-1. Clean Air Mercury 

Rule. July. Accessed at: 

http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/airpermit/cair/downloads/20070627SOSPkg%20AirCAMRRules.p

df on December 18, 2007. 

Georgia Institute of Technology, Southern Company. 2007. “Southern Winds: Summary Report 

2007.” Strategic Energy Institute. Accessed at: 

http://www.energy.gatech.edu/research/Summary-Southern-Winds.pdf on December 18, 2007. 

Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2007. “Order Adopting Stipulation”. Docket 

Number 24505-U: Document Number 104010. Date decided: July 12, 2007. Accessed at: 

http://www.psc.state.ga.us/facts/documentresults.asp?page=2. 
 Alternatives 

December 2008 8-83 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Georgia Wind Working Group. “Wind Resource of Georgia, Mean Annual Wind Speed at 90 

Meters.” Accessed at: http://www.gawwg.org/windresources/georgiawindresourcemap.html. on 

November 21, 2007. 

Hong, B.D., and E.R. Slatick (Hong and Slatick). 1994. Energy Information Administration, 

“Quarterly Coal Report,” January-April 1994, DOE/EIA-0121. Accessed at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html on December 5, 2007. 

ICF Consulting. (ICF). 2005a. “Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority Assessment of 

Energy Efficiency Potential in Georgia Final Report.” May 5. Accessed at: 

http://www.gefa.org/Index.aspx?page=347 on December 5, 2007. 

ICF Consulting. (ICF). 2005b. “Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority Strategies for 

Capturing Georgia’s Energy Efficiency Potential.” May 5. 

Idaho National Laboratory (INL). 1998. “U.S. Hydropower Resource Assessment for Georgia.” 

DOE/ID-10430(GA). Idaho Falls, Idaho. October. Accessed at: 

http://hydropower.id.doe.gov/resourceassessment/index_states.shtml?id=ga&nam=Georgia on 

December 17, 2007.

Leitner, A. 2002. “Fuel from the Sky: Solar power’s potential for Western energy supply.” July. 

NREL/SR-550-32160. Accessed at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/32160.pdf on 

December 12, 2007. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2006. “The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact 

of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century.” Prepared 

with Idaho National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary for 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Geothermal Technologies. 

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2007. “Energy Analyses > Technology 

Analysis, NETL’s 2007 Coal Power Plant Database.” Accessed at: 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/technology.html on December 17, 2007. 

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

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437. Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report, ”Section 6.3--Transportation, Table 9.1 

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants.” 

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

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 8-84 December 2008 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Generic Impact Statement on 

Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1. Washington, D.C. 

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Progress Energy). 2006. Shearon Harris Unit 1, Applicant’s 

Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage. Raleigh, North Carolina. Accessible 

at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html at Accession Number ML063350276. 

Ratafia-Brown, Jay A., Lynn M. Manfredo, Jeff W. Hoffman, Massood Ramezan, Gary J. 

Stiegel. 2002. “An Environmental Assessment of IGCC Power Systems.” Presented at the 

Nineteenth Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference, September 23-27, 2002, Pittsburgh, PA. 

Rosenberg, William G., Dwight C. Alpern, Michael R. Walker. 2004. “Deploying IGCC in this 

Decade with 3Party Covenant Financing: Volume I.” ENRP discussion paper, Belfer Center for 

Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 

Cambridge, MA. July.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2006. “Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Early Site Permit Application, Part 3 -Environmental Report.” Public Disclosure Version. 

Accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html at Accession 

NumbersML0622962290298-ML062290304. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007a. Applicant’s Environmental Report – 

Operating License Renewal Stage, Vogtle Electric Generating Plan Units 1 and 2, Docket 

Numbers 50-424 and 50-425. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007b. License Renewal Application, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating 

License Numbers NPF-68 and NPF-81. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. “Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash: 

Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance; USGS Fact Sheet FS-163-97.” Accessed 

at: http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/factshts/163-97/FS-163-97.pdf on December 5, 2007. 

Wall Street Journal (WSJ). 2007. “Duke Energy is Cleared to Build New Power Plant.” In Brief. 

21 November 2007, Technology Section: B5. 

Walsh, Marie E., Robert L. Perlack, Anthony Turhollow, Daniel de la Torre Ugarte, Denny A. 

Becker, Robin L. Graham, Stephen A. Slinsky, and Daryll E. Ray. 1999. “Biomass Feedstock 

Availability in the United States: 1999 State Level Analysis.” Accessed at: 

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/resourcedata/index.html on December 3, 2007. 
December 2008 9-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

9.0 Summary and Conclusions

By letter dated June 27, 2007, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) submitted an 

application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses 

for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 (VEGP) for an additional 20-year period (SNC 

2007a). If the operating licenses are renewed, State and Federal (other than NRC) regulatory 

agencies and SNC would ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on 

factors such as the need for power, power availability from other sources, regulatory mandates, 

or other matters within the agencies’ jurisdictions or the purview of the owners. If the operating 

licenses are not renewed, then the plant must be shut down at or before the expiration of the 

current operating licenses, which expires on January 16, 2027 for Unit 1 and February 9, 2029 

for Unit 2. 

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 USC 

4321) directs that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required 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. 10 CFR 

Part 51 identifies licensing and regulatory actions that require an EIS. In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), 

NRC requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor 

operating licenses; 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the operating licenses 

renewal stage will be a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996 and 1999).(a)

Upon acceptance of the VEGP 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 (Federal Register, Volume 72, page 43296 [NRC 2007]) on August 3, 2007. The Staff 

held two public scoping meetings on September 27, 2007 and visited the VEGP site and 

conducted a site audit in October 2007. The Staff reviewed the VEGP Environmental Report 

(Environmental Report) (SNC 2007b) 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 VEGP. The public comments 

received during the scoping process that were considered to be within the scope of the 

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

The NRC staff held two public meetings in Waynesboro, Georgia, in June 2008, to describe the 

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

 

(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.
Summary and Conclusions 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 9-2 December 2008 

members of the public with information to assist them in formulating comments on the SEIS. 

When the comment period ended, the NRC staff considered and addressed all of the comments 

received. These comments are addressed in Appendix A, Part 2, of this final SEIS. 

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

effects of the proposed action (including cumulative impacts), the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding 

adverse effects. 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 would contribute to NRC’s ultimate 

determination of whether an existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the 

period of the current operating licenses. 

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 
 Summary and Conclusions 

December 2008 9-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

within the scope of the generic determination in § 51.23(a) and in accordance with § 

51.23(b).[b]

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

operating licenses 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 the footnotes to Table B1 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 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 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. 

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. 

 

(b) The title of 10 CFR 51.23 is “Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operations–

generic determination of no significant environmental impact.” 
Summary and Conclusions 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 9-4 December 2008 

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 also be addressed in a 

plant-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 consideration of all 92 environmental issues identified 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 operating licenses for VEGP), alternative methods of power generation, and 

conservation. These alternatives were evaluated assuming that the replacement power 

generation plant is located at either the VEGP site or some other unspecified location. 

9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action - License 

Renewal

SNC 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 

SNC 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, SNC, nor the Staff has identified any new issue applicable to VEGP 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 VEGP. 

SNC’s license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues that are 

applicable to VEGP, plus environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields. 

The Staff has reviewed the SNC analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent 

review of each issue plus environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields. 

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

site characteristics not found at VEGP. Four Category 2 issues are not discussed in this SEIS 

because they are specifically related to refurbishment. SNC 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 

VEGP for the license renewal period (SNC 2007a). 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 the Operation of Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 (NRC 1985). 
 Summary and Conclusions 

December 2008 9-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Twelve Category 2 issues (including eleven Category 2 issues plus the severe accident 

mitigation alternatives [SAMAs] issue from Chapter 5) 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. For the 12 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. Research is 

continuing in the area of chronic effects on electromagnetic fields, and a scientific consensus 

has not been reached. Therefore, no further evaluation of this issue is required. For SAMAs, 

the Staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to identify and evaluate 

SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs for VEGP, and the plant improvements already 

made, the Staff concludes that SNC identified two potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. However, 

these SAMAs do not 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. 

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

considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 

other actions. The Staff concludes that cumulative impacts of VEGP license renewal would be 

SMALL for all potentially affected resources. 

Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. For all issues, current 

measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate. 

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 already occurred. 

The environmental impacts to be evaluated for license renewal are those associated with 

refurbishment and continued operation during the renewal term. 

All unavoidable adverse impacts of continued operation identified are considered to be of 

SMALL significance. The unavoidable adverse impacts of likely alternatives if VEGP ceases 

operation at or before the expiration of the current operating licenses will not be smaller than 
Summary and Conclusions 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 9-6 December 2008 

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 VEGP 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 off-site 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 storage space. VEGP replaces a portion of its fuel assemblies during 

every refueling outage, which occurs on an 18-month cycle (SNC 2007b). 

The likely power generation alternatives if VEGP ceases operation on or before the expiration of 

the current operating licenses would require a commitment of resources for construction of the 

replacement facilities 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 

VEGP was set when the plant was approved and construction began. That balance is now well 

established. Renewal of the operating licenses for VEGP and continued operation of the plant 

would not alter the existing balance, but may postpone the availability of the site for other uses. 

Denial of the application to renew the operating licenses would lead to shutdown of the plant 

and will alter the balance in a manner that depends on subsequent uses of the site. 

9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of 

License Renewal and Alternatives

The proposed action is renewal of the operating licenses for VEGP. Chapter 2 describes the 

site, power plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment. As noted in Chapter 3, no 

refurbishment and no refurbishment impacts are expected at VEGP. Chapters 4 through 7 

discuss environmental issues associated with renewal of the operating licenses. Environmental 

issues associated with the no-action alternative and alternatives involving power generation and 

use reduction are discussed in Chapter 8. 
 Summary and Conclusions 

December 2008 9-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

The significance of the environmental impacts from the proposed action (approval of the 

application for renewal of the operating licenses), the no-action alternative (denial of the 

application), alternatives involving coal, gas, or nuclear-fired generating capacity at an 

unspecified greenfield site, gas-fired generation of power at VEGP, and a combination of 

alternatives are compared in Table 9-1. Continued use of open-cycle cooling is assumed for 

VEGP. All fossil fueled alternatives presented in Table 9-1 are assumed to use closed-cycle 

cooling systems. 

Substitution of once-through cooling for the recirculating cooling system in the evaluation of the 

nuclear and gas and coal-fired generation alternatives would result in greater environmental 

impact to categories related to water use and aquatic ecology. Alternatively, land use and 

aesthetic impacts are somewhat reduced with open-cycle cooling. 

Table 9-1 shows that the significance of the plant specific environmental effects of the proposed 

action would be SMALL for all impact categories (except for collective offsite radiological 

impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level radioactive waste 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 and 1999), (2) the Environmental 

Report submitted by SNC, (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies, (4) the 

Staff’s own independent review, and (5) the Staff’s consideration of public comments received, 

the recommendation of the Staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse 

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

of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. 
Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No Action Alternative, and Alternative Methods of 

Generation Using Once-Through Cooling(a)

Proposed 

Action 

No Action 

Alternative 

Supercritical Coal-Fired 

Generation 

Coal (IGCC) Generation 

Impact Category License Renewal Denial of Renewal VEGP Site Alternate Site VEGP Site Alternate Site 

Land Use SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE 

to LARGE

MODERATE MODERATE to

LARGE

Ecology SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE 

to LARGE 

MODERATE MODERATE to 

LARGE

Water Use and Quality – Surface Water

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

Water Use and Quality - Groundwater SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

Air Quality SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATEWaste SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALLHuman Health SMALL (c) SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLSocio-economics SMALL MODERATE 

to LARGE

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

LARGE

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

LARGE

Transportation SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to 

LARGE

Aesthetics SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

LARGE

Historical and Archeological Resources

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

Environmental Justice SMALL MODERATE 

to LARGE

SMALL SMALL to 

LARGE

SMALL SMALL to 

LARGE

Summary and Conclusions 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 9-8 December 2008 
Table 9-1. (cont’d) 

Natural-Gas-Fired 

Generation (b)

New Nuclear Generation (b) Combination of Alternatives 

Gas Fired with Biomass Fired 

Plant, Wind Park, Purchased 

Power and Conservation Impact Category VEGP Site Alternate Site VEGP Site Alternate Site(b)

VEGP Site Alternate Site 

Land Use SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

LARGE

MODERATE MODERATE 

to LARGE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL

Ecology SMALL SMALL to 

LARGE

SMALL MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

Water Use and Quality – Surface Water SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL 

Water Use and Quality - Groundwater SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL 

Air Quality SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL 

Waste SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Human Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLSocio-economics SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

LARGE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

LARGE

SMALL SMALL 

Transportation SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

LARGE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL

Aesthetics SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL MODERATE 

to LARGE

SMALL MODERATE

Historical and Archeological Resources SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL

Environmental Justice SMALL SMALL to 

LARGE

SMALL SMALL to 

LARGE

SMALL SMALL

(a) The majority of impacts shown are negative; however, several impacts are positive. See Chapters 4 and 8 for details. (b) Analysis based on use of a closed-cycle cooling system. (c) Except for the collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high level waste and spent-fuel disposal, for which a 

significance level was not assigned. See Chapter 6 for details 

December 2008 9-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Summary and Conclusions 
Summary and Conclusions 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 9-10 December 2008 

9.4 References

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1985. Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

Operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1087, Washington, DC.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GEIS), Volumes 1 and 2. 

Washington, DC, May, 1996. 

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. 

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

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal.” NUREG1555, Supplement 1, Washington, DC. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. “Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application 

for Renewal of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating Licenses Nos. 

NPF-68 andNPF-81, for an Additional Twenty-Year Period.” Federal Register Volume 72, p. 

43296. August 3, 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007a. License Renewal Application, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating 

License Numbers NPF-68 and NPF-81.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007b. Applicant’s Environmental Report – 

Operating License Renewal Stage, Wolf Creek Generating Station. Docket Numbers 50-424 

and 50-425.
Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review

December 2008 A-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review

Part I - Comments Received During Scoping

As outlined by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) initiated the scoping process with the issuance of the Federal Register

Notice. On September 14, 2007, the NRC published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register

(FR; 72 FR 52586), 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-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 regarding the renewal application for the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 (VEGP) operating license. The plant-specific 

supplement to the GEIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA, Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) guidelines, and 10 CFR Part 51. The NRC invited the applicant, Federal, State, 

local, and tribal government agencies, local organizations, and individuals to participate in the 

scoping process by providing oral comments at the scheduled public meetings and/or submitting 

written suggestions and comments no later than October 24, 2007. The scoping process 

included two public scoping meetings, which were held at the Augusta Technical College, 

Waynesboro/ Burke Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, Waynesboro, Georgia on September 27, 

2007. The NRC issued press releases and distributed flyers locally. Approximately 50 people 

attended the meetings. Both sessions began with NRC staff members providing a brief 

overview of the license renewal process and the NEPA process. Following the NRC’s prepared 

statements, the meetings were open for public comments. Thirteen (13) attendees provided 

oral comments that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. The transcripts 

of the meetings can be found as an attachment to the meeting summary, which was issued on 

October 12, 2007. The meeting summary is available for public inspection in the NRC Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland, 20852, or from the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

(ADAMS). The meeting summary and can be found in ADAMS at Accession No. 

ML072840963. The transcripts can be found in ADAMS at Accession Nos. ML072840529 and 

ML072840530, for the afternoon and evening sessions, respectively. The ADAMS Public 

Electronic Reading Room is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/webbased.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in 

accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC’s Public Document Room 

Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737.

 

The scoping process provides an opportunity for public participation to identify issues to be 

addressed in the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and highlight public concerns and 

issues. The Notice of Intent identified the following objectives of the scoping process: 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-2 December 2008 

• Define the proposed action,

• Determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify significant issues to 

be analyzed in depth, 

• Identify and eliminate peripheral issues, 

• Identify any environmental assessments and other environmental impact statements 

being prepared that are related to the supplement to the GEIS, 

• Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements, 

• Indicate the schedule for preparation of the supplement to the GEIS, 

• Identify any cooperating agencies, and 

• Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared 

At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractor reviewed the transcripts 

and all written material received, and identified individual comments. All comments and 

suggestions received orally during the scoping meetings or in writing were considered. Each 

set of comments from a given commenter was given a unique alpha identifier (Commenter ID 

letter), allowing each set of comments from a commenter to be traced back to the transcript, 

letter, or email in which the comments were submitted. Several individuals submitted comments 

through multiple sources (e.g., letter and afternoon or evening scoping meetings). 

Comments were consolidated and categorized according to the topic within the proposed 

supplement to the GEIS or according to the general topic if outside the scope of the GEIS. 

Comments with similar specific objectives were combined to capture the common essential 

issues that had been raised in the source comments. Once comments were grouped according 

to subject area, the Staff and contractor determined the appropriate action for each comment. 

Table 1 identifies the individuals providing comments and the Commenter ID letter associated 

with each person's set(s) of comments. The Commenter ID letter is preceded by VEGP (short 

for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant). For oral comments, the individuals are listed in the order 

in which they spoke at the public meeting. 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

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

Commenter 

ID

Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source 

VEGP-A Sara Barczak Safe Energy Director, Southern Alliance 

for Clean Energy 

Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting 

VEGP-B Walter Dukes VP, Georgia Power Company Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting 

VEGP-C James Hendrix Director, SRS Community Reuse 

Organization 

Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting 

VEGP-D Billy Hopper Former City and County Administrator Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting 

VEGP-E Dick Byne Waynesboro City Council Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting 

VEGP-F Ellis Godbee Former County Commissioner Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting 

VEGP-G Bobbie Paul Director, Women’s Action for New 

Direction 

Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting 

VEGP-H Teresa Carter American Cancer Society Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting 

VEGP-I Reverend 

Charles Utley 

Resident Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting 

VEGP-J A.K. Hasan CSRA Citizens for Nuclear Energy Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting 

VEGP-K Walter Dukes VP, Georgia Power Company Evening Scoping Meeting 

VEGP-L J.B. Powell State Senator Evening Scoping Meeting 

VEGP-M Gloria Frazier State Representative Evening Scoping Meeting 

VEGP-N Jesse Stone Mayor, Waynesboro, Georgia Evening Scoping Meeting 

VEGP-O Sara Barczak Safe Energy Director, Southern Alliance 

for Clean Energy 

Written Comments 

The comments and suggestions received as part of the scoping process are documented in this 

section, and the disposition of each comment is discussed. Comments are grouped by 

category. The categories are as follows: 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-4 December 2008 

1. Comments Concerning License Renewal and its Processes 

2. Comments Concerning Water Use and Quality 

3. Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Impacts and Environmental Justice 

4. Comments Concerning Human Health Issues 

5. Comments Concerning Cumulative Impacts 

6. Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents 

7. Comments Concerning Alternative Energy Sources 

8. Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

Each comment is summarized in the following pages. For reference, the unique identifier for 

each comment (Commenter ID letter listed in Table 1) is provided. In those cases where no 

new environmental information was provided by the commenter, no further evaluation will be 

performed. 

The preparation of the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS, known as a Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), will take into account all the relevant issues raised 

during the scoping process. The SEIS will address both Category 1 and 2 issues, along with 

any new information identified as a result of scoping. The SEIS will rely on conclusions 

supported by information in the GEIS for Category 1 issues, and will include the analysis of 

Category 2 issues and any new and significant information. The draft plant-specific supplement 

to the GEIS will be made available for public comment. The comment period will offer the next 

opportunity for the applicant, interested Federal, State, and local government agencies, local 

organizations, and members of the public to provide input to the NRC’s environmental review 

process. The comments received on the draft SEIS will be considered in the preparation of the 

final SEIS. The final SEIS, along with the Staff’s Safety Evaluation Report (SER), NRC Region 

II inspections, and independent review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, will 

provide basis for the NRC’s decision on the Southern Nuclear Operating Company license 

renewal application.

 

A.1 Comments and Responses 

A.1.1 Comments Concerning License Renewal and Its Processes

Comment: The SRS Community Reuse Organization is a two-state five-county economic 

development board established by Congress to assist communities surrounding Department of 

Energy facilities ... We applaud the NRC for holding events such as this meeting and trust that 

you will diligently consider all input received. Our board has recently expanded our focus to 

include an interest in commercial nuclear topics, because of the impacts on the community that 

we serve. (VEGP-C) 

Comment: Thank you for letting me speak. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm Dick Byne; I'm 

on the Waynesboro County Council. I've been to every one of the meetings, I intend to be on 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

as many meetings as you have, if you have 500 between now and then, I'll be at every single 

one of them. I appreciate the opportunity of living in a free country, to be able to bring concerns. 

You are open, and you're letting us decide if this is good for our community, and I really do 

appreciate that. I don't know how many other countries do that, but I know America does, and I 

appreciate that. I also appreciate the Southern Nuclear going as slow as they are; they're being 

meticulous about what they're doing. I appreciate that, and I appreciate them being open with 

everything that they're trying to do, and I appreciate their challenges that they're getting; they're 

addressing each challenge, and we appreciate that too. And that really means a lot to me. 

(VEGP-E) 

Comment: I have to say that I get a volume of material. I didn't realize how much I'd be 

receiving, through this process from the NRC, documenting each step of the way of the studies; 

they are exhaustive. I am convinced they have not overlooked anything in determining whether 

this will have a bad or a positive impact on our environment. (VEGP-N) 

Comment: I want to thank the NRC on behalf of the citizen of Waynesboro who I represent as 

their Mayor, for having this open, public forum for everyone to express their views, so that they 

can be taken into account in the decision on whether to renew the license for Plant Vogtle, and 

to extend the period. (VEGP-N) 

Response: The comments concern the general license renewal process. However, the 

comments provide no new information related to the Staff’s environmental review and, 

therefore, will not be evaluated further. 

Comment: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Sara Barczak, and I'm the Safe Energy 

Director with Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. We are a nonprofit energy policy organization 

with members throughout Georgia and the region. We promote responsible energy choices that 

create global-warming solutions and ensure clean, safe and healthy communities in the 

Southeast. And I'm also a resident of the downstream community of Savannah. The issue of 

extending the operating life of Plant Vogtle will not affect just this local community but Georgia 

as a whole, and our regional overall. And we hope the NRC staff understands that we need to 

do what will benefit all -- not just a select few. (VEGP-A) 

Comment: And I know we like to compartmentalize: We're not DOE; we're NRC, we're blah, 

blah, blah. But the people on the ground are the ones who are getting the benefits or the 

deficiencies of such major mission. (VEGP-A) 

Comment: And given that the license renewal for Vogtle is for 20 additional years of 

operation—taking us to 2047 and 2049 if approved, we believe the NRC needs to evaluate not 

only the Georgia of today, but the Georgia we may be living in 40 years from now. (VEGP-A, 

VEGP-O) 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-6 December 2008 

Response: The comments concern the general license renewal process. The Commission 

has established a process, by rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be conducted to 

review a license renewal application. NRC will evaluate a broad spectrum of potential 

environmental impacts resulting from the continued operation of Vogtle Units 1 and 2. These 

findings will be presented in the SEIS. 

Comment: I think it's -- and this is a question directly to what I said earlier in our statements. Is 

there a process that the NRC has established, given the reality that there are so many more 

applications and things going on, and new hires, or fairly new, to -- like a license renewal 

happening within an ESP and then a COL, Early Site Permit and Combined Operating License? 

Do you have a mechanism within the Agency to get public comment from one entity that may 

not be reviewed but would be relevant for the COL or the ESP? I mean, the COL hasn't been 

applied for, but -- (VEGP-A) 

Comment: My fear is that there doesn't appear to be any assurance that things won't slip 

through the cracks, so to speak. We have grave concerns that too many permits are occurring 

at the same time with Plant Vogtle. A license renewal, an early site permit and an upcoming 

application for a combined construction and operating license. Can the NRC keep up with all of 

this in a manner that is truly protective of public health? We are doubtful. As we all know, 

bureaucracies themselves have their deficiencies. The idea that everything will be coordinated 

seamlessly between all of these different staffs and projects -- and you know, putting full faith 

that we have great staff at the NRC. But there's a lot going on, and we're just concerned that 

these different projects are not going to be integrated, and expecting that to be integrated is 

somewhat almost unrealistic. But we'd hope that it could happen. (VEGP-A) 

Comment: There doesn’t appear to be any assurance that things won’t slip through the cracks 

so-to-speak. We have grave concerns that too many permits are occurring at the same time 

with Plant Vogtle: a license renewal, an early site permit, and an upcoming application for a 

combined construction and operating license. Can the NRC keep up with all of this in a manner 

that is truly protective of public health? We are doubtful; as we all know, bureaucracies 

themselves have their deficiencies. The idea that everything will be coordinated seamlessly 

between all these different staff and all these different projects seems unrealistic. (VEGP-O) 

 

Response: The comments are in regard to license renewal and its processes, specifically the 

concern that issues may "slip through the cracks" with multiple applications concerning VEGP 

being reviewed by NRC staff at the same time. The Commission has established a process, by 

rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be conducted pertaining to a license renewal 

application. License renewals are being conducted separately, and within another Division 

within NRC, from the other applications that are currently in progress, such as an Early Site 

Permit application. To address this specific issue, as well as other related issues, NRC has 

developed protocol to help ensure the consistent application of technical and regulatory 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

guidance by the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and New Reactors (NRO). In 

Chapter 4 of the draft SEIS, NRC staff will consider potential cumulative impacts on the 

environment resulting from the incremental impact of license renewal when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including the construction and operation of 

two additional reactors at the VEGP site. 

Comment: Please see attached public comments from October 4, 2007 public meeting. Due 

to time limitations at that meeting, only a small portion was read into the record. We feel that 

these comments are pertinent to the Vogtle relicensing process and request that they be 

reviewed. 

Response: The references comments have been incorporated into the public record and are 

accessible through ADAMS Accession Number ML073060040. The specific comments are 

addressed in this document in the appropriate technical sections. 

A.1.2 Comments Concerning Water Use and Quality 

Comment: Power plants have a tremendous impact on our water resources. Our energy 

choices do make a big difference in the future of the river basins and the communities and 

businesses relying on those water resources. (VEGP-A) 

Comment: Most people are not aware that the nuclear plants in Georgia have larger water 

permits than most municipalities, including nearby Augusta. Plant Vogtle is currently the largest 

water user in the entire Savannah River Basin, and has an average withdrawal of 64 million 

gallons per day from the Savannah River, with an average consumption of 43 million gallons per 

day. That means that Vogtle is returning only about a third of what it withdraws from the River. 

An additional 20 years of operation as populations increase and the demand for water increases 

will not be a positive development for our water resources. 

 

That was released earlier this month, actually after this application was submitted. While I have 

not yet had time to read the draft EIS word for word that we're going to talk about next 

Thursday, but I can tell you that it appears that the cumulative impact on water quality and 

quantity have not been satisfactorily evaluated in the draft EIS for the early site permit. 

And that's a problem, because this early license renewal is saying that that's going to be a draft 

in the early site permit, and I don't see it there, so it's a concern. (VEGP-A) 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-8 December 2008 

Comment: And I'm interested in the amount of extract of water from the river, for the use of the 

plant not exceed that. It's going to be used for those farmers along the river, as well as those 

who would like to use it as a recreation facility. And so I -- my primary interest in that part of it at 

this time, because if it's not addressed, that young man or that young lady who would like to just 

go strolling down the river, are we going to pull out more than a power boat would able to even 

go down, and enjoy it. There's only one river; there's only one provider. And let us use it for the 

best that we can use it for and not put those farmers who are using it for irrigation -- put them 

out of business. So let us look at what we can return to the river, as safe, usable water, 

because once it's gone, it's gone, and we can't replenish it. So that's my thinking, that's 

my goal, is to make sure that the little man like I am, is taken care of, in any type of 

restructuring, redevelopment. And thank you very much. (VEGP-I) 

Comment: The State of Georgia and surrounding states are currently facing a drought of epic 

proportions, and there does not appear to be any analysis of the current situation in the 

application nor analysis beyond a level 3 drought. Plant Vogtle is the largest water user in the 

entire Savannah River basin and has an average withdrawal of 64 million gallons per day from 

the Savannah River and an average water consumption of 43 million gallons per day. That 

means that Vogtle is returning only about one-third of what it withdraws from the Savannah 

River. An additional 20 years of operation, as populations increase, will not be a positive 

development for our water resources. (VEGP-O) 

Comment: Power plants have a tremendous impact on our water resources. Our energy 

choices make a big difference on the future of the river basins and the communities and 

businesses reliant on those water sources. (VEGP-O) 

Response: The comments are related to water use conflicts specific to VEGP. Water use 

conflict is a Category 2 issue and will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS. 

Comment: Lastly, as a downstream resident I'm very concerned about tritium, a radioactive 

form of hydrogen that can impact our health. Faced with saltwater intrusion of the Floridan 

Aquifer, both Beaufort and Jasper Counties in South Carolina and the Savannah area will 

become more dependent on the Savannah River for drinking water. I did not see that discussed 

in the application. Plant Vogtle already contributes to the tritium in the River, although they are 

not the major culprit; and allowing the reactors to operate for longer will do nothing to reduce 

this reality, let alone when and if more reactors come online. The NRC needs to study tritium in 

the river, future projections, especially given the Savannah River Site's already large 

contribution to the tritium pollution, and to analyze this with droughts and future population 

growth in mind. The future safety of not only this community, but many, many, others are at 

stake. (VEGP-A) 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Comment: There are concerns about tritium contamination, a radioactive form of hydrogen that 

can impact our health. Faced with saltwater intrusion of the Floridan Aquifer, both Beaufort and 

Jasper counties in South Carolina and the Savannah area will become more dependent on the 

Savannah River for drinking water. Plant Vogtle already contributes to the tritium in the river 

and allowing the reactors to operate for longer will do nothing to reduce this reality, let alone 

when and if more reactors come online. The NRC needs to study tritium in the river, future 

projections especially given the Savannah River Site’s already large contribution to the tritium 

pollution, and to analyze this with droughts and future population growth in mind. (VEGP-O) 

Response: The comments are noted and relate to both human health and water use conflicts 

associated with continued operation of Plant Vogtle. Human health issues were evaluated in 

the GEIS and were determined to be Category 1 issues. The GEIS evaluated radiation 

exposures to the public for all plants including VEGP, and concluded that the impact was small. 

During the plant-specific environmental review of VEGP, the NRC will determine whether there 

is any new and significant information bearing on the previous analysis in the GEIS. The 

information provided by the comments will be reviewed as part of that determination. In 

addition, evaluation of new studies and analyses of the health effects of radiation exposure is an 

ongoing effort at the NRC. Water use conflict is a Category 2 issue and will be addressed in 

Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS. 

Comment: Additionally, since we are discussing the prospects of these reactors operating for 

many decades from now, the NRC needs to evaluate predictive effects of global warming on 

this region, and how nuclear power plants may be negatively impacted or unable to generate 

electricity. This was demonstrated, as many of us in the room know, by the heat wave this past 

summer in Europe, when nuclear power plants from Sweden to France had to shut down 

because of the lake -- I'm sorry -- the summer of 2006, when nuclear power plants from Sweden 

to France had to shut down because the lake or river water temperatures were too high. 

(VEGP-A, VEGP-O) 

Response: The comments pertain to an extended heat wave in Europe in July of 2006. 

Drought conditions, associated with the heat wave, contributed to reduced water levels in the 

lakes and rivers that some nuclear plants use to cool their reactors. As a result, some plants in 

France, Spain, and Germany were taken offline and operations were reduced at others. Across 

Western Europe, nuclear plants also had to obtain exemptions from regulations in order to 

discharge overheated water into the environment. This is an example of a potential water use 

conflict that could be associated with plants with cooling pond or cooling towers using make-up 

water from a small river with low flow. Water use conflict is a Category 2 issue and will be 

addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS. 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-10 December 2008 

A.1.3 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Impacts and Environmental Justice

Comment: Plant Vogtle is a project that will be an economic engine for Burke County and the 

entire CSRA. The Burke County Plant Vogtle plant is one of the best-run plants in the United 

States of America. It has an impeccable safety record, and it is run very, very efficiently, and it 

is run very, very well. I would like to tell each and every one of you here tonight that an 

economic boost in Burke County is something that we need. An economic boost in the CSRA is 

something that we also need. We've lost many jobs in Burke County, Jenkins County, and in 

Richmond County. And we need to do everything that we can to try to create the job buildup 

which Plant Vogtle will do for us all. (VEGP-L) 

 

Response: The comment is noted. Socioeconomic issues specific to the plant are Category 2 

issues and will be discussed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. 

Comment: Good evening. Just wanted to say that I'm primarily interested in environmental 

justice in this area. I've been working with communities throughout the country and most of 

those are EJ communities. (VEGP-I) 

Response: To perform a review of environmental justice in the vicinity of the nuclear power 

plant, the NRC staff examines the geographic distribution of minority and low-income 

populations within 50 miles (80 km) of the site being evaluated. The Staff uses the most recent 

census data available. Once the locations of minority and low-income populations are 

identified, the Staff determines the extent to which these populations may be disproportionately 

affected. The comments are noted. Environmental justice is an issue specific to the plant and 

will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. 

A.1.4 Comments Concerning Human Health Issues 

Comment: As you know, there's been a controversial health study that's put out, but one of the 

things that the National Cancer Study did note that in Aiken, Barnwell, Burke County, the cancer 

rates before the startup of Vogtle were less than 26 percent of the rest of the country. 

And the most recent, from '99 to 2003, shows Burke County with an 11 percent increase over 

the rest of the country. I'm not saying, again, just like the tobacco industry, why this is 

happening. But I would put it in your laps that we really should have and support with our 

federal dollars an independent study that we can all agree upon, really takes a look at the 

burden of impact of this. (VEGP-G) 

Response: The GEIS evaluated human health issues and determined them to be a Category 1 

issue. However, the cited reference will be reviewed to determine whether there is any new and 

significant information relative to VEGP. 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

A.1.5 Comments Concerning Cumulative Impacts 

Comment: Further, the proposed new reactors at Plant Vogtle are estimated to use over 50 

million gallons of water per day, with 50 to 75 percent of that lost as steam, and that's from 

Southern Nuclear's August 2006 application. This means that more water will be lost from the 

two existing and two proposed reactors at Plant Vogtle than is currently used by all residents of 

Atlanta, Augusta, and Savannah combined. Yet the application doesn't discuss the cumulative 

impacts of the existing and proposed reactors. Instead, it says in Section 2.12.3 that the NRC 

will do such an analysis in the draft EIS for the early site permit. (VEGP-A) 

Comment: Further, the proposed new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle are estimated to use 53 

million gallons of water per day with 50-75% of that lost as steam. (Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Early Site Permit Application, Environmental Report, August 2006). This means that 

more water will be lost from the two existing and two proposed reactors at Plant Vogtle than is 

currently used by all residents of Atlanta, Augusta, and Savannah combined. Yet, the 

application doesn’t discuss the cumulative impacts of the existing and proposed reactors. 

Instead, it says in section 2.12.3 that the NRC will do such an analysis in the draft EIS for the 

Vogtle ESP that was released earlier in September, actually after this license renewal 

application was submitted. From our review of the draft EIS for the ESP at Vogtle, the 

cumulative impacts on water quality and quantity have not been satisfactorily evaluated. 

Therefore, we believe that this issue is also deficient in terms of the license renewal evaluation. 

(VEGP-O) 

Comment: For instance, section 2.12.3 of Southern’s license renewal application states that 

the NRC will do a cumulative water analysis in this draft EIS for the early site permit. Well, I can 

tell you that it appears that the cumulative impacts on water quality and quantity have not been 

satisfactorily evaluated in the draft EIS for the early site permit. That is a problem. (VEGP-O) 

Comment: The NRC should not make its decisions or evaluations in a vacuum. If the two new 

reactors are approved and actually built, the existing two reactors will be operating at the same 

time, and this application and all other applications associated with Plant Vogtle have to address 

the cumulative impacts -- not pass the buck, assuming that some other committee within the 

NRC working on some other project is going to cover it. (VEGP-A, VEGP-O) 

Comment: Hello. I guess I'm addressing mainly you here. My name is Bobbie Paul ... One of 

the things that I think is -- should be considered seriously is a calculation of the overall impact to 

the region, of the many nuclear activities that are going on in this region. Very often we -- I 

myself have stayed away from the nuclear power arena until the new reactors were proposed, 

thinking we had enough to deal with at Savannah River Site. But because of the waste, 

because of the terrorist activities and potential, because of the health issues and the 

consequences, latent cancers -- I am a doctor's daughter; I've become more and more 

concerned about all of this. And as you probably know, although I do find that sometimes as 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-12 December 2008 

Sara said, there's a lot of disjointed where people are kind of working in a vacuum. But it 

reminds me of the arcade game where the little guy keeps popping his head up and you keep 

trying to bat it down. I feel like there are nuclear things popping all over this region, and as we 

know, this is the most radioactive region, this 15-mile area, in the whole country; not for volume, 

but for radioactivity. 

 

So right now I guess as people in the audience are probably full aware the Savannah River Site 

is now the recipient, continually will be the recipient, of more plutonium from Hanford, from 

Lawrence Livermore in California, and Los Alamos in New Mexico. This has an impact on the 

region, not only from transportation but other things. We also have active tritium extraction 

going on at Savannah River Site, and added to that now we're having the likelihood of -- well, I 

hope not the likelihood of two new reactors, which may disappoint people in the room, and I do 

understand what an economic treasure Plant Vogtle has been to this area, because I have 

many friends who live in this area. But I sincerely think that that cumulative burden that's really 

being put on the people in this 40- to 50-mile radius of this should be considered, whether it's an 

independent study or what. (VEGP-G) 

Comment: So as we look at anything that's going to impact our river, and the use of it now 

from Augusta down, we know we have Olin Chemicals as well as Federal Paper, and others 

who are pulling from the river constantly. (VEGP-I) 

Response: As part of the environmental review process, the NRC evaluates the potential for 

cumulative impacts of operations (as defined in 40 CFR 1508.7) during the renewal term. In 

Chapter 4 of the SEIS, the impacts of the proposed action will analyzed in conjunction with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at VEGP, including the cumulative 

impacts associated with the proposed addition of Units 3 and 4, and the activities of other 

industrial facilities and/or Federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy at Savannah 

River Site. 

Comment: We have strong concerns about the NRC’s analysis on the impacts Vogtle’s 

proposed expansion would have on our water resources. Our energy choices make a big 

difference on the future of the river basins and the communities and businesses reliant on those 

water sources. Vogtle is the largest water user in the Savannah River basin and its expansion 

essentially doubles that water use and water loss. We would suggest to the NRC that water use 

should be reported in different ways to help people actually understand the numbers. For 

instance, in Section 7.3, water consumption is reported in cubic feet per second. Though I did 

the math, I don’t think most people have the time to convert all of those figures to gallons per 

day, which is what most of our surface water withdrawal permits in Georgia are licensed under. 

When you do the math, it shows that the current reactors are losing ~43 million gallons of water 

per day and that the new reactors will lose ~40 mgd. This means that more water will be lost 

from the two existing and two proposed reactors at Plant Vogtle than is currently used by all 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

residents of Atlanta, Augusta, and Savannah combined. And on p. 2-34, the draft EIS says that 

Burke County is projected to have a 50% increase in water demand by 2035 and that 

neighboring South Carolina’s water demand will also increase by 50% from 2000-2045 and 

acknowledges that people will be shifting off of the Floridan Aquifer to the Savannah River and 

simply states that all of this would also increase demands for Savannah River water 

downstream of Vogtle. But in the end, because the NRC calculated that the two new reactors 

would not decrease the Savannah River flow of today by more than 5%, it acts as though all is 

good. Well, nowhere in this document does it appear that the NRC has evaluated how the 

Savannah River is going to be able to handle the Georgia and South Carolina that we will live in 

decades from now, that by the NRC’s own statements appears to be a future in which the 

Savannah River is going to see extreme increases in demand. Further, the draft EIS has no 

analysis of climate change predictions on our water systems, such as the prospects for severe, 

long-lasting mega-droughts, of which Georgia may encounter as global warming impacts are 

realized. Again we ask, who stands to gain and who stands to lose? (VEGP-O) 

Comment: Sure, you are going to hear all the local economic boosters come out in numbers to 

say the existing reactors generate revenue and jobs. You will hear folks who live here say how 

Southern is the biggest employer in Burke County and you will see Table 2-16 show that 

Southern pays over 80% of the property taxes in the county and that Burke County has one of 

the highest revenues in the state. And you'll hear the company make it look like a full 

assessment of the cumulative impacts related to socioeconomics has been done where it states 

on page 7-17 that, “In terms of beneficial effects including tax revenues benefits, the impacts on 

Burke County would be large.” 

 

But where’s the analysis and the NRC review of the cumulative impacts for ratepayers in 

Georgia who face serious harm from potential adverse impacts down the road? Isn’t that part of 

the socio-economic impact on all of us? Who’s doing any analysis on the implications of the 

Southern Company proposal included in its application to have the new radioactive waste it will 

generate go to a fictitious federal waste repository? A repository that doesn’t even exist and 

that ratepayers have been paying for over many years and that states have been forced to sue 

the federal government on that translates into ratepayer dollars. NRC largely ignores this reality 

in its review of Vogtle’s proposal. But you can know that ratepayers and state agencies and the 

public would think that surely the NRC as the federal agency charged to oversee a review would 

have fully addressed this issue in reviewing a new reactor proposal. (VEGP-O) 

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are specific to the Draft EIS that was 

prepared for the Early Site Permit (ESP) associated with the proposed new reactors at Plant 

Vogtle (Units 3 and 4) and published for public review and comment. The cumulative impacts 

associated with the operation of two additional reactors at Plant Vogtle will be addressed in 

Chapter 4 of the SEIS produced as part of the Staff’s license renewal environmental review. 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-14 December 2008 

A.1.6 Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents

Comment: And that leads me to the last thing and back to my friends here in Burke County. 

How are we communicating with the folks on the ground here? Let's do a worst-case scenario. 

Even from a business standpoint, I realize Southern Company is a business and has to make a 

profit. Let's look at a worst-case scenario. Don't we owe it to the people here in Burke County 

to show what would happen in the worst possible case, if there was a meltdown, if there was a 

valve like there was at Farley in Alabama that didn't quite work right. (VEGP-G) 

Comment: But I think it's time for us to stop downplaying all of the risks of nuclear. We all 

know that radiation kills. That's a known fact. I'm not being hysterical about that. But let's look 

at the worst case and then move from there, forward together. Thank you. (VEGP-G) 

Response: The environmental review considers postulated plant accidents that might occur 

during the license renewal term. It also includes a review of the alternatives to mitigate severe 

accidents if this has not previously been evaluated for the applicant’s plant. 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, evaluated, and, if 

appropriate, implemented. The impacts of postulated accidents are considered within the scope 

of the environmental review for license renewal and will be addressed in Chapter 5 of the SEIS. 

A.1.7 Comments Concerning Alternative Energy Sources 

Comment: The application is deficient in its analysis of energy sources efficiency. Energy 

efficiency and conservation represent the quickest, safest, cheapest way to provide more power 

and to best protect our air and water resources. As an added benefit, increased energy 

efficiency reduces water consumption by power plants that compete with local industries and 

cities for much-needed water. The NRC should be aware that in 2001, the Energy Information 

Administration ranked Georgia eighth in the nation for per capita energy consumption for 

electricity, and 40th in per capita spending on energy efficiency programs. (VEGP-A, VEGP-O) 

Comment: The NRC needs to fully research other energy choices, including energy efficiency 

and conservation, as the application from Southern Nuclear is woefully inadequate. Renewable 

energy supplies are available here in Georgia, such as biopower, solar and wind. In fact, 

according to a 2006 report from the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority, Georgia has the 

potential to meet 1500 to 1600-plus megawatts of the state's forecasted electricity demand 

through new, renewable resources, from biomass, wind, hydropower, landfill gas, and solar 

photovoltaics. These energy supplies should be supported due in part because they keep 

dollars here at home, and they don't pose the risk to the community that nuclear power does. 

(VEGP-A) (VEGP-O) 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Comment: The NRC should be aware that new, certified wind maps of Georgia were released 

by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in October 2006 that show there is substantial 

wind power available, especially offshore, with a potential of 10,000MW. Go to the Georgia 

Wind Working Group website at www.gawwg.org. Yet information in the application is 

completely outdated; in terms of wind it referenced 1986 data in spite of Southern Company 

being involved in a an offshore wind study with Georgia Tech that was released in part earlier 

this summer. Additionally, the potential to use Georgia’s plentiful agriculture and forestry 

resources should be evaluated. A conservative estimate from a University of Georgia study 

showed that as much as 12% of Georgia’s total electricity demand could be generated from 

biomass. The benefits to Georgia include increased self-sufficiency, improved water resource 

quality, and long-term environmental and rural development benefits. (VEGP-A) (VEGP-O) 

Comment: The NRC should be aware that new, certified wind maps of Georgia were released 

by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in October 2006 that show there is substantial 

wind power available, especially offshore, with a potential of well over 10,000 MW. Go to the 

Georgia Wind Working Group website at www.gawwg.org for background. Yet Section 9.2.3.2 

on wind power doesn’t mention this potential, instead relying on Southern’s slanted wording of a 

study they did with Georgia Tech that “technology limitations and regulatory restrictions would 

make development of offshore wind projects difficult in the southeast.” Instead of taking 

Southern’s word for it, the NRC should actually review the offshore wind study with Georgia 

Tech that was released in part earlier this summer and is now finalized ready for release. 

(VEGP-O) 

Comment: The analysis of energy efficiency is deficient. This issue is still under review by the 

Georgia PSC as a result of analytical questions that arose in reviewing Georgia Power’s 

Integrated Resource Plan this year. The PSC has ordered a working group to examine these 

issues further. Energy efficiency and conservation represent the quickest, safest, cheapest way 

to provide more power and to best protect our air and water resources. As an added benefit, 

increased energy efficiency reduces water consumption by power plants that compete with local 

industries and cities for much needed water. The NRC should be aware that in 2001, the 

Energy Information Administration ranked Georgia 8th in the nation for per capita energy 

consumption for electricity and 40th in per capita spending on energy efficiency programs. 

Additionally, we are an energy exporting state. We use our natural resources, impact our 

citizens’ health, and pile up nuclear waste within our border to power other states’ air 

conditioning units. (VEGP-O) 

Comment: Additionally, the potential to use Georgia’s plentiful agriculture and forestry 

resources should be more closely evaluated as the benefits include increased self-sufficiency, 

improved water resource quality, and long-term environmental and rural development benefits. 

A University of Georgia 2003 study that showed that as much as 12% of Georgia’s total 

electricity demand could be generated from biomass was referenced by the NRC in Section 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-16 December 2008 

9.2.3.8, but the NRC dismissed biomass as not being economically competitive with existing 

technologies. Georgia Power’s plan filed with the Georgia PSC this year shows there are 

competitive biomass projects. Further, nowhere in this draft EIS does it state officially how 

much these new reactors are going to cost Georgia ratepayers or taxpayers, instead providing 

estimates on p. 5-38 ranging from $1.2-2.6 billion for each reactor. (VEGP-O) 

Response: The comments are related to the alternatives to license renewal at VEGP. The 

GEIS included a discussion of alternative energy sources. Environmental impacts associated 

with various reasonable alternatives to renewal of the VEGP operating license, including 

renewable energy sources and conservation (Demand-Side Management), will be evaluated in 

Chapter 8 of the SEIS. 

Comment: The draft EIS failed to fully research other energy choices, including energy 

efficiency and conservation. Renewable energy supplies are available here in Georgia, such as 

biopower, solar, and wind. In fact, according a 2006 report by the Georgia Environmental 

Facilities Authority, Georgia has the potential to meet 1518-1618 MW of the state’s forecasted 

electricity demand through new renewable resources from biomass, wind, hydropower, landfill 

gas, and solar photovoltaics. (Meeting Future Electricity Demand, GA Environmental Facilities 

Authority, 2006). These energy supplies should be tapped because they keep dollars here at 

home, provide safe jobs, and don’t pose the risks to the community that nuclear power does. 

(VEGP-O) 

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are specific to the Draft EIS that was 

prepared for the Early Site Permit (ESP) associated with the proposed new reactors at Plant 

Vogtle (Units 3 and 4) and published for public review and comment. However, these 

comments will be considered during the preparation of the SEIS for license renewal. 

Environmental impacts associated with various reasonable alternatives to renewal of the VEGP 

operating license, including renewable energy sources and conservation (Demand-Side 

Management), will be evaluated in Chapter 8 of the SEIS. 

A.1.8 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

Comment: My next-to-last point would be waste. We have no solution for the waste. Yucca 

Mountain is likely not to be built. If it was, the transportation risks and everything else are 

terrific. There was just a little earthquake tremor out in Yucca Mountain in Nevada the other 

day. (VEGP-G) 

Response: Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel is a Category 1 issue. The safety and 

environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel onsite has been evaluated by the NRC, 

as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule. The NRC's Waste Confidence Rule, found in 10 

CFR 51.23, states: The Commission has made a generic determination that, if necessary, spent 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts 

for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a 

revised or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or 

offsite independent spent fuel storage installations. Further, the Commission believes there is 

reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic repository will be available within the 

first quarter of the twenty-first century, and sufficient repository capacity will be available within 

30 years beyond the licensed life for operation of any reactor to dispose of the commercial highlevel waste and spent fuel originating in such reactor and generated up to that time. In its 

Statement of Considerations for the 1990 update of the Waste Confidence Rule (55 FR 38472), 

the Commission addressed the impacts of the disposal of spent fuel discharged from the current 

fleet of reactors operating under existing and renewed licenses and from a new generation of 

operating reactors. The rule was last reviewed by the Commission in 1999 when it reaffirmed 

the findings in the rule (64 FR 68005, dated December 6, 1999). The comments provide no 

new and significant information relevant to the Staff’s environmental review and, therefore, will 

not be evaluated further. 

Comment: I know they're talking about GNEP, and I was interesting -- interested to hear the 

man from Savannah River Site say, we're looking at energy. I know the global nuclear energy 

partnership coming down the pike for the last two years has all of these indications that there's 

going to be a hope for getting rid of some of this waste through a return to reprocessing. This 

is one of the most filthy, dangerous plutonium cycles that we could ever engage in, and will 

create more waste. This spent fuel and these rods that come out that have to sit in cooling 

ponds are highly radioactive and have to sit in these ponds for five years before we can even 

deal with them. (VEGP-G) 

Response: The comments are related to the uranium fuel cycle and waste management 

issues. Uranium fuel cycle and waste management issues were evaluated in the GEIS and 

were determined to be Category 1 issues. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is not the 

subject of this environmental review, and the comment does not provide any new and significant 

information that would alter the original GEIS determinations regarding the uranium fuel cycle. 

However, as part of the environmental review process, the NRC evaluates the potential for 

cumulative impacts of operations (as defined in 40 CFR 1508.7) during the renewal term. In 

Chapter 2 of the SEIS, the NRC will review the possibility that activities of other Federal 

agencies, such as the Department of Energy at Savannah River Site, contribute to cumulative 

impacts in conjunction with license renewal. In Chapter 4 of the SEIS, the impacts of the 

proposed action will be combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions at VEGP. 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-18 December 2008 

Part II - 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 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 

2, Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-1437, Supplement 34, referred to as the draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement [SEIS]) to federal, state, and local government 

agencies; certain Indian tribes; and 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 into the NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room, on its 

license renewal website, and at the Burke County Public Library in Waynesboro, 

Georgia; 

• sent copies of the draft SEIS to the applicant, members of the public who requested 

copies, representatives of certain Indian tribes, and certain federal, state, and local 

agencies; 

• published a notice of availability of the draft SEIS in the Federal Register on April 25, 

2008 (73 FR 22448); 

• announced and held two public meetings in Waynesboro, GA, on June 3, 2008, 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; and 

• established an email address to receive comments on the draft SEIS through the 

Internet. 

During the comment period, the staff received a total of nine comment letters and emails in 

addition to the comments received during the public meetings. 

The staff has 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 Public Document 

Room. Appendix A, Part II, Section A.2 contains a summary of the comments and the staff’s 

responses. Related issues are grouped together. The public meeting transcripts and comment 

letters have been incorporated by reference and are available online in ADAMS. 

Each comment identified by the staff was assigned a specific alpha-numeric identifier (marker). 

A cross-reference of the alpha-numeric identifiers, the speaker or author of the comment, the 

page where the comment can be found, and the section(s) of this report in which the comment 

is addressed is provided in Table A-2. Public testimony and written comments are identified by 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

a specific letter representing the commenter, followed by a number that identifies each comment 

in approximate chronological order in which the comments were made. 

The staff made a determination on each comment that it was one of the following: 

• A comment that was actually a question and introduces no new information. 

• A comment that was either related to support or opposition of license renewal in general 

(or specifically, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) or that makes a general 

statement about the licensing renewal process. It may make only a general statement 

regarding Category 1 and/or Category 2 issues. In addition, it provides no new 

information and does not pertain to 10 CFR Part 54. 

• A comment about a Category 1 issue that provided new information that required 

evaluation during the review, or provided no new information. 

• A comment about a Category 2 issue that provided information that required evaluation 

during the review, or provided no such information. 

• A comment regarding Alternatives to the proposed action. 

• A comment that raised an environmental issue that was not addressed in the GEIS or 

the draft SEIS. 

• A comment outside the scope of license renewal (not related to 10 CFR Parts 51 or 54), 

which includes comments regarding the Need for Power. 

• A comment on Safety issues pertaining to 10 CFR Part 54. 

• A comment that was editorial in nature. 

There was no significant new information provided on Category 1 issues or information that 

required further evaluation on Category 2 issues. Therefore, the conclusions in the GEIS and 

draft SEIS remained valid and bounding, and no further evaluation was performed. 

Comments without a supporting technical basis or without any new information are discussed in 

this appendix, and not in other sections of this report. Relevant references that address the 

issues within the regulatory authority of the NRC are provided where appropriate. Many of 

these references can be obtained from the NRC Public Document Room. 

Within each section of Part II of this appendix (A.2.1 through A.2.11), similar comments are 

grouped together for ease of reference, and a summary description of the comments is given, 

followed by the staff’s response. Where the comment or question resulted in a change in the 

text of the draft report, the corresponding response refers the reader to the appropriate section 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-20 December 2008 

of this report where the change was made. Revisions to the text in the draft report are 

designated by vertical lines beside the text. 

Table A-2. Individuals Providing Comments on the Draft SEIS 

Commenter 

ID

Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source 

VEGP-A A.K. Hasan CSRA Citizens for Nuclear Energy Afternoon DSEIS Meeting 

Transcript (ML081620117) 

VEGP-B Nina CannWoode Clean and Safe Energy Coalition Afternoon DSEIS Meeting 

Transcript (ML081620117) 

VEGP-C William Hummel Clean and Safe Energy Coalition Afternoon DSEIS Meeting 

Transcript (ML081620117) 

VEGP-D Chris Henry Burke County Public Schools Afternoon DSEIS Meeting 

Transcript (ML081620117) 

VEGP-E Merv Waldrop Burke County Board of 

Commissioners 

Afternoon DSEIS Meeting 

Transcript (ML081620117) 

VEGP-F Dianne Valentine Local Citizen Evening DSEIS Meeting 

Transcript (ML081650046) 

VEGP-G Ed Davidson Local Citizen Evening DSEIS Meeting 

Transcript (ML081650046) 

VEGP-H Judith Stoker Local Citizen Evening DSEIS Meeting 

Transcript (ML081650046) 

VEGP-I Bobbie Paul Local Citizen Evening DSEIS Meeting 

Transcript (ML081650046) 

VEGP-J Henry Wheeler Local Citizen Evening DSEIS Meeting 

Transcript (ML081650046) 

VEGP-K Heinz Mueller U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Letter (ML081900016) 

VEGP-L Sara Barczak Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Letter (ML082190813) 

VEGP-M Roy Crabtree National Marine Fisheries Service Letter (ML082490542) 

VEGP-N Joseph Mangano Radiation and Public Health Project Letter (ML082490543) 

VEGP-O T.E. Tynan Southern Nuclear Operating Company Letter (ML082490544) 

VEGP-P Gregory Hogue U.S. Department of the Interior Letter (ML082520008) 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Commenter 

ID

Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source 

VEGP-Q Vivianne Vejdani South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources 

Letter (ML082490545) 

VEGP-R Karen AndersonCordova Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources 

Letter (ML082490546) 

A.2 Comments and Responses 

Comments in this section are grouped into the following categories: 

A.2.1 General Comments in Opposition of License Renewal at Vogtle, Unit 1 and 2 

A.2.2 General Comments in Support of License Renewal at Vogtle, Unit 1 and 2 

A.2.3 Comments Concerning Radiological Impacts and Human Health 

A.2.4 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

A.2.5 Comments Concerning Water Use and Quality 

A.2.6 Comments Concerning Aquatic Resources 

A.2.7 Comments Concerning License Renewal and its Processes 

A.2.8 Comments Concerning Alternatives 

A.2.9 Editorial and General Comments 

A.2.10 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues 

A.2.11 Comments Concerning Global Warming 

A.2.1 General Comments in Opposition of License Renewal at Vogtle, Unit 1 and 2 

Comment: But to even think about putting two more units here and I guess I'm just -- I don't 

think you ought to put more than two in any one place. Why do you want four units? You know, 

all you're doing is increasing your chances of something going wrong by another 100 percent, or 

ever how you want to figure it. Why not move this to somewhere else? (VEGP-J) 

Response: The comment is in opposition of license renewal at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 1 and 2. The comment provides no additional information; therefore, there were no 

changes made to the supplement.
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-22 December 2008 

A.2.2 General Comments in Support of License Renewal at Vogtle, Unit 1 and 2 

Comment: If the answer to these questions is yes, would not it be appropriate to concede that 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company and Georgia Power did conform its operations of Plant 

Vogtle Units 1 and 2 in accordance with federal and state laws? Moreover, after such a 

concession, would it not be appropriate to approve the Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement for license renewal of Vogtle Units 1 and 2? (VEGP-A) 

Comment: We support the construction of new reactors and are actively engaged in 

generating a public dialogue to educate others about the way that nuclear power can enhance 

America's energy security and economic growth and health, including the environment. We all 

share a stake in America's energy future. Now is the time for our country to support nuclear 

energy as a means to generate electricity with a clean, safe, and dependable source of power. 

(VEGP-B) 

Comment: Conservation alone won't meet our growing need, and nuclear energy can't be the 

only solution. A diverse mix of energy sources will serve us all best. However, as we look down 

the road, we should promote the increase in the use of nuclear energy, as it is environmentally 

clean, and it is a reliable path to meeting our country's needs efficiently. (VEGP-C) 

Comment: The school system supports the renewal of the operating license for Units 1 and 2. 

In many ways today I think that Ms. Bailey and I represent all the teachers and the employees of 

the Burke County Public School System. (VEGP-D) 

Comment: So we concur with the report that the impacts of issuing the license renewal would 

be small. If the license was not renewed, then there would be severe impacts to our 

community. So we would like to encourage the NRC to reissue those licenses. (VEGP-E) 

Comment: And so I would hope that we could get the -- continue the license extension and to 

provide for the energy needs of our children, and hopefully we will have -- I've already had one 

child to work out at Vogtle, and I mentor for the children. One of the kids I mentor has worked 

out there too, and it's been a positive experience for my family and friends, and so I'm in favor of 

the license extension and Units 3 and 4. (VEGP-G) 

Response: The comments are supportive of license renewal at Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant Units 1 and 2, and are general in nature. The comments provide no additional 

information; therefore, there were no changes made to the supplement. 

A.2.3 Comments Concerning Radiological Impacts and Human Health 

Comment: I have a granddaughter who suffers from severe asthma. She's spends at least 

one visit per year and requires care because of it. I hadn't associated our environment with 

her health until I took her to my home in Maryland, where I grew up, and she didn't have to 

use her respirator, she didn't need her breathing treatment during that time we were there. 

But as soon as we got back home, she had another attack. 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

So I started trying to make an assessment of what was going on with her, and I came to 

find that some of the environmental research work that I was doing was related to having 

nuclear power plants in this southeast region. And in my research I found that the studies 

that were done for health-related issues related to being near a nuclear power area or 

nuclear facility -- not just power; we have the Savannah River Site close by. 

The assessment didn't consider children with compromised health or pregnant women; they 

considered European men of a certain age, certain weight, certain diet. So that concerned 

me, and I started trying to get as much information from as many people as I could. And 

I'm still not convinced that the impact that these facilities have on our environment are 

small. I do think that they might be a little larger than small, even if they are medium of 

large. 

And I would like to see more time given for different criteria to be applied to some of the testing 

that was done for the environment and for children's health. And I really don't think that these 

types of things should be rushed. I really, really don't think that, even though, like I said, it is a 

business decision that I'm sure they made. I'd like for the NRC, DOE to give some 

consideration to the needs and health of the general public. (VEGP-F) 

Comment: I met a lady at the last session that we had who grew up in this area, on a river, and 

she's not as far away as my granddaughter is; she's right here, in Waynesboro and Augusta. 

And her family is continuing to die from cancer. They lived off the river; they fished for 

sustenance, and they can't anymore, because I'm not sure what you guys found, or maybe the 

fish that they fished to consume were not part of your study, but now they find that the fish have 

yellow meat and have sores on the outside of them. 

So because certain things don't fall within the categories that you study, doesn't mean that 

issues don't exist. And that's one of the reasons that I come to the sessions, to try to share my 

concerns as part of the public record, so that when you are pulling together your final 

assessment, that you do give these types of things consideration. (VEGP-F) 

Comment: This is deadly for women, and I want all the women in the room to know it, that if 

you choose to be pregnant, once this radioactive hydrogen gets out in the water, it has the 

ability to cross the placenta, causing miscarriages, birth defects. If you live long enough it is 

carcinogenic, it's also mutagenic. It can sit on the DNA of the cell. If you happen to be carrying 

a female fetus, it can affect the eggs of that fetus. (VEGP-I) 

Comment: There are concerns about tritium contamination, a radioactive form of hydrogen that 

can impact our health. Faced with saltwater intrusion of the Floridan Aquifer, both Beaufort and 

Jasper counties in South Carolina and the Savannah area will become more dependent on the 

Savannah River for drinking water. In fact, in 2009 the City of Savannah’s main line will begin 

blending Floridan aquifer with Savannah River water in order to help meet groundwater use 

reduction requirements. There is no mention of this in the draft EIS. Plant Vogtle already 

contributes to the tritium in the river and allowing the reactors to operate for longer will do 

nothing to reduce this reality, let alone when and if more reactors come online. The NRC needs 

to study tritium in the river, future projections especially given the Savannah River Site’s already 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-24 December 2008 

large contribution to the tritium pollution, and to analyze this with droughts and future population 

growth in mind. Just stating on page 4-54 that SRS is the major contributor and that further 

operation of Vogtle will contribute limited tritium increases is not acceptable; an analysis of the 

cumulative exposure of people to tritium via their drinking water in particular is needed in the 

final EIS. (VEGP-L) 

Response: The NRC staff performed its environmental review for the license renewal of VEPG 

and issued draft “NUREG – 1437, Supplement 34; Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, dated April 

2008, to document its review.” As part of the NRC’s evaluation process of radiological issues 

for license renewal, we reviewed several years of radiological data contained in Vogtle’s annual 

radiological effluent and environmental monitoring reports and performed an on-site audit of the 

facility. We found that the information in those reports and the information obtained during the 

site audit met NRC radiation protection requirements for protection of the public. This provides 

the basis for concluding that Vogtle Electric Generating Plant’s radiation protection program 

provides adequate protection of the public’s health and safety and to the workers. The NRC 

staff also reviewed the independent radiological environmental monitoring reports issued by the 

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) for its monitoring of the environs around 

VEPG. The results of the GEPD showed that the levels of radionuclides detected in the 

environment samples were below applicable NRC reporting levels and showed no significant or 

measurable impact on the environment from the operation of VEPG. 

The NRC's primary mission is to protect the public health and safety and the environment from 

the effects of radiation from nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities. The NRC's 

regulatory limits for radiological protection are set to protect workers and the public from the 

harmful health effects of radiation on humans. The limits are based on the recommendations of 

standards-setting organizations. Radiation standards reflect extensive scientific study by 

national and international organizations and incorporate conservative assumptions and 

modeling to account for differences in gender and age so as to ensure that workers and all 

members of the public are adequately protected from radiation. 

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no 

reputable scientifically conclusive data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer 

following exposure to low doses and dose rates, below about 10 rem (0.1 Sv). However, 

radiation protection experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation may pose some 

risk of causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation 

exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the 

relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. Simply stated, 

any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in health risk. 

This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative model for estimating health risks from 

radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably over-estimates those risks. Based on 

this theory, the NRC conservatively establishes limits for radioactive effluents and radiation 

exposures for workers and members of the public. 

The amount of radioactive material released from nuclear power facilities is well measured, well 

monitored, and known to be very small. The doses of radiation that are received by members of 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

the public as a result of exposure to nuclear power facilities are so low (i.e., less than a few 

millirem) that resulting cancers have not been observed and would not be expected. To put this 

in perspective, each person in this country receives a total annual dose of about 360 millirems 

from natural sources of radiation. Radiation from natural and man-made sources is not different 

in its properties or effect. Although a number of studies of cancer incidence in the vicinity of 

nuclear power facilities have been conducted, there are no studies to date that are accepted by 

the scientific community that show a correlation between radiation dose from nuclear power 

facilities and cancer incidence in the general public. Although a number of studies of cancer 

incidence in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities have been conducted, there are no studies to 

date that are accepted by the scientific community that show a correlation between radiation 

dose from nuclear power facilities and cancer incidence in the general public. Specific studies 

that have been conducted include: 

• In 1990, at the request of Congress, the National Cancer Institute conducted a study of 

cancer mortality rates around 52 nuclear power plants and 10 other nuclear facilities. 

The study covered the period from 1950 to 1984, and evaluated the change in mortality 

rates before and during facility operations. The study concluded there was no evidence 

that nuclear facilities may be linked causally with excess deaths from leukemia or from 

other cancers in populations living nearby. 

• In June 2000, investigators from the University of Pittsburgh found no link between 

radiation released during the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island power plant and cancer 

deaths among nearby residents. Their study followed 32,000 people who lived within five 

miles of the plant at the time of the accident. 

• In 2000, the Illinois Public Health Department compared childhood cancer statistics for 

counties with nuclear power plants to similar counties without nuclear plants and found 

no statistically significant difference 

• The Connecticut Academy of Sciences and Engineering, in January 2001, issued a 

report on a study around the Haddam Neck nuclear power plant in Connecticut and 

concluded radiation emissions were so low as to be negligible. 

• The American Cancer Society in 2001 concluded that although reports about cancer 

clusters in some communities have raised public concern, studies show that clusters do 

not occur more often near nuclear plants than they do by chance elsewhere in the 

population. Likewise, there is no evidence that links Sr-90 with increases in breast 

cancer, prostate cancer, or childhood cancer rates. Radiation emissions from nuclear 

power plants are closely controlled and involve negligible levels of exposure for nearby 

communities. 

• In 2001, the Florida Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology reviewed claims that there 

are striking increases in cancer rates in southeastern Florida counties caused by 

increased radiation exposures from nuclear power plants. However, using the same 

data to reconstruct the calculations on which the claims were based, Florida officials 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-26 December 2008 

were not able to identify unusually high rates of cancers in these counties compared with 

the rest of the state of Florida and the nation. 

To ensure that the plants are operated safely within these requirements, the NRC licenses the 

plants to operate, licenses the plant operators, and establishes license conditions for the safe 

operation of each plant. The NRC provides continuous oversight of plants through its Reactor 

Oversight Process (ROP) to verify that they are being operated in accordance with NRC rules 

and regulations. The NRC has full authority to take whatever action is necessary to protect 

public health and safety and may demand immediate licensee actions, up to and including a 

plant shutdown. 

No changes to the SEIS were made in response to these comments. 

 

Comment: The FGSEIS should describe the actions that Southern Nuclear is taking to mitigate 

or lessen the release of tritium to the Savannah River. Although the document notes that up to 

ten percent of tritium releases to the river could be due to plant operations, no reference is 

made to a level below the drinking water standard where VEGP may initiate additional process 

controls. An administrative action level should be developed by Southern Nuclear. If there is 

one, the reference document should be cited in the FGSEIS. (VEGP-K) 

Response: The NRC has generically determined, in NUREG-1437, for all nuclear power 

plants, that the radiological impacts from radioactive discharges are small. This is based on the 

industry’s excellent compliance with NRC’s regulations to maintain the doses from radioactive 

effluents to as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Based on the generic determination 

and regulatory compliance, the Staff does not discuss the details of the radiological controls 

used at VEGP in the SEIS. 

The NRC has established three layers of radiation protection limits, including incorporation of 

EPA’s 40 CFR Part 190, to protect the public against potential health risks from exposure to 

radioactive liquid discharges (effluents) from nuclear power plant operations. 

First, the NRC requires that nuclear power plant operators must keep radiation doses from 

gaseous and liquid effluents ALARA to members of the public. The ALARA numerical dose 

criteria are contained in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. For liquid effluent releases, the ALARA 

annual dose objective is 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) to the whole body and 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) to any 

organ of a maximally exposed individual who lives in close proximity to the plant boundary. 

Nuclear power plant operators are required by NRC requirements to monitor radioactive 

releases from their plants. Nuclear power plants have special conditions in their license which 

require radioactive releases to comply with the ALARA dose criteria contained in Appendix I to 

Part 50, as discussed above. Additionally, if a given nuclear power plant exceeds half of the 

ALARA radiation dose levels in a calendar quarter, the plant operator is required to investigate 

the cause(s), initiate appropriate corrective action(s), and report the action(s) to the NRC within 

30 days from the end of the quarter. 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Second, in 1979, EPA developed a radiation dose standard of 25 mrem to the whole body, 75 

mrem to the thyroid, and 25 mrem to any other organ of an individual member of the public. 

The NRC incorporated these EPA standards into its radiation protection regulations (10 CFR 

Part 20) in 1981, and all nuclear power plants must meet these requirements. These standards 

are specific to facilities that are involved in generating nuclear power (commonly called the 

"uranium fuel cycle"), including where nuclear fuel is milled, manufactured, and used in nuclear 

power reactors. 

Third, the NRC's final layer of protection of public health and safety is a dose limit of 100 mrem 

per year to individual members of the public. This limit applies to all facilities licensed by the 

NRC to use radioactive material, including academic, university, industrial, and medical facilities 

that use radioactive material. 

The NRC staff performed a thorough evaluation of VEGP’s environmental report and five years 

of radioactive effluent release reports and radiological environmental operating reports, as well 

as information gathered during an on-site visit to reach the conclusion that VEGP’s radioactive 

effluent program is operating in accordance with NRC’s ALARA requirements and is consistent 

with the generic assessment contained in NUREG - 1437. 

No change to the SEIS was made in response to this comment. 

Comment: On behalf of my colleagues at the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), 

please accept the following comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed 

new nuclear reactors at the Alvin Vogtle plant. 

My comments are focused on the health risks of the proposed new reactors that were either not 

addressed or minimized in the draft EIS statement. Moreover, our statement is unique, as they 

are based on official data on radioactive contamination and health status. 

Based on the following, we believe that new nuclear reactors would pose a serious health risk 

for local residents around Vogtle: 

• Releases of airborne radioactivity vary, and have greatly exceeded minimal levels. 

Releases during 2001-2004 from Vogtle 1 are about 10 times greater than from Vogtle 2. 

Releases in 1992 were over 1000 times greater than in 1987 or 1988 (Tables 1 and 2). 

• From 1987-1990 (as Vogtle began operating) to 1991-2003 (during full operation), 

average radioactivity levels in drinking water, river water, and sediment downriver or at 

the Vogtle plant rose (also see Table 3): (VEGP-N) 

Beta in Raw Drinking Water + 37.1% 

Beta in Finished Drinking Water + 17.8% 

Beryllium-7 in Sediment + 39.5% 

Cesium-137 in Sediment + 37.4% 

Tritium in River Water + 44.6% 

Table 1 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-28 December 2008 

Annual Airborne Emissions from Vogtle Nuclear Plant, 1987-1993 

Year Microcuries

1987 20 

1988 18 

1989 1250 

1990 85 

1991 2080 

1992 5870 

1993 521 

Source: Tichler J, Doty K, Lucadamo K. Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG/CR-2907. 

Upton NY: Brookhaven National Laboratory, prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Annual Report 1993. 

Represents Iodine-131 and particulates, all airborne releases of particulates with a half life of at least 8 days. (Annual 

reports that listed all U.S. reactors ceased in 1993). 

Table 2 

Gaseous Emissions, Fission and Activation Products 

From Vogtle Nuclear Plant, 2001-2004, in Curies 

Year Vogtle 1 Vogtle 2

2001 12.13 0.42 

2002 23.89 2.36 

2003 1.68 0.64 

2004 0.64 1.31 

TOTAL 38.34 4.73 

Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.reirs.com/effluent

Table 3 

Trends in Environmental Radioactivity Levels Near Vogtle, 1987-1990 to 1991-2003 

 Annual Avg. Annual Avg. 

Type of Radioactivity 1987-1990 1991-2003 % Ch 

Beta in Raw Drinking Water 

- Indicator (downriver)1 2.583 3.540 + 37.1% 

- Control (upriver)2 3.535 3.202 - 9.4% 

Beta in Finished Drinking Water 

- Indicator (downriver)1 2.205 2.597 + 17.8% 

- Control (upriver)2 2.113 2.230 + 5.6% 

Beryllium-7 in Sediment 

- Indicator (at Vogtle)3 930.5 1297.8 + 39.5% 

- Control (off site)4 578.3 1229.8 +112.7% 

Cobalt-60 in Sediment 

- Indicator (at Vogtle)3 51.33 138.3 +169.5% 

Cesium-137 in Sediment 

- Indicator (at Vogtle)3 192.3 264.2 + 37.4% 

- Control (off site)4 137.8 112.5 - 18.3% 

Tritium in River Water, avg. 6 sites 744.9 1077.3 + 44.6% 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

1

Beaufort/Jasper County Water Treatment Plant, Beaufort SC, 112 mi downriver, plus Cherokee Hill Water Treatment Plant, 

Port Wentworth SC, 122 mi. downriver. 2Augusta Water Treatment Plant, Augusta GA, 56 mi. upriver. 3Savannah River, 

0.8 mi. ENE of Vogtle plant. 4Savannah River, 2.5 mi. N of Vogtle plant. Beta and tritium in picocuries per liter, others in 

picocuries per kilogram dry. Source: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Annual Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report for 2005, www.nrc.gov.

Comment: 

• From 1987-1990 to 1991-2003, the cancer death rate for children age 0-24 in Burke 

County rose 55.5%, vs. a 14.1% decline nationally. The Burke cancer death rate age 

25-54 rose 55.1% vs. a 2.9% national decline (Table 4). 

• From 1985-1987 to 1988-1990, as the Vogtle reactors began operating, infant deaths in 

Burke County rose from 16 to 28, a 70% rise, compared to a 7% U.S. decline (Table 5). 

• From 1979-87 to 1988-2003, the Burke County infant death rate rose 19%, compared to 

a 30% decline nationally. Thus, the infant death rise in the late 1980s was not a fluke, 

but the start of a statistically significant change. Increases were significant for all races, 

blacks, and whites (Table 6). 

• From 1987-1990 to 1991-2003, the cancer death rate in Burke County GA rose 25.1% 

vs. a 4.2% national decline. Increases were statistically significant for both whites 

(+17.5%) and blacks (+30.7%), see Table 7. 

These data suggest that Vogtle emissions have increased radioactivity levels in the local 

environment. They also suggest that radioactivity has caused unexplained increases in local 

mortality rates. 

Findings should be considered in the context of Burke County as a high-poverty and highminority area (Table 8). Populations with inadequate health care coverage have reduced 

access to needed care; thus, adding a carcinogen to bodies of local residents (through 

breathing and the food chain) may result in an increased health risk. In addition, the addition of 

new pollutants (reactors) in a county with a disproportionate percent of African-Americans 

amounts to environmental injustice. 

The fact that the EIS ignores the above data means that it is an incomplete document. Thus, 

we strongly recommend that the NRC not approve licenses for new reactors at Vogtle, until the 

above information has been thoroughly examined and the true risks of nuclear power at Vogtle 

has been understood and related to the public. (VEGP-N) 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-30 December 2008 

Table 4 

Change in Cancer Death Rate, Burke County vs. U.S. 1987-1990 to 1991-2003 

Age 0-24 

 Cancer Deaths Population 0-24 Deaths/100000 

County ’87-90 ’91-03 ’87-90 ’91-03 ’87-90 ’91-03 % Ch

Burke GA 1 5 36,207 116,431 2.76 4.29 +55.5% 

United States 4.33 3.72 - 14.1% 

Age 25-54 

 Cancer Deaths Population 25-54 Deaths/100000 

County ’87-90 ’91-03 ’87-90 ’91-03 ’87-90 ’91-03 % Ch

Burke GA 15 84 30,919 111,666 48.5 75.2 +55.1% p<.01 

United States 59.0 57.3 - 2.9% 

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death. Uses codes 

for all cancers; ICD-9 codes 140.0-239.9 (until 1998), and ICD-10 codes C00-D48.9 (after 1998). 

Table 5 

Change in Infant Death Rate (under 1 year) 

Burke County vs. U.S., 1985-1987 to 1988-1990 

 Rate/100000 (Deaths)

County 1985-87 1988-90 % Ch. Rate

Burke GA 13.71 (16) 23.31 (28) +70.1% p<.06 

U.S. 10.36 (117329) 9.66 (116916) - 6.8% 

Source: National Center for Health Statistics (http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death). 

Table 6 

Change in Infant Death Rate (under 1 year), by Race 

Burke County vs. U.S., 1979-1987 to 1988-2003 

 United States Burke County 

Race Rate/100,000 (Deaths) Rate/100,000 (Deaths)

All 

1979-1987 1132.9 (374433) 1164.4 (42) 

1988-2003 799.0 (507571) 1382.2 (86) 

% Change - 29.5% +18.7% p<.002 

White 

1979-1987 973.7 (260243) 455.9 ( 6) 

1988-2003 661.1 (330750) 744.6 (17) 

% Change - 32.1% +63.3% p<.03 

Black 

1979-1987 2017.9 (104439) 1576.9 (36) 

1988-2003 1549.9 (159045) 1755.3 (69) 

% Change - 23.2% +11.3% p<.04 

Source: National Center for Health Statistics (http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death). 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table 7

Change in Death Rate, All Ages Combined, by Race 

Cancer and All Other Causes of Death, 1987-1990 to 1991-2003 

Burke County vs. U.S. 

 Burke Deaths Burke Rate/1000 US Rate/100000 % Ch Rate 

Area ‘87-90 ‘91-03 ‘87-90 ‘91-03 ‘87-90 ‘91-03 Burke U.S. 

Cancer –All 135 570 185.0 231.5 216.6 207.6 +25.1 - 4.2 

Cancer - White 73 310 190.3 223.5 212.4 204.5 +17.5 - 3.7 

Cancer – Black 62 260 185.0 241.7 277.3 261.6 +30.7 - 5.7 

Other Causes – All 701 2317 971.6 929.1 741.5 675.8 - 4.4 - 8.9 

Other Causes – White 319 1130 894.3 863.0 717.3 655.7 - 3.5 - 8.6 

Other Causes – Black 382 1186 1083.3 1042.1 988.9 894.2 - 3.8 - 9.6 

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death. Uses codes 

for all cancers; ICD-9 codes 140.0-239.9 (until 1998), and ICD-10 codes C00-D48.9 (after 1998). Burke 

County cancer rate increases are significant at p< .00001 (all), p<.02 (white), and p<.0002 (black). Rates 

adjusted to 2000 U.S. standard population. 

Table 8 

Demographic Characteristics, Burke County vs. U.S. 

Category Burke U.S. 

2005 est. population 23299 296M 

2000 population 22243 281M 

2003 % below poverty 21.7 12.5 

2004 % black 51.1 12.8 

2004 % Hispanic 1.6 14.1 

2004 % Asian 0.3 4.2 

2000 % High School grad 64.9 80.4 

2000 % College grad 9.5 24.4 

Note: Percent high school and college graduates are for adults over age 25. Source: U.S Bureau of the 

Census, www.census.gov, your gateway to the 2000 census, state and county quick facts. 

Response: The comments are specifically directed to the public health impacts associated with 

the proposed new reactors to be constructed at the VEGP site. The commenter indicates that 

the licenses for new nuclear power plants should not be issued because the health risks 

associated with the proposed new reactors were either not addressed or minimized in the draft 

EIS statement. The NRC staff evaluated the cumulative radiological impacts of continued 

operations of VEGP in conjunction with new reactors at the Vogtle site in section 4.8.4.3 of the 

SEIS and concluded that the cumulative impacts would be small due to the dose limits codified 

in 10 CFR part 20 and 40 CFR part 190. The specific environmental impacts associated with 

the construction and operation of additional reactors at the VEGP site will be evaluated in a 

separate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at the COL stage. 

The NRC licensing process for nuclear power plants includes a thorough review of all the plant's 

radioactive, gaseous, liquid, and solid waste systems, components, and programs to ensure 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-32 December 2008 

that radioactive material is safely controlled in accordance with NRC regulations. The licensing 

process evaluates the plant's ability to safely handle, store, monitor, and discharge radioactive 

effluents in accordance with NRC requirements. These requirements include safety limits on 

radiation dose to plant workers and members of the public. 

As part of NRC requirements for operating a nuclear power plant, licensees must: (1) keep 

releases of radioactive material to unrestricted areas during normal operation as low as 

reasonably achievable (as described in the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 50.36a), 

and (2) comply with radiation dose limits for the public (10 CFR Part 20). In addition, NRC 

regulations require licensees to have various effluent and environmental monitoring programs to 

ensure that the impacts from plant operations are minimized. 

In annual reports, licensees identify the amount of liquid and airborne radioactive effluents 

discharged from plants and the associated doses. Licensees also must report environmental 

radioactivity levels around their plants annually. These reports, available to the public, cover 

sampling from TLDs (thermoluminescent dosimeters); airborne radioiodine and particulate 

samplers; samples of surface, groundwater, and drinking water and downstream shoreline 

sediment from existing or potential recreational facilities; and samples of ingestion sources such 

as milk, fish, invertebrates, and broad leaf vegetation. The NRC monitoring requirements are 

biased toward the most likely and worst-case locations around the plant, including sources of 

direct radiation and liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive effluents. Typically, environmental 

monitoring occurs in nearby water bodies and in each of 16 compass directions (1) in close 

proximity to the power plant, (2) at the points of nearest public access, and (3) at other 

distances out to 50 miles., If radioactivity is not detected at these locations, then it is highly 

unlikely that any other location would have measurable levels. In addition, NRC bases its 

annual dose estimates during plant operation on these worst-case measurements. If the 

worstcase measurements show no concern then measuring food and water from other locations 

will not yield higher dose estimates. 

Results of the radiological environmental monitoring program are summarized each year in the 

Annual Environmental Radiological Operating Report. Effluent releases are summarized 

annually in an annual radioactive effluent release report. The NRC conducts periodic onsite 

inspections of each licensee's effluent and environmental monitoring programs to ensure 

compliance with NRC requirements. The NRC documents licensee effluent releases and the 

results of their environmental monitoring and assessment effort in inspection reports that are 

available to the public. 

The staff believes that current regulations regarding environmental monitoring around nuclear 

power plants are adequate to protect the local public health. 

As stated in the environmental impact statement, the staff accepts the linear, no-threshold dose 

response model. In its recent report (entitled "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of 

Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII - Phase 2) (National Research Council 2006), the BEIR VII 

Committee concluded that the current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that 

there is a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing 

radiation and the development of cancer in humans. Having accepted this model, the staff does 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

feel that this model is conservative when applied to workers and members of the public who are 

exposed to radiation from nuclear power plants. This is based on the fact that numerous 

epidemiological studies have not shown conclusive evidence of increased incidences of cancer 

at the low dose rates typical of nuclear power plant operations. Further, routine releases from 

operating nuclear power plants are far below the level at which regional excess cancer 

incidences would be expected. These studies include: (1) the National Cancer Institute study 

(Jablan 1990) of cancer mortality rates around nuclear facilities, including 52 nuclear power 

plants, (2) the University of Pittsburgh study (Talbott, et al. 2003) that found no link between 

radiation released during the 1979 accident at the Three-Mile Island nuclear power station and 

cancer deaths among residents, and (3) the Connecticut Academy of Sciences and Engineering 

study (2001) that found no meaningful associations from exposures to radionuclides around the 

Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Plant that ceased electricity production in 1996 to the 

cancers studied. 

A position statement entitled "Radiation Risk in Perspective" by the Health Physics Society 

(revised August 2004) made the following points regarding radiological health effects: (1) 

Radiological health effects (primarily cancer) have been demonstrated in humans through 

epidemiological studies only at doses exceeding 5 to 10 rem delivered at high dose rates. 

Below this dose, estimation of adverse effect remains speculative. (2) Epidemiological studies 

have not demonstrated adverse health effects in individuals exposed to small doses (less than 

10 rem delivered in a period of many years). 

No change was made to the EIS in response to this comment.

A.2.4 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

Comment: And of course, there's always the waste, you know, and until we can figure out that 

issue, I really don't think we need to be creating any more of it. (VEGP-F) 

Comment: In the Waste Confidence Rule (10 CFR 51.23), the Commission generically 

determined that the spent fuel generated by any reactor can be safely stored on-site for at least 

30 years beyond the licensed operating life of the reactor. Ultimately, long-term radioactive 

waste disposition will require transportation of wastes to a permitted repository site. The 

DGSEIS notes that in the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, 

uncertainty exists with respect to regulatory limits for off-site releases of radionuclides for the 

current candidate repository site. We are aware of ongoing efforts to license a geological 

repository for long-term disposition within the first quarter of the 21st century. 

Since appropriate on-site storage of spent fuel assemblies and other radioactive wastes is 

necessary to prevent environmental impacts, EPA believes the FGSEIS should provide a 

thorough consideration of impacts resulting from such storage. Given the uncertainty regarding 

ultimate disposal, on-site storage may continue for a longer term than currently expected. 

(VEGP-K) 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-34 December 2008 

Response: The Commission has determined that the spent fuel generated by any reactor can 

be safely stored on-site for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may 

include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or 

at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installation. In consideration of this 

generic determination, NRC’s license renewal regulation, 10 CFR 50.53(c)(2), specifically states 

that “...the environmental report need not discuss any aspect of the storage of spent fuel within 

the scope of the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) and in accordance with 10 CFR 

50.23(b).” The storage and disposal of high-level waste are not within the scope of 

environmental issues pertaining to license renewal. 

In addition, the Commission is currently reviewing an application submitted by the U.S. 

Department of Energy to license a geological repository for spent fuel and high level waste. 

The NRC has generically addressed the potential impacts related to the storage of spent fuel. 

No changes to the SEIS were made in response to these comments. 

Comment: “Specifically, protecting the environment involves the continuing need for 

appropriate storage and ultimate disposition of radioactive wastes generated on-site” (VEGP-K) 

Response: The Staff agrees that radioactive wastes require appropriate storage in a safe 

manner. The NRC has specific regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 which address the radiological 

hazards associated with radioactive material, including radioactive waste to ensure adequate 

protection of workers, the public, and the environment. The Vogtle plant is required to comply 

with these regulations. The NRC conducts on-going periodic inspections to verify that a 

licensee is complying with its regulations. Compliance or non-compliance is documented in 

inspection reports, which are publically available on the NRC’s web-site. 

A.2.5 Comments Concerning Water Use and Quality 

Comment: You know, they tell us that there's a small impact on the environment as far as 

fishing or as far as the water is concerned, yet we're advised not to eat the fish from the river. 

(VEGP-H) 

Response: The commenter does not indicate what the reasons are for the fish consumption 

advisories and the commenter also fails to indicate where these advisories are in effect. There 

are many reasons for which advisories for consumption of wildlife might be issued, and there 

are a plethora of activities that can have an effect on water quality like industrial activities, spills 

or severe runoff conditions. The Vogtle plant radiological discharges are strictly regulated by 

the NRC. The staff reviewed the data for plant discharges during the development of this SEIS 

and found that the radiological discharges were well below the regulatory limits established by 

the NRC. Additionally, non-radiological discharges are regulated by the State of Georgia 

NPDES permit; this permit imposes limits of discharges that are protective of human health and 

the environment. The comment provides no specific information; therefore, there were no 

changes made to the supplement. 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Comment: You know, we've already seen from studies that the water level in the Savannah 

River has gone down drastically since the two nuclear plants have come on line. It's not a small 

impact. (VEGP-H) 

Comment: Power plants have a tremendous impact on our water resources. Our energy 

choices make a big difference on the future of the river basins and the communities and 

businesses reliant on those water sources. And given that the license renewal for Vogtle is for 

20 additional years of operation—taking us to 2047 and 2049 if approved, we believe the NRC 

needs to evaluate not only the Georgia of today, but the Georgia we may be living in 40 years 

from now. But the draft EIS doesn’t really do this. The State of Georgia and surrounding states 

continue to face drought conditions, yet there is little analysis beyond a level 3 drought. The 

brief mention of a level 4 drought in Appendix E does not appear to take into account the 

impacts from the additional two proposed reactors and that must be done in the final EIS. It is 

unclear whether impacts to upstream users, such as those reliant on Lake Hartwell, the uppermost reservoir on the river, have been studied. This must be included in the final EIS. Plant 

Vogtle is already a large water user that is currently returning only about one-third of what it 

withdraws from the Savannah River. An additional 20 years of operation, as populations 

increase, will not be a positive development for our water resources. (VEGP-L) 

Comment: Further, the proposed new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle are estimated to use 53 

million gallons of water per day with 50-75% of that lost as steam. (Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Early Site Permit Application, Environmental Report, August 2006). This means that 

more water will be lost from the two existing and two proposed reactors at Plant Vogtle than is 

currently used by all residents of Atlanta, Augusta, and Savannah combined. From our review 

of the draft EIS for the ESP at Vogtle, the cumulative impacts on water quality and quantity have 

not been satisfactorily evaluated. Therefore, we believe that this issue is also remains deficient 

in terms of the license renewal evaluation—sort of a cart-before-the-horse phenomenon. 

(VEGP-L) 

Comment: Consumptive water loss associated with operation of Units 1 and 2 is equal to ± 77 

cfs. The addition of Units 3 and 4, with withdrawal and generation capacities equal to Units 1 

and 2, will add an additional ± 77 cfs consumptive loss burden on the Savannah River, for a 

total combined burden of ± 154 cfs. The cumulative impact of proposed expansion, growing 

demands on water supply, and potential for extended, severe and unprecedented drought 

merits thorough consideration of alternatives and development of a cooling water contingency 

plan. DNR agrees with the NRC assessment that potential cumulative impacts associated with 

planned expansion also include increased thermal stresses within the Savannah River and 

increased release of contaminants to the river and to groundwater. 

DNR continues to have concerns over potential impacts of consumptive water loss in the 

Savannah River and to groundwater resources during drought events. Although the draft SEIS 

states historic flows below 3,800 cfs have been rare (page 2-21), net inflow to Lake Thurmond 

recently has dropped to as little as ± 500 cfs, and the current drought is unprecedented in 

intensity and duration. The US Army Corps of Engineers recently has initiated an environmental 

assessment of effects of a proposed Level 4 Drought Protocol triggering a reduction of flow from 

Thurmond Dam to equal Lake Thurmond net inflow. 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-36 December 2008 

The draft SEIS makes reference to Southern Nuclear Operating Company’s (SNC) hypothetical 

worst case scenario of flows as low as 957 cfs citing impacts would be the result of naturally low 

precipitation rates, and therefore, would not be caused by the water withdrawals. The draft 

SEIS also refers to the ability of the plant to operate at flow volumes of as low as 500 cfs and 

that at this flow VEGP consumptive water use would equal only about 15 percent of the flow 

volume in the river (Appendix E-52). DNR asserts that a consumptive burden of this magnitude 

could represent severe and unacceptable impacts to aquatic resources in the Savannah River. 

DNR agrees with NRC that mitigation measures should include reduced use of river water for 

cooling in such a scenario. The 10-year-long drought across the southeast has caused 

reservoirs to drop to historic lows. The Tennessee Valley Authority reactor in Browns Ferry, 

Alabama was shut down on August 16 because ambient water temperatures were too high to 

both cool the reactors and still meet temperature standards in the discharge. Lake Norman in 

North Carolina, which is used to provide cooling water to McGuire Nuclear Station, is currently 

down to an elevation of 93.7 feet, just 1 foot above permitted minimum elevation. A Low Flow 

Contingency Plan identifying alternative sources of cooling water and/or details of what 

operational modifications will be utilized during low and extreme low flows should be required of 

the Licensee and become a part of the license. (VEGP-Q) 

Comment: Consumptive water loss during very low flows and attendant potential adverse 

impacts to water quality and aquatic resources are not addressed satisfactorily in the draft SEIS. 

DNR is cognizant of the need to develop and maintain cleaner energy alternatives as compared 

to use of fossil fuel electrical generation technology. This agency is committed to working with 

SNC, NRC and resource agencies during the relicensing process to attain a mutually agreeable 

outcome that provides a safer and reliable source of energy for generation of electricity. These 

alternatives also must protect important natural resources of the Savannah River. DNR 

respectfully requests continued consultation with respect to all proposed project modifications 

and development of mitigation alternatives. (VEGP-Q) 

Response: The comments expressed concern over the availability of sufficient water in the 

Savannah River to support the needs of downstream users and fish and wildlife, and the 

adequacy of the cumulative impacts section. The staff, in its analysis, considered the impacts 

associated with the continued operation of the Vogtle plant and the cumulative impacts 

associated with the addition of two units and is presented in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. The staff 

believes that sufficient water is available in the Savannah River Basin to support the continued 

operation of VEGP and the two proposed closed cycle cooling nuclear plants. 

The staff acknowledges that operation of the proposed new VEGP Units 3 and 4 will result in a 

reduction in the amount of water downstream of the VEGP site. This reduction in downstream 

flow is primarily the result of the evaporation of water to transfer reject heat from the plant into 

the atmosphere. The reduction in downstream flow will be proportionately greater during 

periods of drought. The flow in the Savannah River at the VEGP site is highly regulated by a 

series of dams upstream of the VEGP site. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

manages the reservoirs in an attempt to balance multiple objectives of the Savannah River 

including: flood control, municipal needs, industrial needs, recreation, navigation, and the 

aquatic ecosystem. 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

In 2006, the Corps released a Drought Contingency Plan. The draft plan proposed releases 

under four drought levels. The Savannah River Basin is currently in a severe and multiple-year 

drought. The Corps is presently operating in a manner similar to the draft Drought Plan except 

that the Thurmond Dam discharge has been at 3600 cfs and not the 3800 cfs minimum currently 

prescribed in the draft plan. Based on the draft plan, the Savannah River Basin is at Drought 

Level 3 and has never reached Drought Level 4. 

The implementation of Drought Level 4 in the Drought Contingency Plan currently does not 

provide the explicit flows that would be needed for an impact analysis. The Corps, the State of 

Georgia and the State of South Carolina are presently clarifying the operational implementation 

of Drought Level 4. Without explicit flow levels (and given the likelihood that any such flow 

levels would likely change based on the ongoing development of the Drought Contingency Plan) 

and because a Drought Level 4 would be an extremely rare event, the staff determined that it 

was still conservative to base its analysis in this EIS on Drought Level 3. The staff does not 

believe that the current drought conditions represent a new baseline condition for the Savannah 

River Basin. Furthermore, if flows decline to a level that the consumptive use of water by the 

plant's cooling system or the discharge of blowdown to the Savannah River represent a 

significant impact, the plant may be required by relevant State water permitting authorities (e.g., 

GDNR) to derate or stop operation. No changes to the SEIS were made in response to this 

comment. 

A.2.6 Comments Concerning Aquatic Resources 

Comment: EPA recommends the applicant use a mesh size for the traveling screens for intake 

cooling water that is appropriate for the size of eggs, larvae, and juveniles of all fish to be 

protected at the site. Also, the average intake screen velocity should be less than or equal to 

0.5 feet per second in order to prevent entrainment of fish. Surface water withdrawal impacts 

and impacts to aquatic species during drought conditions are also a concern. (VEGP-K) 

Response: Chapter 4 has been updated to reflect the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

recommendations for reducing entrainment of aquatic organism related to the operation of the 

Vogtle plant. 

Comment: In your earlier presentation, you mentioned that the impact of the operation of the 

two current reactors, as far as the water resources in the area, was small? 

But I remember reading a few weeks ago in the Augusta Chronicle an article by a gentleman 

who used to fish the Savannah River and who said that since those two reactors have come on 

line, the level of the river has gone down so much that the shoals where the sturgeon who used 

to -- that used to be plentiful in the area, are almost destroyed and they're not breeding, so how 

does that translate to a small impact? (VEGP-H) 

Comment: Three federal and state protected aquatic species are supported by the Savannah 

River: the federally endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and the state 

listed species robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) and Savannah Lilliput (Toxolasma 

pullus). The river also is home to a host of important game and South Carolina Priority 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-38 December 2008 

Conservation fish species (South Carolina Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 

2005). The potential impact to habitat quality and availability for these species during very low 

flows should be studied and the results submitted for review by resource agencies. (VEGP-Q) 

Response: In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

(16 USC 1531 et seq.) (ESA), the NRC is required to assess the impact of any action it 

undertakes to federally endangered or threatened species. In light of this, the NRC has initiated 

formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the impacts of 

license renewal of VEGP on the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) by writing a 

Biological Assessment, which can be found in Appendix E of this SEIS. 

NMFS stated in its comments on the Draft SEIS for Vogtle that based on the information 

provided in the Biological Assessment the proposed license renewal action is not likely to 

adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon. 

The robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) and Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus) are statelisted species, and therefore do not fall under the interagency consultation process defined by 

the ESA. The NRC staff distributed copies of the Draft SEIS to the State of Georgia Department 

of Natural Resources as well as the State of South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 

no comments on specific concerns about impacts to these state-listed species were submitted 

by these agencies to the NRC. The impact from low flows of the Savannah River to all aquatic 

communities are accessed in Section 4.1.1, in which the staff determined that the impacts would 

be small. 

The NRC staff also requested comments on the Draft SEIS from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS). FWS stated on its comments on the Draft SEIS that the document was well 

written and that it covered all concerns of the FWS related to impacts to aquatic and terrestrial 

species. 

A.2.7 Comments Concerning License Renewal and its Processes 

Comment: Like Dianne mentioned, I do have some questions about the "small." If an effect is 

not detectable, what is the effect? How does one determine that? I think it's -- I look forward to 

reading in more detail the impact statement. (VEGP-I) 

Response: The significance of an impact indicates the importance of likely environmental 

impacts. The determination of significance is made by considering two variables: context and 

intensity. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects will 

occur. In the case of license renewal, the context is the environment surrounding the facility. 

Intensity refers to the severity of the impact, in whatever context it occurs. 

The NRC developed a three-level standard of significance: small, moderate and large, using the 

President’s Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. A small significance means that 

environmental impacts are not detectable or are so minor than they will neither destabilize nor 

noticeably alter any important attribute of a resource. 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

There is a very important distinction between stating that an impact is not detectable and that 

the non detection of an impact makes an impact non-existing. The NRC staff uses its small 

significance criteria on instances where it is unfeasible to numerically detect the decline of a 

resource caused by a given action or for which there is the potential for a decline on a resource 

to occur. Under these circumstances the staff acknowledges that since there is the potential of 

an impact to cause a decline on a resource area the staff needs to be conservative in its 

assessment and the significance of the impact has to be treated as being small. 

Comment: I do question why, with this permit, this licensing having a whole other 20 years, 

why we are now looking at 40 years down the road. And when I hear terms like "We expect it to 

be similar in 40 years," I question whether one can truly look down the road 40 years, when I 

think of what has just happened in the last decade, with significant findings. (VEGP-I) 

Response: According to NRC’s regulations a nuclear power plant licensee may apply to renew 

a license as early as 20 years before expiration of the current license. The NRC staff has 

determined that 20 years of operating experience is sufficient to assess aging and 

environmental issues at the site. 

The NRC staff had access to environmental assessments that were made for Vogtle at the initial 

operating license stage; those studies provided a description of the site and its environs when 

the original license for Vogtle was sought. That previous data in combination with the 

information collected by the staff during its environmental review serves as the staff’s basis to 

predict that the environmental conditions at the site are not expected to change significantly 

during the period of extended operation. This is also based on the staff’s determination that 

plant operations are not expected to vary significantly from its current operation practices during 

the renew license period. 

A major consideration for seeking license renewal so far in advance of the expiration date of the 

current license is that it takes about 10 years to design and construct major new generating 

facilities and long lead times are required by energy-planning decision-makers. 

Comment: As we mentioned earlier, we have grave concerns that too many permits are 

occurring at the same time with Plant Vogtle: a license renewal, an early site permit, and a 

combined operating license. Can the NRC keep up with all of this in a manner that is truly 

protective of public health? From our review of the draft EIS for the license renewal and the draft 

EIS for the ESP, we are doubtful; as we all know, bureaucracies themselves have their 

deficiencies. The idea that everything will be coordinated seamlessly between all these different 

staff and all these different projects seems unrealistic and now we have further proof that it is 

not being achieved. (VEGP-L) 

Response: The comment expresses concerns about the concurrent reviews of licensing 

actions by the NRC staff on issues pertaining to Vogtle. The NRC’s regulatory framework as 

described in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations and NRC’s staff guidance documents 

such as the environmental standard review plans provide an adequate vehicle for insuring 

collaboration and coordination within NRC’s offices. The NRC takes very seriously its statutory 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-40 December 2008 

responsibilities to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment in regulating 

the U.S. nuclear power industry. 

The NRC staff is required to conduct an independent assessment of the information and 

conclusions provided in environmental report for licensing actions as specified by 10 CFR 

51.41. The public has been given the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process that 

established the regulations that govern its review process. The comments did not provide new 

information relevant to this SEIS. No changes to the SEIS were made in response to this 

comment. 

Comment: The draft EIS for the relicensing of Plant Vogtle along with the draft EIS for the early 

site permit demonstrate that the NRC is not adequately protecting human health or the 

environment, rather, the NRC is protecting the nuclear power industry. Overlooking clean, safe 

energy alternatives and ignoring the tremendous impacts to our water resources and 

pocketbooks is not acceptable. The NRC must do better before issuing the final environmental 

impact statements. (VEGP-L) 

Response: The NRC makes its decision whether or not to renew the license based on safety 

and environmental considerations. 

The final decision on whether or not to continue operating the nuclear plant or a decision to use 

alternative methods of power generation will be made by the utility, state, and federal (nonNRC) decision makers. This final decision may be based on economics, energy reliability goals, 

and other objectives over which the other entities may have jurisdiction. The comment is 

outside the scope of the license renewal review and will not be evaluated further. 

A.2.8 Comments Concerning Alternatives 

Comment: According to the Department of Energy, wind power capacity factors continue to 

increase with technological advances, operational advances, and taller towers. The capacity 

factors for Class 4 and 5 wind projects in 2006 ranged from 35-45%. Additionally, in reference 

to lines 37-40 on page 8-68, the argument against wind turbines does not accurately portray 

modern methods for installing wind turbines. By making the argument that wind is not an 

alternative method to nuclear plant Vogtle because no more than 200 wind turbines have ever 

been put up at one time, Southern Company is making the assumption that wind plants are built 

in the exact manner that nuclear and coal plants are, all at once. To the contrary, the most 

common method for installing wind plants are to either contract with a professional wind 

developer and enter a 20-year PPA. The second most common method is for the professional 

wind developers to enter into a partnership with the utility that will allow both entities to enjoy the 

financial benefits of wind plants. By doing this, the utility can simultaneously build wind plants. 

A great example is Xcel Energy who installed 2,635 MW of wind energy in 2007 alone. Further, 

an advantage of wind power is that the construction times are relatively short, 8-10 months, and 

allows for quick installation. This installation then allows for Southern Company to immediately 

assess its future needs for electricity, instead of trying to project 10 years into the future based 

on current consumer behavior. Lastly, offshore wind generally peaks during the summer 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

afternoons, which can help curb the peak load. This information should be considered in the 

final EIS. (VEGP-L) 

Response: The comment relates to the potential for the deployment of wind power to replace 

the electricity generated by Vogtle. The commenter states that the EIS fails to consider a larger 

deployment potential for wind power in terms of installing capacity. However in section 8.2.7.2 

of the Vogtle SEIS the staff adequately describes the potential benefits of the wind power 

alternative as well as provides an indication of the potential deployment capacity of wind power 

in the Georgia’s coast line area. Additionally the staff clearly indicated in chapter 8 that 

replacing Vogtle’s output assuming favorable capacity factors would require installation of about 

8,060 MW worth of wind turbines, such an undertaking would be on the order of seven times the 

size of any existing installation. As such, total replacement of Vogtle electricity by wind power is 

considered unfeasible at this time. The staff did include the wind power alternative as a 

component of the combination alternative. 

No changes to the SEIS were made in response to this comment 

Comment: Southern Company’s direct comparison of nuclear to wind, nuclear to solar, and 

nuclear to energy efficiency ensures that Southern Company cannot truly appreciate the 

advantage of using a diverse options of energy resources. The extremely high costs of new 

nuclear reactors is unfair to consumers and Southern Company should instead implement 

serious efficiency programs to first reduce the amount of electricity that will be required in the 

future, and then use a mix of biomass, offshore wind energy, and solar to meet the rest of the 

demand. 

The cost of the proposed Vogtle expansion is approximately $14 billion. According to the 

Department of Energy’s latest numbers on offshore wind turbines ($2.6 million/ MW installed), 

Southern Company could spend $13 billion for 5,060 MW of wind power. Although, in 

partnership with other developers, Southern Company would not spend this money in its 

entirety, and therefore it would save Southern Company capital, and defend customers from the 

rising cost of nuclear power (11-13 cents / kWh according to Progress Energy). Offshore wind 

energy, according to Georgia Tech and Southern Company’s wind report is between 8-13 

cents/kWh, and is not subject to fuel price increases. The NRC should investigate these costs 

more thoroughly in the final EIS. (VEGP-L) 

Response: The comment relates to the costs of the proposed expansion of Vogtle and how 

those resources could be used for the deployment of wind power instead of new nuclear. This 

comment is specifically related to the consideration of alternatives to the proposed action of 

building new nuclear power plants this particular issue is outside the scope of this SEIS for 

license renewal. The consideration of alternatives to the proposed action of building new 

nuclear power plants will be discussed in an environmental impact statement that will be 

prepared by the NRC at the combined construction and operation license stage. 

Additionally, the Commission determined that an applicant for license renewal need not provide 

an analysis of the economic costs or economic benefits of the proposed or alternative actions. 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-42 December 2008 

The comment is outside the scope of the license renewal environmental review as set forth in 

10 CFR Part 51 and will not be evaluated further. 

Comment: We believe that the NRC failed to acknowledge in the draft EIS that many 

renewable energy technologies, including as wind, offer substantial water benefits. According to 

the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, developing 1000 MW of 

wind in Georgia would save 1628 million gallons of water per year. The NRC has completely 

overlooked this important information in the draft EIS and it must be incorporated before the 

final EIS is issued. (VEGP-L) 

Response: The comment relates to the staffs analysis of wind power as an alternative to 

license renewal. The staff agrees with the commenter, in that wind power deployment could 

result in significant reductions in water usage when compared to conventional electric 

generating power plants. However in sections 8.2.7.2 and 8.2.8 of the Vogtle SEIS the staff 

adequately describes the potential benefits of the wind power alternative as well as provides an 

indication of the potential deployment capacity of wind power in the Georgia’s coast line area. 

Additionally the staff clearly indicated in section 8.2.8 that wind power deployment would result 

in moderate environmental impacts only on the aquatic ecology resource area during 

construction activities. 

No changes were made to the supplement in response to this comment. 

Comment: The draft EIS is still deficient in its analysis of energy efficiency. Energy efficiency 

and conservation represent the quickest, safest, cheapest way to provide more power and to 

best protect our air and water resources. As an added benefit, increased energy efficiency 

reduces water consumption by power plants that compete with local industries and cities for 

much needed water. The NRC makes no mention of this connection. In December 2007, 

Georgia’s Drought Response Unified Command (DRUC) highlighted the water-energy 

connection, issuing a statewide press release that stated: 

DRUC encourages Georgians to help save water by conserving electricity. Large 

amounts of water are required to generate electricity. In Georgia, each kilowatt hour 

(kWh) of electricity production consumes 1.65 gallons of water according to the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. To put it in context, the average Georgia household’s 

electricity use is 1,148 kilowatt hours per month, requiring 1,894 gallons of water to 

generate. (VEGP-L) 

Response: The comment relates to the staffs analysis of energy conservation as an alternative 

to license renewal. The staff agrees with the commenter, in that energy conservation could 

result in significant reductions in water usage when compared to conventional electric 

generating power plants. However in sections 8.2.5 and 8.2.8 of the Vogtle SEIS the staff 

adequately describes the potential benefits of the conservation alternative as well as provides 

an indication of the reduction capacity of such programs in terms of demand reduction. 

Additionally the staff clearly indicated in section 8.2.8 that energy conservation programs would 

have small impacts on all resource areas. 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

No changes were made to the supplement in response to this comment. 

A.2.9 Editorial and General Comments 

Comment: Page 4-24: the line 28 reference to radiological impacts should be Table 4-6. 

(VEGP-K) 

Comment: (VEGP-O) 

Draft 

SEIS 

Page 

Draft 

SEIS 

Section 

Line Comment 

1-7 1.3 37-40 Beginning with the sentence "VEGP has a cooling tower-based 

heat dissipation system" and continuing to the end of the 

paragraph, the text should be deleted as irrelevant to the purpose 

of the section, which is to identify the federal action. NRC does not 

license cooling towers. As an alternative option, the text should be 

revised to indicate that natural draft cooling tower make-up water 

for the circulating system comes from the river, mechanical draft 

cooling tower make-up for the auxiliary systems comes from 

groundwater, and that blowdown from both systems goes to the 

river. Section 3.1.2 accurately describes the systems. 

2-1 2.0 7-10 The text should be revised consistent with comment on Section 1.3 

Comment: (VEGP-O) 

Draft 

SEIS 

Page 

Draft 

SEIS 

Section 

Line Comment 

2-4 2.1 5 The draft SEIS describes the SRS intakes as "inactive". While it is 

true that SRS no longer has operating nuclear reactors, and 

therefore, surface water requirements are greatly reduced from 

historic volumes, the SRS still withdraws approximately 40,000 

gallons per minute (gpm) of Savannah River water (see page 

2.126 of the ER for a brief discussion of reduced water withdrawal, 

and email from Bill Payne, WSRC Environmental Services 

Section). 

2-13 2.1.4.3 40 The SEIS states that South Carolina "may" limit access to the 

EnergySolutions waste disposal facility in Barnwell, S.C. In fact, 

EnergySolutions was not successful in its petition to the South 

Carolina Legislature to keep Barnwell open to wastes other than 

those from the Atlantic Compact. The LLW disposal facility will no 

longer accept wastes from states that are not part of the Atlantic 

Compact. 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-44 December 2008 

Comment: (VEGP-O) 

Draft 

SEIS 

Page 

Draft 

SEIS 

Section 

Line Comment 

2-16 2.1.7 4 The draft SEIS states that the transmission lines are owned, 

operated and maintained by SNC. The lines are owned, operated 

and maintained by GPC and Georgia Transmission Company. 

See page 4.12-3 of the ER. SNC has responsibility only for the 

power plant. 

2-17 2.1.7 16 The draft SEIS states that the transmission lines are owned, 

operated and maintained by SNC. The lines are owned, operated 

and maintained by GPC and Georgia Transmission Company. 

See page 4.12-3 of the ER. SNC has responsibility only for the 

power plant. 

2-18 2.1.7 4 The draft SEIS states that the transmission lines are owned, 

operated and maintained by SNC. The lines are owned, operated 

and maintained by GPC and Georgia Transmission Company. 

See page 4.12-3 of the ER. SNC has responsibility only for the 

power plant. 

4-17& 

4-18 

4.2 39-2 As noted in comments on Section 2.1.7, Georgia Power, not SNC, 

maintains the rights-of-way. 

Comment: (VEGP-O) 

Draft 

SEIS 

Page 

Draft 

SEIS 

Section 

Line Comment 

2-35 & 

2-36 

2.2.4 40-2 This statement regarding the closest Class I area is 

inconsistent with the information presented in Table 8-3, page 

8-18. 

2-90 2.2.8.2.1 14-15 The groundwater supply information in the draft SEIS is not 

consistent with information provided in the SNC ER. As 

indicated in Section 2.3 of the ER the Tertiary and Water Table 

aquifers yield approximately 3 million gallons per day (mgd) 

and the Cretaceous aquifer yields approximately 5 billion gpd. 

4-57 4.8.3 9-10 The SCE&G D-Area powerhouse (which is now operated by 

the DOE SRS contractor, and which is in the process of being 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

retired) is within 6 miles of VEGP. See Figure 2-2. 

4-61 4.8.5 16-20 COL was submitted March 2008 and currently under review at 

the NRC. 

8-18 8.2 1 Table 8-3, page 8-18 is inconsistent with the information 

presented in Section 2.2.4. 

Comment: (VEGP-O) 

Draft 

SEIS 

Page 

Draft 

SEIS 

Line 

Comment 

2-11 22-23 This sentence is incomplete. Need to add "were released" between 

"gases" and "from". 

2-12 31 Add "the" between "in" &"form" 

2-12 32 Change "Gaseous" to "gases" in this sentence. 

2-12 32-23 Change VEPG to VEGP through out the section 

2-13 2 Change VEPG to VEGP. 

2-13 34-36 Change VEPG to VEGP. 

2-13 40 Remove comma after June. 

2-14 19 Remove "and" between "wastes," & "concrete". 

2-14 33-40 Change VGEP to VEGP. 

2-15 7 Change VGEP to VEGP. 

2-15 26-38 Change VGEP to VEGP. 

2-27 10 Change "radionucllides" to radionuclides. 

2-53 26 Add "the" between "of" and "area." 

2-54 11,20 Change "mile" to "miles." 

2-59 25 Delete one the uses of "is." 

2-70 33 Change "stork" to "storks." 

2-70 34 Add "a" in between "is" and "potential" 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-46 December 2008 

2-71 14 Change "borrows" to "burrows." 

2-85 9-31 Change "VEPG" to "VEGP." 

2-86 14,32 Change "VEPG" to "VEGP." 

2-87 28 Change "VEPG" to "VEGP." 

2-97 5 Change VGEP to VEGP. 

4-1 32 Add "in" between "addressed" and "Chapter." 

4-14 33,40 Change VEPG to VEGP. 

4-15 41 Change VEPG to VEGP. 

4-16 6,23 Change VEPG to VEGP. 

4-17 15-24 Change VEPG to VEGP. 

4-23 11 Change VEPG to VEGP. 

4-53 14 Change "ground water" to "groundwater." 

4-58 20-39 Change VEPG to VEGP. 

4-59 2 Change VEPG to VEGP. 

8-6 30 Change "when" to "if." 

8-30 29 Change "reject" to "release". 

8-35 35 Change "addition" to "additional." 

8-53 11 Add "visible" between "be" and "from." 

8-65 25-26 Take out one "that." 

8-66 25, 30 Change VEPG to VEGP. 

Response: Comments are noted. Necessary revisions to the text have been made to the 

corresponding section of the SEIS, the revisions are editorial in nature and do not affect the 

conclusions reached by the staff in the SEIS.

A.2.10 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues 

Comment: Our concerns seem to be all addressed; we concur with those reports: the 

impacts would be small or negligent, in the environmental impact. The one concern we 

have is that -- in the area of alternatives. 
Appendix A 

December 2008 A-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

If the plant were not to be relicensed, then the impact would be large. That would have a 

significant impact on the socioeconomic concerns in the area, and the impact on the economy 

and the school system, everything else that relates to Burke County; many jobs would -- are 

related not just directly to the plant but in the whole community. (VEGP-E) 

Response: The comment relates to socioeconomic impacts resulting from termination of the 

plant Vogtle license. Section 8.1 of this SEIS includes a discussion of the socioeconomic 

impacts resulting from the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action alternative means that NRC 

does not renew the VEGP operating licenses. The VEGP operating licenses would then expire 

in 2027, and 2029 causing Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) to cease plant 

operations. 

As discussed in section 8.1, should the VEGP operating licenses not be renewed, the loss of 

local tax revenues and jobs could have a MODERATE to LARGE socioeconomic impact within 

Burke County. These effects could be somewhat offset by the relatively long term 

decommissioning activities that would accompany shut down. 

No changes were made to the supplement in response to this comment. 

A.2.11 Comments Concerning Global Warming

Comment: We asked the NRC to evaluate predicted effects of global warming on this region 

and how nuclear power plants may be negatively impacted or unable to generate electricity. 

This was demonstrated by the heat wave this past summer in Europe and the U.S.—when 

nuclear power plants from Sweden to Alabama had to power back because the lake or river 

water temperatures were too high to allow for safe operation of their nuclear power plants. Yet 

this hasn’t been analyzed in the draft—it is just mentioned in terms of comments that we already 

submitted; it must be done before a final EIS is issued. It wasn’t done for the draft of the ESP 

either. When will the NRC address this important issue? (VEGP-L) 

Response: The comment relates to the possible effects of climate change on the safe 

operation of Vogtle. There are two particular scenarios that could result from drought conditions 

associated with climate change. These two are whether: 

• there would not be enough water available to cool down the reactor and; 

• what effects would plant discharges and increased thermal loads have on aquatic 

species. 

This particular scenario is not included in the discussion of environmental impacts because the 

impacts under drought conditions would be the same as those that occur under normal 

operating conditions. This is so because plant Vogtle has water discharge permits and reactor 

technical specifications which must be met at all times to allow for continued operation. The 

environmental impacts of operation during drought periods as a result of climate change are 
Appendix A 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 A-48 December 2008 

bounded by the Staff’s analysis of environmental impacts of plant operation in Chapter 4 of this 

SEIS. 

Plant Vogtle as part of its license has technical specifications on plant operation which delineate 

the conditions that must met to assure safe operation of the plant, within these specifications is 

a standard which specifies what is the minimum level of water required in plant systems to allow 

for safe operation which is conducive to maintaining ample margins for safe conditions under 

shutdown modes. If the water level in plant systems drops below a specified level the licensee 

is directed to place the plant in a safe shutdown condition. The plant’s technical specifications 

make sure the plant is operated safely even in drought conditions where the water level of the 

Savannah River drops. 

Additionally, plant Vogtle has to comply with its NPDES permit which establishes temperature 

limit for its water discharges, if the water level of the receiving body of water drops below a 

certain point the mixing conditions may change to the extent in which the temperature of the 

receiving body of water may rise causing impacts to aquatic species. To avoid those scenarios 

the NPDES permit imposes limits on the discharge temperature of the plant under low flow 

conditions. 

Given any of the conditions described above; the current NPDES permit and license conditions 

ensure both safe operation of the plant and protection of aquatic species during drought and low 

flow periods. 

No changes to the SEIS were made in response to this comment. 
Appendix B 

Contributors to the Supplement 

December 2008 B-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

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 (NRC). The statement was 

prepared by members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with assistance from other 

NRC organizations, Earth Tech, Inc. and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

Name Function or Expertise

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Samuel Hernandez Environmental Project Manager

David Pelton Branch Chief

Dennis Beissel Technical Monitor/Hydrology

Nathan Goodman Terrestrial Ecology

Elizabeth Wexler Aquatic Ecology 

Jeffrey Rikhoff Cultural Resources/Socioeconomics/Land Use

Steve Klementowicz Radiation Protection

Justin Leous Alternatives 

Andrew Carrera Radiation Protection

Robert Palla Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Earth Tech

Roberta Hurley Project Manager

John Szeligowski Alternatives

Stephen Dillard Lead Ecologist/Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology

Susan Provenzano, AICP Land Use/Socioeconomics

Matt Goodwin Cultural Resources 

Robert Dover, PG Hydrology/Water Quality

Ed Kaczmarczyk Air Quality 

Katie Broom Project Coordinator 

Monique Thomas Technical Editor 

Bonnie Freeman Administrative Support

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Steve Short Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Tye Blackburn Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Bruce Schmitt Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Appendix C 

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence 

Related to Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

Application for License Renewal of 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 1 and 2 

December 2008 C-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Appendix C 

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence 

Related to Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

Application for License Renewal of 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 1 and 2 

This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC), and other 

correspondence related to the NRC staff’s environmental review, under 10 CFR Part 51, of 

SNC’s application for renewal of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, (VEGP) 

operating license. The License Renewal Application and the Draft Supplement Environmental 

Impact Statement (SEIS) have been placed in the Burke County Library, at 130 Highway 24 

South, Waynesboro, GA 30830. All documents, with the exception of those containing 

proprietary information, 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 Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC’s public documents 

in the publicly available records component of ADAMS. The ADAMS accession number for 

each document is included below. 

January 9, 2007 Letter from Robert E. Martin, NRC, to Mr. D.E. Grissette, Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Regarding Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant Unit 2 Exemption from the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54, 

Section 54.17(c), for the License Renewal Application. (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML062770492). 

June 27, 2007 Letter from L.M. Stinson, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., to 

NRC submitting the application for the renewal of the operating licenses 

for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. 

(ADAMS Accession Nos. ML071840351 [Cover Letter], ML071840360 

[Application], and ML071840357 [Environmental Report]). 

July 10, 2007 Letter from J.P. Leous, NRC, to Ms. Elaine M. Sikes, Burke County 

Library, Regarding Maintenance of Reference Materials Related to the 

Review of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 License 

Renewal Application at the Burke County Library. (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML071860391). 

August 3, 2007 Federal Register Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for 

Renewal of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 Facility 

Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81 for an Additional 20-Year 

Period (72FR43296). (ADAMS Accession No. ML071840090). 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 C-2 December 2008 

August 21, 2007 Federal Register Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application 

and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of Facility 

Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81 for an Additional 10-Year 

Period, Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 (72FRN46680). 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072130084). 

August 21, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Tom E. Tynan, Vice President 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Regarding Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process for 

License Renewal for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. 

 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072140293). 

August 5, 2007 Letter from J.P. Leous, NRC, to Mr. Tom E. Tynan, Vice President Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072400136). 

August 22, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. David Bernhart, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Regarding Request for a List of Protected Species and 

Essential Fish Habitat Within the Area under Evaluation for the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application 

Review. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072060605). 

August 22, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Strant Colwell, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Regarding Request for a List of Protected Species Within 

the Area under Evaluation for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 

1 and 2, License Renewal Application Review. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072040219). 

August 22, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Don L. Kilma, Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, Regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072060568). 

August 22, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Dr. Ray Luce, Historical Preservation 

Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Regarding Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072060519). 

August 28, 2007 Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement and Conduct Scoping Process for Vogtle Electric Generating 

Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 (72FRN49322). 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072140337). 
 Appendix C 

December 2008 C-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. James Caulder, Chief The Pee 

Dee Tribe of South Carolina, Regarding Request for Comments 

Concerning Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License 

Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210551). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. James Webb, Chief The 

Waccamaw Indian People, Regarding Request for Comments Concerning 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal 

Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210590). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Pare Bowlegs, Seminole Nation 

of Oklahoma, Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072210746). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. A.D. Ellis, Principal Chief 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Regarding Request for Comments Concerning 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal 

Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210286). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Louis McGertt, Thlopthlocco 

Tribal Town, Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072211012). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Ms. Gale Thrower, NAGPRA Contact 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Regarding Request for Comments 

Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License 

Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072211016). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to The Lower Muscogee Creek Tribe 

Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072211004). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Ms. Emma Sue Holland, NAGPRA 

Contact United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, Regarding 

Request for Comments Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072211008). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Richard L. Allen, NAGPRA 

Contact Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Regarding Request for 

Comments Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 

2, License Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210861). 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 C-4 December 2008 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to The Eastern Cherokee, Southern 

Iroquois and United Tribes of South Carolina Regarding Request for 

Comments Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 

2, License Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210646). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Roosevelt Scott, Chief The 

Santee Indian Organization, Regarding Request for Comments 

Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License 

Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210347). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to The Cherokee of Georgia Regarding 

Request for Comments Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072070113). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Gilbert Blue, Chief Catawba 

Indian Nation, Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072070691). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Chief Louie Chavis, Regarding 

Request for Comments Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072211003). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Eddie Tullis, Chairperson Poarch 

Band of Creek Indians, Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal 

Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072211013). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to The Wasaamasaw Tribe of 

Varnertown Indians Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal 

Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210744). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Chief Gene Norris, The Piedmont 

American Indian Association, Regarding Request for Comments 

Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License 

Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210315). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Ms. Carolyn Chavis Bolton, Chief 

The Pee Dee Indian Nation of Upper South Carolina, Regarding Request 

for Comments Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072210375). 
 Appendix C 

December 2008 C-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Ms. Debbie Thomas, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer, Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal 

Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210817). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to The American Indian Chamber of 

Commerce of South Carolina Regarding Request for Comments 

Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License 

Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210901). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. John Zachary, Attorney at Law 

c/o Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Regarding Request for Comments 

Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License 

Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210880). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to The Honorable Ms. Evelyn Bucktrot, 

Town King Kialegee Tribal Town, Regarding Request for Comments 

Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License 

Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210575). 

August 31, 20007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Kenneth H. Carleton, 

THPO/Tribal Archaeologist, Regarding Request for Comments 

Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License 

Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210373). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Bill Anoatubby, Governor 

Chickasaw Nation, Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal 

Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210312). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Steven Terry, Land Resources 

Manager Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Regarding Request for 

Comments Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 

2, License Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210294). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Dallas Proctor, Chief United 

Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, Regarding Request for Comments 

Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License 

Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210950). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Vernon Tanner, Chief The 

Chaloklowa Chickasaw Indian People, Regarding Request for Comments 

Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License 

Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210338). 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 C-6 December 2008 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Willard Steele, Deputy THPO 

Seminole Tribe of Florida, Regarding Request for Comments Concerning 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal 

Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210633). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Ms. Karen Kaniatobe, Director of the 

Cultural/Historical Preservation Department Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of 

Oklahoma, Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072211009). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mrs. Joyce A. Bear, NAGPRA 

Contact Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, Regarding Request for 

Comments Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 

2, License Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210668). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Ms. Kathy McCoy, NAGPRA Contact 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Regarding Request for Comments 

Concerning the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License 

Renewal Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072210498). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee 

Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072210937). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Mr. Charles Thurmond, NAGPRA 

Contact, Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072210364). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to Ms. Virginia Nail, NAGPRA Contact, 

Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072210995). 

August 31, 2007 Letter from Rani Franovich, NRC, to The American Cherokee 

Confederacy, Inc. Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal 

Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072140791). 

September 5, 2007 Letter from J.P. Leous, NRC, to Mr. Tom Tynan, Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Regarding Environmental Site Audidt Regarding Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072400136). 
 Appendix C 

December 2008 C-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

September 11, 2007 Letter from David Bernhart, NOAA, to Rani Franovich, NRC, Response to 

NRC letter dated August 22, 2007 Regarding Renewal of Operating 

Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (VEGP) in 

Burke County. (ADAMS Accession No. ML072670546). 

October 3, 2007 Email from Steve Terry, Miccosukee Tribe, to NRC Vogtle License 

Renewal website, Regarding Request for Comments Concerning the 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal 

Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML0728405172). 

October 12, 2007 Letter from J.P. Leous, NRC, to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. Regarding Summary of Public Environmental Scoping Meetings 

Related to the Review of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 

2, License Renewal Applications. (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML072840963). 

October 23, 2007 Email from J.P. Leous, NRC, to Dale Fulton and Tom Moorer, Southern 

Company, Regarding Vogtle Environmental Site Audit Follow Up. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML073040040). 

October 24, 2007 Letter from J.P. Leous, NRC, to Mr. Tom Tynan, Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Regarding Request for Additional Information 

Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application. (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML072841107). 

November 6, 2007 Letter from Tom Tynan, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., to 

NRC, Regarding Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to 

Request for Additional Information Involving Quality Assurance Controls 

for Limited Work Authorization-2. (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML073120135). 

November 12, 2007 Letter from Tom Tynan, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., to 

NRC, Regarding Vogtle License Renewal Application, Environmental Site 

Audit Information Request – Follow up Response. (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML073300604). 

November 16, 2007 Letter from J.P. Leous, NRC, Regarding Summary of Conference Call 

with Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. to Discuss the Severe 

Accident Mitigation Alternatives Requests for Additional Information for 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML073120119). 

November 19, 2007 Letter from J.P. Leous, NRC, to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Regarding Summary of Site Audit Related to the Review of the 

License Renewal Application for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2. (ADAMS Accession No. ML073111213). 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 C-8 December 2008 

December 5, 2007 Email from Karen Kaniatobe, THPO Absentee Shawnee Tribe, to the 

NRC Regarding GA/No Properties Identified/Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 1 & 2. (ADAMS Accession No. ML073520077). 

December 13, 2007 Letter from Rhianna Rogers, THPO Seminole Tribe of Florida, to J. P. 

Leous, NRC, Regarding Archaeological Report: Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant. (ADAMS Accession No. ML080040114). 

February 1, 2008 Letter from Tom Tynan, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., to 

the NRC Regarding Vogtle License Renewal Application, Follow Up to 

Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives, Request for Additional 

Information, Review Questions. (ADAMS Accession No. ML080360158). 

February 11, 2008 Letter from J.P. Leous, NRC, to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. Regarding Summary of Conference Call with Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company, Inc. to Discuss the Severe Accident Mitigation 

Alternatives Request for Additional Information Applicant Responses for 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML080240172). 

April 9, 2008 Letter from L. Lund, Division of License Renewal, NRC to R. Luce, 

Historical Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources. Request for comments on the draft SEIS and the preliminary 

conclusions on historic properties. (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML080800063). 

April 9, 2008 Letter from L. Lund, Division of License Renewal, NRC to D. Bernhart, 

Assistant Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Request for comments on the draft SEIS regarding Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant license renewal. (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML080800027). 

April 9, 2008 Letter from L. Lund, Division of License Renewal, NRC to US EPA, 

Official SEIS filing with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. (Accession No. 

ML080800222). 

April 9, 2008 Letter from L. Lund, Division of License Renewal, NRC to R. Perry, South 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Office of Environmental 

Programs. Request for comments on the draft SEIS regarding Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant license renewal. (Accession No. 

ML080810005). 
 Appendix C 

December 2008 C-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

April 21, 2008 Letter from L. Lund, Division of License Renewal, NRC to Tom E. Tynan, 

Vice President Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Regarding Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Plant- Specific Supplement 34 to the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement regarding the Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2. (Accession No. ML080780087 & ML081120279). 

April 21, 2008 NRC Notice, announcing meeting to discuss the draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement for the license renewal of Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. (Accession No. ML080920231). 

May 15, 2008 NRC press release announcing availability of Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. (Accession 

No. ML081360398). 

June 10, 2008 Letter from K. Anderson-Cordova, Historical Preservation Division, 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources to L. Lund, Division of License 

Renewal, NRC. Comments on the draft SEIS regarding Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant license renewal. (ADAMS Accession 

No.ML081640402). 

June 26, 2008 Letter from H. J. Mueller, Chief, NEPA Program Office, U.S 

Environmental Protection Agency to NRC staff. Regarding EPA Review 

and Comments on Draft Generic Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (DGSEIS) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site 

Supplement 34, NUREG-1437, CEQ No. 20080156. (Accession No. 

ML081900016). 

June 30, 2008 Summary of public meetings on the Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement regarding the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant License 

Renewal Review. (Accession No. ML081640259). 

July 14, 2008 Letter from T.E. Tynan, Vice President Vogtle Electric Generating Plant to 

L. Lund, Division of License Renewal, NRC. Regarding Comments on 

Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants, Supplement 34. (Accession No. ML081990212). 

July 18, 2008 Letter from G. Hogue, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior to NRC staff. Regarding 

Comments on Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, NUREG1437, Supplement 34 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant. (Accession No. ML082100089). 

August 1, 2008 Letter from V. Vejdani, Environmental Coordinator, Wildlife & Freshwater 

Fisheries Division, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources to J. 

Leous, Division of License Renewal, NRC. Regarding Comments on 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal 

Application Review. (Accession No. ML082140699). 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 C-10 December 2008 

August 5, 2008 Letter from R. E. Crabtree, Regional Administrator, National Marine 

Fisheries Service to L. Lund, Branch Chief, Division of License Renewal, 

NRC. Regarding NMFS concurrence with Biological Assessment 

prepared by the NRC related to the license renewal of Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. (Accession No. ML082490542). 

September 3, 2008 Letter from D. Pelton, Division of License Renewal, NRC to Tom E. 

Tynan, Vice President Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Regarding project 

manager change for the license renewal environmental review for Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. (Accession No. ML082380949). 
Appendix D 

Organizations Contacted

December 2008 D-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

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, local, and Native American tribal 

agencies were contacted: 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

Catawba Indian Nation 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

Chickasaw Nation 

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

Eastern Cherokee, Southern Iroquois and United Tribes of South Carolina 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historical Preservation Division 

Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee 

Kialegee Tribal Town 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

Muscogee (Creek) Nation 

National Marine Fisheries Service 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 D-2 December 2008

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

The American Cherokee Confederacy 

The American Indian Chamber of Commerce of South Carolina 

The Beaver Creek Indians 

The Chaloklowa Chickasaw Indian People 

The Cherokee of Georgia 

The Lower Muscogee Creek Tribe 

The Pee Dee Indian Nation of Upper South Carolina 

The Pee Dee Tribe of South Carolina 

The Piedmont American Indian Association 

The Santee Indian Organization 

The Waccamaw Indian People 

The Wasaamasaw Tribe of Varnertown Indians 

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 
Appendix E 

Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence 

December 2008 E-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

 Appendix E

Southern Nuclear Operating Company’s (SNC) 

Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence 

 

Correspondence received during the process of evaluation of the application for renewal of the 

license for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (VEGP) is identified in Table E-1. 

Copies of the correspondence are included at the end of this appendix. 

The licenses, permits, consultations, and other approvals obtained from Federal, State, 

regional, and local authorities for VEGP, are listed in Table E-2. 

Table E-1. Consultation Correspondence 

Source Recipient Date of Letter

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (R. Franovich) 

Georgia State Historical 

Preservation Office (R. Luce) 

August 22, 2007 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (R. Franovich) 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (D. Klima) 

August 22, 2007 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (R. Franovich) 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(D. Bernhart) 

August 22, 2007 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (R. Franovich) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(S. Colwell) 

August 22, 2007 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (R. Franovich) 

Pee Dee Tribe of South Carolina 

(J. Caulder) August 31, 2007 (a)

National Marine Fisheries 

Service (D. Bernhart) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (R. Franovich) September 11, 2007 

Miccosukee Tribe (S. Terry) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (R. Franovich) October 3, 2007 

THPO Absentee Shawnee 

Tribe (Karen Kaniatobe) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (R. Franovich) 

December 5, 2007 

THPO Seminole Tribe of 

Florida (Rhianna Rogers) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (J. Leous) 

December 13, 2007 

(a) Similar letters were sent to 34 other Native American Tribes listed in Appendix C. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-2 December 2008

Source Recipient Date of Letter

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L. Lund) 

Georgia State Historical 

Preservation Office (R. Luce) 

April 9, 2008

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L. Lund) 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(D. Bernhart) 

April 9, 2008 

Georgia State Historical 

Preservation Office (K. 

Anderson-Cordova) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L. Lund) 

June 10, 2008 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(G. Hogue) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L. Lund) 

July 18, 2008 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service (R. E. Crabtree) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L. Lund) 

August 5, 2008 
Appendix E 

December 2008 E-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table E-2. Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other

Approvals for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Agency Authority Description Number Issue Date Expiration Date Remarks

NRC Atomic Energy Act, 

10 CFR Part 50 

Operating license NPF-068 3/16/1987 1/16/2027 Authorizes operation of Unit 1 

NRC Atomic Energy Act, 

10 CFR Part 50 

Operating license NPF-081 3/31/1989 2/9/2029 Authorizes operation of Unit 2 

FWS Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (16 USC 1536) 

Consultation N/A N/A N/A Requires a Federal agency to 

consult with FWS regarding whether a proposed action will affect endangered or threatened species

NMFS Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (16 USC 1536) 

Consultation N/A N/A N/A 

Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources,Historic PreservationDivision

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470f) 

Consultation N/A N/A N/A The National Historic 

Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of any undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 

49 USC 5108 Registration 060308550034Q 6/3/2008 6/30/2009 Hazardous materials 

shipments

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Section 10 of River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 USC 403)

Permit 200500606 8/24/2005 8/31/2010 Maintenance dredging in front 

ofthe river intake structure 

GeorgiaDepartment of Natural Resources

Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.), Georgia Water Quality Control Act, NPDES

Permit GA0026786 6/30/1999 5/31/2004

administratively

extended 

Industrial wastewater discharges to Savannah River 

GeorgiaDepartment of Natural Resources

Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.), Georgia Water Quality Control Act, NPDES

Permit GAR000000 8/1/2006 7/31/2011 Industrial storm water 

discharges
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-4 December 2008

Agency Authority Description Number Issue Date Expiration Date Remarks

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.), Georgia Water Quality Control Act, NPDES 

Permit GAR100001 8/1/2008 7/31/2013 Storm water discharges 

associated with construction activities for standalone construction projects 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq), Georgia Air Quality Act (OCGA Section 12-9-1) and Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control (Chapter 391-3-1) 

Operating Permit 4911-033-0030-

V-02-0 4911-033-0030-V-02-1 

3/21/2006 9/26/2006 

3/21/2011 3/21/2011 

Installation of temporary boiler package in chemical cleaning of steam generators 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977 (OCGA 12- 5-170 et seq.) and Rules, Chapter 391-3-5 

Permit PG0330017 8/15/2007 8/14/2017 Operate nontransient 

Noncommunity makeup wells – Plant Vogtle Makeup Wells #1 and #2A 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977 (OCGA 12- 5-170 et seq.) and Rules, Chapter 391-3-5 

Permit NG03300367 8/15/2007 8/14/2017 Operate public transient 

noncommunity water system – Plant Vogtle Employee Recreation Area 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977 (OCGA.12- 5-170 et seq.) and Rules, Chapter 391-3-5 

Permit PG0330035 8/15/2007 8/14/2017 Operate public non-transient 

noncommunity water system – Plant Vogtle Simulator Building 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Georgia Water Quality Control Act, Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6 

Permit 017-0191-05 4/17/2000 9/1/2010 Withdraw surface water from 

the Savannah River for the purpose of cooling and in-plant use 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Provisions of the Groundwater Use Act (GA Laws 1972, p 976 et seq. as amended by GA Laws 1973, p 1273 et seq.) 

Permit 017-0003 3/24/2000 8/6/2010 Withdraw 6 million gpd 

groundwater from 8 wells in the Cretaceous Sand Aquifer for sanitary facilities, central water supply, cooling water, process water and irrigation 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Georgia Solid Waste Management Act, Act 1486, Georgia Laws of 1972 

Permit 017-006D(L)(I) 

No. 2 

7/10/1981 None Dispose of 1500 cubic yards of 

asbestos transite board and cement asbestos pipe materials
Appendix E 

December 2008 E-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Agency Authority Description Number Issue Date Expiration Date Remarks

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Georgia Solid Waste Management Act, Act 1486, p. 1002 et seq. as amended 

Permit 017-007D(L)(I) 

No. 3 

6/15/1987 None Dispose of nonhazardous, 

Nonputrescible waste 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Rules for Solid Waste Management, Section 391-3-4-.06(3)(a) 

Permit by Rule Operations 

PBR-017-07COL 11/13/2000 None Collect and transport 

nonhazardous, nonindustrial putrescible waste for disposal in permitted MSWLF 

State of Georgia Public Service Commission 

Transportation of Hazardous Materials Act, Act 394 at OCGA 46:11 

Notification of shipment of hazardous materials – permit by rule 

DOT Hazardous Materials Certification 060308550034Q 

6/3/2008 6/30/2009 Transportation of radioactive 

materials in the state of Georgia 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

South Carolina Radioactive Waste Transportation and Disposal Act (Act No. 429) 

South Carolina Radioactive Waste Transport Permit 

0311-10-08-X 11/7/2008 12/31/2009 Transportation of radioactive 

waste into the state of South Carolina 

State of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Rule 1200-2-10.32 

Tennessee Radioactive Waste License-forDelivery 

T-GA003-L09 11/13/2008 12/31/2009 Transportation of radioactive 

waste into the state of Tennessee 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-6 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-8 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-10 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-12 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-14 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-16 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-18 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-20 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-22 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-24 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-26 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-28 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-30 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-32 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-34 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-36 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-38 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-40 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-42 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-44 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-46 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-48 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-50 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-52 December 2008 
 Appendix E 

December 2008 E-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-54 December 2008 

Biological Assessment 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2

License Renewal 

April 2008 

Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-425 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Rockville, Maryland
Appendix E 

December 2008 E-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects on Federally Listed 

Endangered or Threatened Species from the Proposed License 

Renewal for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

1.0 Introduction and Purpose

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issues operating licenses for domestic nuclear 

power plants in accordance with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

and NRC implementing regulations. The NRC is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) for the renewal of operating licenses NPF-68 

and NPF-81 for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 (VEGP) for 20 years beyond the 

current operating license expiration dates of January 16, 2027 for Unit 1 and February 9, 2029 

for Unit 2 (NRC’s Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System [ADAMS] 

accession no. ML071840360). The purpose and need for this proposed action is to provide an 

option that permits electric power generation to continue beyond the term of the current nuclear 

power plant operating license, allowing future electric generating needs to be met, if the 

operator and State regulatory agencies pursue that option. 

The SNC, which operates VEGP, prepared an Environmental Report (SNC 2007a; ADAMS 

accession no. ML071840357) as part of its application for the renewal of the VEGP operating 

licenses. In the Environmental Report, SNC 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 

the Environmental Report and additional information as the basis for this Biological Assessment 

(BA) and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), a plant-specific supplement 

to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, 

NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), referred to hereafter as the GEIS.

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, NRC staff 

requested in a letter dated August 22, 2007 (NRC 2007a) that the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) provide information on Federally listed endangered or threatened species, as 

well as proposed or candidate species, and any designated critical habitats that may occur in 

the vicinity of VEGP. In its response, the NMFS provided a list of Federally protected species 

under its jurisdiction for the State of Georgia (NMFS 2007).

Although the NRC staff does not believe that license renewal would adversely affect the 

Federally listed species under NMFS jurisdiction, the Staff has prepared this BA to document its 

review. This BA examines the potential effects of the continued operation of VEGP on the 

Federally endangered and threatened species under NMFS jurisdiction that potentially could 

occur in the vicinity of the VEGP site and its associated transmission line right-of-ways (ROWs). 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-56 December 2008 

2.0 Site Description

The proposed Federal action is renewal of the operating license for VEGP. The VEGP facility is 

located in Burke County, Georgia, approximately 15 miles (mi) east-northeast of Waynesboro, 

Georgia and 26 mi southeast of Augusta, Georgia. The location of the facility and the areas 

within 6 mi of the facility are shown in Figure 2-1 (SNC 2007a). The Savannah River borders 

the VEGP site on the north and east. The VEGP site, covering 3169 acres (ac), is located 

between river mile (RM) 150 and 152 (river kilometer [rkm] 241 and 244). Terrestrial resources 

found within the VEGP site and associated transmission line ROWs include upland, riparian, 

and bottomland forest communities, as well as ponds, streams, and wetlands. Fauna consists 

mainly of wildlife species commonly found in eastern Georgia, including mammals, birds, 

reptiles, and amphibians. 

Located directly across the river from VEGP is the Savannah River Site (SRS), a Federally 

owned Department of Energy (DOE) facility that covers a total area of 310 square mi. Although 

SRS is not specifically associated with the proposed relicensing of VEGP and is not owned or 

maintained by SNC, its close proximity, the types of operations historically conducted at SRS, 

and the numerous ecological studies that have been conducted in conjunction with SRS have 

made it particularly relevant to the evaluation of VEGP impacts on the Savannah River. Five 

nuclear reactors and two processing facilities for the production of nuclear weapons materials 

were built on SRS, with construction completed in 1955. The SRS reactors utilized oncethrough cooling systems that withdrew water from the Savannah River, and the heated water 

was discharged to tributaries of the river (Reed et al. 2002). All SRS nuclear reactors were shut 

down by 1989, though other nuclear-related operations, research and development, 

environmental remediation, and ecological studies are ongoing at the facility (Reed et al. 2002). 

The VEGP site is within the reach referred to as the middle Savannah River, a segment 

extending from the Fall Line (a line along which waterfalls occur at the transition from the 

Piedmont to the Coastal Plain) just above Kiokee Creek in Columbia County, Georgia at RM 

221 south to the mouth of Brier Creek at RM 97 in Screven County, Georgia (Figure 3-2). The 

Savannah River watershed is approximately 10,579 square mi (USACE 1996). From the 

Hartwell Dam, the Savannah River flows 289 mi to the Atlantic Ocean at Savannah, Georgia.

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operates three dams that are located upstream 

from the VEGP site: the Hartwell Dam (RM 288.9); the Richard B. Russell Dam (RM 259.1); 

and the J. Strom Thurmond Dam (RM 221.6). Between the J. Strom Thurmond Dam and the 

VEGP site lie the Stevens Creek Dam (RM 208.1), the city of Augusta (approximately RM 200), 

the New Savannah Bluffs Lock and Dam (RM 187.7), and the mouths of several small creeks 

(SNC 2006a).

The Savannah River adjacent to the VEGP site is relatively straight with very few bends. The 

substrate in the deep areas is mostly gravel with some sand (SNC 2006a). Between 1973 and 

1996, the average water temperature was 17.4°C (63.40°F), with a maximum of 27.2°C (81.0°F)
Appendix E 

December 2008 E-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Source: SNC 2007a 

Figure 2-1. Location of VEGP, 6-mile Radius
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-58 December 2008 

and a minimum of 5.0°C (41.0°F) (SNC 2006a). The middle Savannah River is habitat for many 

types of aquatic organisms, and, typical of southeastern river basins, the growing human 

population increasingly affects the area. Habitats used by fish in the Savannah include the 

main river channel, “cutoff bends” or "dead rivers” (former channels still connected to the main 

channel), and streams or smaller tributaries that empty into the river. Additional habitat is 

provided by swamps and floodplains during high water (Marcy et al. 2005). 

2.1 Description of Plant and Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems 

VEGP consists of two Westinghouse pressurized water reactors (PWRs) with a reactor core 

power of 3,626 megawatts-thermal (MW[t]) and a gross net electrical output of 1,343 

megawatts-electrical (MW[e]) for each unit (NRC 2008). The circulating water system at VEGP 

uses two natural draft cooling towers as part of a closed-cycle heat dissipation system, which 

withdraws water from the Savannah River and discharges blowdown back to the River (SNC 

2007a). The intake system consists of a 365-ft-long intake canal located on the western bank of 

the Savannah River (SNC 2007a). The earthen bottom of the river at the intake is 67 ft above 

mean sea level (msl). A skimmer weir is located at the canal entrance, with a bottom elevation 

of 78 ft above msl, and a canal weir is located within the canal 100 ft from the entrance. The 

skimmer weir prevents floating materials from entering the intake canal (SNC 2007a). The 

intake structure at the head of the canal contains four bays (two for each unit), each with a stop 

log, trash rack, traveling screens, and a single pump (SNC 2007a). The trash racks consist of a 

series of vertical flat bars, and the traveling screens are annealed type 304 stainless steel 3/8-

inch mesh (SNC 2007a). As the system operates, wash water is used to rinse the traveling 

screens and drive debris into a debris basket, which is emptied periodically (SNC 2007a). Daily 

inspections are performed, and according to facility personnel, fish or other aquatic organisms 

are rarely observed (SNC 2007a). 

The circulating water is removed from the intake by vertical turbine pumps, each with a capacity 

of 22,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (SNC 2007a). The circulating water is directed into the 

natural draft cooling towers, which use natural convection to remove heat from water that has 

been used to cool the condensers (SNC 2007a). Because the cooling towers operate as a 

closed system, the only water loss is through evaporation, drift, and blowdown. Makeup water 

is withdrawn from the river to replace these losses. The cooling water is treated with several 

chemicals to control biofouling, corrosion, and scaling (SNC 2007a). The cooling tower 

blowdown and other liquid wastestreams (such as the liquid radioactive waste treatment 

effluents) are discharged back to the Savannah River through a discharge structure located 500 

ft downstream of the intake structure.
Appendix E 

December 2008 E-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

3.0 Status Review of Shortnose Sturgeon

The only Federally listed aquatic species that is under the jurisdiction of NMFS and is recorded 

as occurring in the vicinity of the VEGP site is the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum),

which is endangered. The shortnose sturgeon occurs in the Savannah River both upstream and 

downstream of VEGP but has no designated critical habitat in the vicinity of the VEGP site 

(NMFS 1998, NRC 2007b). The shortnose sturgeon also occurs in the Altamaha and Ogeechee 

Rivers, which are crossed by the West McIntosh (Thalmann) transmission line in the Coastal 

Plain. Because no changes in operations, expansion of existing facilities, or disturbance of 

additional land associated with the transmission lines are expected during the license renewal 

period, the shortnose sturgeon populations in the Altamaha and Ogeechee Rivers would not be 

adversely affected by the transmission line crossings of these rivers. Accordingly, those 

populations are not discussed further. 

3.1 Life History 

The shortnose sturgeon is a member of the family Acipenseridae, a group of anadromous and 

freshwater fishes with long life spans and an ancient lineage. The shortnose sturgeon spawns 

in large Atlantic coastal rivers in eastern North America from northern Florida to New Brunswick, 

Canada. The shortnose sturgeon grows slowly, reaches sexual maturity relatively late in life, 

and typically lives 15-20 years (a reported record longevity was 67 years). It reaches maturity at 

a body length (nose to tail fork) of 18 to 20 inches (45 to 50 centimeters [cm]) and has a 

maximum total length of approximately 4 feet (ft) (1.2 meter [m]) and weight of up to 50 pounds 

(lbs) (23 kilograms [kg]). It is the smallest of the three sturgeon species that occur in eastern 

North America. The shortnose sturgeon was a commercially important species around the 

beginning of the 20th century, and it was also frequently taken with the catch of Atlantic 

sturgeon, a closely related and more commercially valuable sturgeon species, and as bycatch in 

the shad fishery. The substantial decline in shortnose sturgeon populations has been attributed 

mainly to overfishing, the impoundment of rivers, and water pollution. Natural recruitment rates 

appear to be too low to fully replenish depleted populations (NMFS 1998, NOAA 2007, Marcy et 

al. 2005).

The shortnose sturgeon originally was listed as an endangered species by the FWS under the 

Endangered Species Preservation Act (32 FR 4001) in 1967. That act preceded the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531), under which the sturgeon is protected 

currently. In 1974, the shortnose sturgeon was placed under the jurisdiction of NMFS, the 

agency responsible for most anadromous and marine species under the ESA. Although the 

shortnose sturgeon was originally listed as endangered throughout its range, the NMFS 

currently recognizes 19 distinct population segments occurring in 19 river systems from northern 

Florida to New Brunswick, Canada. Life history studies indicate that populations from these 

river systems largely are reproductively isolated and should be considered separate. NMFS 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-60 December 2008 

considers that the loss of a single shortnose sturgeon population segment may risk the 

permanent loss of unique genetic information potentially critical to the survival and recovery of 

the species. Therefore, the species is managed based on protection of the distinct population 

segments in each of these river systems, including the Savannah River (NMFS 1998). 

Shortnose sturgeon spend most of their lives in their natal river systems and enter the ocean 

only rarely. In the southern part of its range, this species is estuarine anadromous. Thus, adult 

shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River forage in the river estuary throughout the year except 

when migrating upstream during spawning runs. Spawning runs typically occur in the Savannah 

River from late January to March, and most of the spawning adults return to the lower portion of 

the river by early May. Probable spawning sites in the Savannah River were identified by 

studying the movements of adult shortnose sturgeon. The studies identified reaches that 

repeatedly were the destinations of migrating adult fish and were occupied for several days 

during the spawning season (Meyer et al. 2003). The probable spawning sites identified consist 

of sharp curves of the river channel with substrates of rocks, logs, gravel, and sand in two 

principal reaches: from RM 111 to 118 (rkm 179 to 190) and from RM 170 to 172 (rkm 275 to 

278) (NMFS 1998, Meyer et al. 2003). The VEGP site is located on the Savannah River 

between RM 150 and 152 (rkm 241 to 244), a reach that is between the two identified spawning 

reaches and has not been identified as a known or suspected spawning site.

Shortnose sturgeon reach sexual maturity at about 8 to 15 years of age in the north and at 

younger ages in the south (Marcy et al. 2005). Sexually mature adults usually spawn during 

peak flood tide in February or March in or near deep areas of the river where there is a 

significant current. Spawning usually occurs when water temperatures are between 50°F 

(9.8°C) and 62°F (16.5°C). Data indicate that adults spawn at intervals of 2 to 5 years. The 

fertilized eggs of the shortnose sturgeon are heavier than water (demersal), so they tend to sink 

quickly, and they are extremely adhesive, so they adhere to solid substrates such as rocks and 

logs. The eggs hatch in 1 to 2 weeks. The larvae and the early juveniles into which they 

develop are weak swimmers that stay near the bottom. After about 2 weeks of drifting with the 

current near the bottom, they slowly migrate downstream (Marcy et al. 2005). When the 

juveniles reach the estuary at the lower end of the Savannah River, they tend to remain in the 

reach between RM 29 and 19 (rkm 48 and 31) near the saltwater-freshwater interface. They 

move into the upstream area of this estuary in summer and the downstream area in winter 

(Meyer et al. 2003). The diet of juvenile shortnose sturgeon is mainly aquatic insects and small 

crustaceans. Adults feed mainly on molluscs and also consume crustaceans and insects 

(Marcy et al. 2005). 

3.2 Status of Shortnose Sturgeon in the Savannah River 

As part of a state and Federal recovery program, over 97,000 hatchery-spawned shortnose 

sturgeon (18 percent of which were tagged) were stocked in the Savannah River between 1984 

and 1992 (Marcy et al. 2005). Over 35 percent of the juvenile shortnose sturgeon that were 
Appendix E 

December 2008 E-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

captured in the Savannah River from 1990 to 1993 were identified as having been stocked 

(Wike 1998). Based on records of marked fish and results from tagging studies, it was 

estimated that approximately 38 percent of the adult population in the Savannah River during 

the period 1997 to 2000 consisted of stocked fish (Marcy et al. 2005). These results indicate 

that recruitment into the local population was occurring (Wike 1998). The most recent estimate 

of the shortnose sturgeon population of the Savannah River, from 1999, was 3000 fish (NMFS 

2006).

3.3 Potential Site-Related Impacts on the Shortnose Sturgeon 

The VEGP facility withdraws water from the Savannah River for use as makeup water for the 

cooling tower system. The Savannah River population of the shortnose sturgeon potentially 

could be affected by VEGP operations due to several factors associated with these cooling 

water withdrawals as well as related discharges to the river. These factors include the 

following: (1) reduction in the flow within the Savannah River due to makeup water withdrawals, 

(2) increase in shortnose sturgeon mortality due to entrainment and/or impingement at the 

VEGP intake, (3) thermal effects from the VEGP discharge, and (4) toxic effects from VEGPrelated chemical constituents in surface water of the river. Each of these factors is addressed 

below.

3.3.1 Water Withdrawal Effects 

The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) permits VEGP to withdraw water from 

the Savannah River at a monthly average rate of up to 131 cubic feet per second (cfs) (85 mgd) 

(GDNR 2007). According to the Environmental Report, the actual capacity of the intake system 

is 89 cfs (SNC 2007a), of which an estimated 66.8 cfs is lost through evaporation, blowdown, 

and drift (NRC 1985), resulting in a net consumptive use of water from the river (SNC 2007a).

The actual surface water withdrawal reports provide a different estimate. The highest monthly 

average for water withdrawal in 2006, the most recent complete year for which data were 

available, was 103.8 cfs in May (SNC 2007b). Based on this highest monthly average 

withdrawal rate in 2006 and a 75 percent water consumption ratio provided in the Environmental 

Report (SNC 2007a), the highest average consumptive use of river water by the facility in 2006 

was calculated to be 77.9 cfs. 

In its Drought Contingency Plan for the Savannah River basin, the USACE established 

operational rules for the reservoirs using lake levels as triggers to reduce discharges to 

specified levels. At J. Strom Thurmond Dam, Drought Level 1 reduces flow released at the dam 

to a maximum weekly average of 4200 cfs, Level 2 reduces flow to a maximum weekly average 

of 4000 cfs, Level 3 reduces flow to a maximum daily average of 3800 cfs, and Level 4 requires 

that daily average outflow equal daily average inflow to the reservoir (USACE 2008). Drought 

Level 3 maintains sufficient flow for water users downstream. Only if the water level in the 

reservoir drops below the bottom of the conservation pool (312 feet above msl) under Level 4 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-62 December 2008 

does the plan require that water be released at the same rate as it flows into the reservoir 

(USACE 2007). In 2006, GEPD established instream flow guidelines for the regulation of 

surface water withdrawals based on the 7Q10 flow, which is the lowest average flow over seven 

consecutive days expected to occur with an average frequency of once in ten years (UGA Carl 

Vinson Institute of Government 2006). The instream flow guidelines are the basis of the 

minimum flow of 3800 cfs for the Savannah River under Drought Level 3 (SNC 2007c).

Although there have been days on which the Savannah River flow was less then 3800 cfs, such 

low flows have been rare, and the water level in the reservoir has not been as low as 312 feet 

above msl since 1956 (USGS 2007a).

Thus, the lowest expected flow in the Savannah River is the instream flow guideline of 3800 cfs 

(USACE 2007) under Drought Level 3. Although the state of Georgia currently is considered to 

be in a period of severe drought and Level 3 has been triggered (USGS 2007b), the flow at the 

Waynesboro measuring station at VEGP has not dropped below 3900 cfs since measurements 

began at that location in early 2005 (USGS 2007c). Based on the values discussed above for 

the highest consumptive use of Savannah River water by the operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2 

in 2006 (77.9 cfs) and the lowest expected river flow (3800 cfs), the highest expected 

consumptive use would be approximately 2 percent of the flow. 

During an extreme drought in which river flow is below the Drought Level 4 action level, an 

estimated minimum flow that may occur in the Savannah River based on historical data is 957 

cfs (SNC 2006b). This minimum flow was estimated through a statistical analysis of flow 

conditions in the river from 1926 through 1950, before the reservoirs were constructed 

upstream. Under this minimum flow of only 957 cfs, consumptive use by Units 1 and 2 would be 

approximately 8 percent of the flow. In a worst-case scenario, the VEGP facility potentially 

could continue to operate at river flows as low as 500 cfs. Although the facility is not legally 

required to stop withdrawals at such low flows, the low water level of the river would physically 

prevent withdrawals by VEGP (SNC 2006b). At this very low river flow, water use by VEGP 

would consume approximately 15 percent of the Savannah River flow.

Therefore, at expected river flows under severe drought conditions (3800 cfs), the reduction in 

flow due to the normal withdrawal and consumptive use of river water by VEGP Units 1 and 2 

would be less than 2 percent. Under much more extreme conditions of drought and low flow, 

withdrawals could result in higher percentage reductions in river flow but no more than 15 

percent. However, such conditions have not occurred since the construction of the upstream 

reservoirs and would have an extremely low likelihood of occurring in the future.

The consumptive use of less than 2 percent of flows even under severe drought conditions at 

normal withdrawal rates indicates that there is minimal potential for adverse effects on the 

shortnose sturgeon from the effects of water withdrawals by VEGP Units 1 and 2. The greatest 

reasonably foreseeable reduction in river flow due to the operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2 

during the renewal term even under severe drought conditions would be sufficiently minor that it 
Appendix E 

December 2008 E-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

would not adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon, its prey, or other components of the aquatic 

community. Accordingly, the Staff finds that water withdrawals by the VEGP CWIS are not likely 

to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon population of the Savannah River.

 3.3.2 Entrainment/Impingement Effects 

The intake of cooling water from the Savannah River and the associated potential for eggs or 

larvae to be entrained in the cooling water system or for larger individuals to be impinged on the 

intake screens are the principal concerns regarding potential impacts on the shortnose sturgeon 

from VEGP operations. Entrainment occurs when organisms are drawn through the intake 

screens into the cooling water system. Organisms that typically become entrained are relatively 

small planktonic or nektonic organisms in the water column, such as the early life stages of fish 

(66 FR 65256). As entrained organisms pass through a facility’s cooling system, they are 

subjected to mechanical, thermal, and toxic stresses that often are fatal. Impingement occurs 

when larger organisms are trapped against the intake screens by the force of the water passing 

through the screens (66 FR 65256). Impingement can result in starvation and exhaustion, 

asphyxiation from the force of the water preventing proper gill movement or from the organisms 

being removed from the water for prolonged periods of time, and the loss of scales (66 FR 

65256). The relatively small volumes of water needed for a closed-cycle, recirculating, wet 

cooling tower system such as that use by VEGP Units 1 and 2 result in lower entrainment and 

impingement effects compared to once-through cooling systems (NRC 1996). In addition to the 

type of cooling system used by the facility, factors that can influence the degree to which 

entrainment and impingement affect the shortnose sturgeon and other aquatic biota include the 

design of the intake structure, the amount of water withdrawn (NRC 2007b), and the biology of 

the organisms.

In promulgating regulations to reduce entrainment impacts from existing cooling water intake 

structures at power plants under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (EPA 2004), EPA did not 

require entrainment reductions for facilities that withdraw 5 percent or less of the annual mean 

flow from freshwater rivers. EPA determined that such facilities generally have a low likelihood 

of causing significant entrainment impacts because their intake withdrawals are a low proportion 

of flow (EPA 2004). Based on an annual mean Savannah River flow at Augusta, Georgia, of 

9157 cfs (SNC 2007a) and the highest monthly average withdrawal rate of 103.8 cfs (in May 

2006), the withdrawal by VEGP Units 1 and 2 would be 1.1 percent of the annual mean flow.

Based on a flow of 3800 cfs under severe drought conditions and the same conservative 

withdrawal rate, the withdrawal by VEGP Units 1 and 2 would be 2.7 percent of flow. Thus, 

even under severe drought conditions, the VEGP withdrawal would be only half of the level EPA 

selected to minimize entrainment impacts.

The potential for entrainment of the shortnose sturgeon also is affected by its life history and 

behavior. As described in Section 3.1, adult shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River forage 

in the river estuary throughout the year except during spawning runs, when they migrate 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-64 December 2008 

upstream from late January to March. Spawning usually takes place in or adjacent to deep 

areas of the river with significant currents in February or March, and most adults return to the 

lower river by early May. In the Savannah River, probable spawning sites were identified in two 

principal reaches where there are sharp curves of the channel and substrates of logs, rocks, 

gravel, and sand: from RM 111 to 118 (rkm 179 to 190) and from RM 170 to 172 (rkm 275 to 

278) (NMFS 1998, Meyer et al. 2003). The VEGP site is between RM 150 and 152 (rkm 241 to 

244); thus, it is between the two identified spawning reaches. The upstream spawning reach is 

approximately 18 RM (29 rkm) above the site, and the downstream reach is approximately 32 

RM (52 rkm) below the site.

The only shortnose sturgeon eggs or larvae that potentially could be subject to entrainment at 

the VEGP intake are those from the upstream spawning location. Entrainment of eggs or larvae 

from the upstream spawning location into the cooling water system is not expected to occur due 

to the characteristics of these organisms, the characteristics of the river, and the structure of the 

intake. Fertilized eggs of the shortnose sturgeon are heavier than water and extremely 

adhesive, so they sink quickly and adhere to hard substrates such as rocks and logs in the 

spawning area (Marcy et al. 2005). As a result, fertilized eggs would not occur in the water 

column in the area of the VEGP intake and would not be entrained. After the eggs hatch, the 

yolk-sac larvae are weak swimmers and seek cover at the bottom for up to 12 days. During 

this time, they develop into larvae of about 15 millimeters (mm) total length, with well-developed 

eyes, teeth, and fins that make them capable of swimming effectively. By the time they reach 

20 mm in length, the larvae begin to feed and swim in the water column. It is at this stage that 

they are likely to begin downstream migration to the estuary (NMFS 1998). When shortnose 

sturgeon larvae have been collected in rivers, the larvae are generally found in the deepest 

water near the bottom and usually within the channel (Dadswell et al. 1984, NMFS 1998). The 

location of the VEGP intake structure near the shoreline in conjunction with this behavioral 

tendency of the larvae to remain in the deepest part of the channel should minimize the 

potential for larvae to be entrained as they pass the intake on their downstream migration.

Entrainment studies have not been conducted for VEGP Units 1 and 2 during their operation.

Prior to their operation, the NRC estimated the potential for entrainment at these units in the 

Final Environmental Statement for Operation (NRC 1985). That evaluation assumed a uniform 

distribution of drift organisms in the Savannah River. Water withdrawals for the Circulating 

Water Intake Structure (CWIS) were designed to range from approximately 1 to 4 percent of the 

Savannah River’s discharge, depending on CWIS operations and the variation in river 

discharge. Assuming a uniform distribution of drift organisms and 100 percent mortality of those 

entrained, NRC concluded that removal of 1 to 3.5 percent of drift organisms from the river 

would not have a significant adverse effect on the drift organisms or the aquatic community, 

including fish, in the vicinity of VEGP Units 1 and 2 (NRC 1985). 

This estimate of the rate of entrainment is expected to be conservative and considerably higher 

than the rate likely to actually occur, particularly for the shortnose sturgeon. As discussed 
Appendix E 

December 2008 E-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

above, eggs of the shortnose sturgeon sink and adhere to the substrate at the upstream 

spawning area, and larval stages migrating downstream past the site tend to remain near the 

bottom of the river channel (Dadswell et al. 1984, Marcy et al. 2005, NMFS 1998). The 

upstream spawning reach begins approximately 18 RM upstream of VEGP, and there are no 

historic records of shortnose sturgeon eggs being collected near the SRS (Wike 1998); 

therefore, it is very unlikely that shortnose sturgeon eggs would be entrained.

Entrainment studies have been performed for reactor facilities at SRS. Between 1982 and 

1985, ichthyoplankton studies were performed between RM 29.3 and 187.1 in the Savannah 

River as well as in the intake canals for SRS reactors and at the mouths of three creeks along 

the SRS that received cooling water discharges (Paller et al. 1986 in NRC 2007a). The studies 

estimated that between 8.3 percent and 12.3 percent of the ichthyoplankton that drifted past the 

SRS intake canals were entrained. However, the differences between the SRS intakes and the 

VEGP intakes are substantial. First, the volume of water withdrawn by SRS for the K-Reactor 

and L-Reactor at full power was 395 cfs (11.2 cubic meters per second [m3

/sec]) for each 

reactor (Paller 1992 in NRC 2007a), which is more than seven times the highest monthly 

average withdrawal rate for VEGP Units 1 and 2 (103.8 cfs). Second, the SRS intake canals 

were much longer than that at VEGP. Third, the intake velocity at the SRS intakes was 

calculated to be 1.25 feet per second (ft/sec) (38 centimeters per second [cm/sec]) (McFarlane 

et al. 1978 in NRC 2007a), which is approximately 1.8 times the through-screen velocity of 0.7 

ft/sec at the VEGP Units 1 and 2 intake (SNC 2007a). 

To evaluate the potential impacts on the shortnose sturgeon from the re-start and operation of 

the L-Reactor at SRS, which would utilize withdrawals much larger than those of VEGP Units 1 

and 2, a BA was performed in 1983 (Muska and Matthews 1983). The BA concluded that 

entrainment of shortnose sturgeon eggs was unlikely due to their demersal and adhesive 

characteristics. The BA noted that larval entrainment was possible because four larvae had 

been collected in or near the intake canals during sampling in the river. However, it concluded 

that larval entrainment would be minimal because of the low density of larvae found in the intake 

canals during an extensive ichthyoplankton sampling effort in the vicinity and the preference of 

the larvae for benthic habitats within the river (Muska and Matthews 1983). The Protected 

Species Management Branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce concurred with this 

conclusion (Wike 1998). Based on these lines of evidence, shortnose sturgeon larvae are 

considered to have very limited susceptibility to being entrained by the VEGP intake. 

Impingement studies also have not been performed at the VEGP Unit 1 and 2 intake structure 

during operations. However, Section 4.1 (entitled Unusual or Important Environmental Events) 

of the VEGP Units 1 and 2 Environmental Protection Plan, Appendix B to VEGP Units 1 and 2 

operating licenses NPF 68 and NPF 81, requires NRC notification of any unusual environmental 

events, specifically fish kills or impingement events. To date, no such events have occurred 

that have required such a report to be submitted for VEGP Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2007a). In 

addition, during the years when the SRS reactors were operational, no juvenile or adult 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-66 December 2008 

shortnose sturgeon were collected in the SRS cooling water intake canals, and none were 

found in SRS impingement studies (Muska and Matthews 1983), despite the fact that, as 

discussed above, the SRS intakes had much higher withdrawal rates than the VEGP intake.

Furthermore, it is unlikely that healthy adult shortnose sturgeon would be impinged given the 

low through-screen velocity at the VEGP intake (0.7 fps at average river flow [SNC 2007a]) and 

the adaptation of the sturgeon to swimming in a riverine habitat with swift currents. 

Entrainment and impingement data collected at another nuclear power facility in Georgia also 

are relevant to the evaluation of the effects of these processes on the shortnose sturgeon at 

VEGP. The Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP) is similar to VEGP in that it also has two 

reactors (Units 1 and 2), uses a closed-cycle cooling system with cooling towers, and withdraws 

makeup water for the cooling system from a single intake structure on a river. It is located on 

the Altamaha River, which also supports a shortnose sturgeon population that spawns upstream 

of the facility. The water velocity through the HNP intake screens is 1.9 ft/sec (58 cm/sec) 

under normal conditions of pumping and river flow (NRC 2000). This is substantially higher than 

the corresponding velocity through the VEGP intake screens of 0.7 ft/sec (SNC 2007a). No 

sturgeon larvae were found in entrainment samples from the first two years of HNP Unit 1 

operation (1975 and 1976) or the first year of combined HNP Unit 1 and Unit 2 operation (1980). 

 Furthermore, no sturgeon were collected in impingement samples during the first five years of 

operation (1975 through 1980), and no impinged adults have been collected during operation of 

the facility subsequently (NRC 2000). Given the similarity of HNP to VEGP and the greater 

intake velocity at HNP, the lack of shortnose sturgeon entrainment and impingement at HNP 

provides evidence that these potential causes of mortality also are negligible at VEGP.

The lines of evidence discussed above indicate that the potential for shortnose sturgeon eggs, 

larvae, juveniles, or adults to be present at the VEGP intake and subject to entrainment or 

impingement is very low. Based on the small proportion of river water that is withdrawn by 

VEGP Units 1 and 2 due to their closed-cycle cooling system design, the low through-screen 

intake velocity, the existence of spawning sites downstream of the site as well as upstream 

within the middle Savannah River, the affinity of shortnose sturgeon eggs and larvae for the 

river bottom and main channel, and the lack of entrainment or impingement of shortnose 

sturgeon recorded at other facilities on the Savannah and Altamaha Rivers, the Staff finds that 

entrainment or impingement at the VEGP CWIS are not likely to adversely affect the shortnose 

sturgeon population of the Savannah River. 

 3.3.3 Thermal Effects 

The effluent from the cooling water system for VEGP Units 1 and 2 is discharged into the 

Savannah River downriver of the CWIS. The NRC staff performed a thermal impact 

assessment as part of its evaluation of the potential impacts associated with the proposed 

VEGP Units 3 and 4. Because Units 3 and 4 would produce a thermal discharge very similar to 

that of Units 1 and 2, the results of the evaluation are applicable to Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2007b). 
Appendix E 

December 2008 E-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

The assessment used the CORMIX model to estimate the size and temperature of the thermal 

plume from the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 as well as the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4.

Assuming conservative conditions (including minimum river temperatures, maximum discharge 

temperatures, and combining the total effluent from all four VEGP reactor units at a single 

discharge), the greatest distance the isotherm representing 5oF (2.8oC) above ambient was 

estimated to extend downstream from the outfall was 97 ft (29.6 m). The isotherm curved 

downstream with the flow (NRC 2007b).

The maximum width of the 5oF isotherm was 15 ft (4.6 m), and under average flow conditions, 

the plume was substantially smaller (NRC 2007b). At the proposed location of the Units 3 and 4 

outfall, the Savannah River was approximately 312 ft (95.1 m) wide at the Drought Level 3 flow 

rate. Compared to the width of the river, these results indicate that the size of the thermal 

plume from the combined effluent discharge would be small. Thus, the thermal plume from the 

existing discharge from Units 1 and 2 would be smaller and should not impede passage of 

shortnose sturgeon up and down the river. There are no physical features of the river channel 

in this area that would prevent sturgeon and other organisms from avoiding the elevated 

temperatures of the thermal plume as they pass through this part of the river (NRC 2007b). The 

1983 BA that evaluated the effects of the SRS L-Reactor on the shortnose sturgeon similarly 

concluded that passage upstream and downstream was not blocked by thermal effluents from 

the L-Reactor discharge (Muska and Matthews 1983).

A thermal plume may cause heat shock to fish when the water temperature exceeds the thermal 

tolerance of the fish. The occurrence of heat shock also is affected by the duration of exposure 

to high water temperatures. Fish thermoregulate by avoiding extreme temperatures and 

seeking optimal temperatures (Beyers and Rice 2002). Thus, adult fish can avoid adverse 

effects from the limited area of the plume. Although it is possible that larvae drifting 

downstream near the discharge could enter the thermal plume, the small width of the plume 

within the river channel minimizes the likelihood that larvae may experience high temperatures 

for sufficient duration to cause substantial mortality.

Cold shock is another factor related to thermal discharges that may affect aquatic biota. Cold 

shock occurs when aquatic animals that have been acclimated to warm water, such as fish in a 

power plant's discharge canal, are suddenly exposed to a temperature decrease. Such a 

situation could occur when a single-unit power plant shuts down suddenly in winter. According 

to the GEIS (NRC 1996), cold shock mortalities at nuclear power plants in the United States are 

"relatively rare" and typically involve small numbers of fish. Cold shock is less likely to occur at 

a plant such as VEGP that has multiple reactor units because the temperature decrease from 

shutting down one unit is moderated by the heated discharge from the unit that continues to 

operate. Cold shock also is less likely when the discharge is to a river and the volume of the 

discharge in comparison to the flow of the river is very small, as is the case at VEGP (NRC 

2007b).
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-68 December 2008 

Based on this analysis, the Staff concludes that thermal discharges from VEGP Units 1 and 2 

would not be likely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon population in the Savannah River.

 3.3.4 Chemical Toxicity Effects 

Shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River at or downstream of the site potentially could be 

affected by VEGP operations as a result of the discharge of chemical constituents to surface 

water of the river. These chemicals include those that are used in the cooling towers, heat 

exchangers, cooling systems, and sewage treatment system. The facility’s cooling water is 

treated with several chemicals to control biofouling, corrosion, and scaling. The concentrations 

in the discharge are much lower than the median lethal concentration (LC50) for each chemical. 

The chemical concentrations are then reduced much further by dilution in the river (NRC 

2007b).

The use of chemicals in VEGP Units 1 and 2 is regulated by the facility’s NPDES permit, which 

is administered by the GDNR. The chemical concentrations at the outfall meet the NPDES 

limits, and no impacts to the aquatic ecology of the Savannah River from these chemicals have 

been observed. Other than the systems noted above, none of the reactor systems have effluent 

streams that contain chemicals or biocides, and no change in operations is anticipated. Thus, 

toxic effects from discharged chemicals would not be likely to adversely affect the shortnose 

sturgeon population of the Savannah River during the renewal period (NRC 2007b). 

3.4 Summary of Shortnose Sturgeon Impacts

The potential for the operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2 to have adverse effects on the shortnose 

sturgeon was evaluated by the Staff based on multiple lines of evidence regarding water 

withdrawal from the Savannah River, entrainment and impingement at the cooling water intake, 

thermal effects in the river from the effluent discharge, and chemical toxicity from the discharge. 

The evaluation determined that the potential for each of these factors to substantially impact the 

shortnose sturgeon population of the Savannah River was minimal. Given that compliance with 

existing water use agreements is expected and that no change in operations is anticipated, the 

shortnose sturgeon is unlikely to be adversely affected by continued operation of VEGP Units 1 

and 2 during the renewal period.

4.0 Conclusions

The NRC Staff reviewed information from the site audit, VEGP’s Environmental Report, other 

reports, and information from the NMFS. The Staff identified the endangered shortnose 

sturgeon as the only Federally listed species under NMFS jurisdiction that may be present in the 

vicinity and potentially affected by the VEGP site. The staff has evaluated this species, its 

known distribution and available habitat, the potential effects of the operation of VEGP on the 
Appendix E 

December 2008 E-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

species, and programs and procedures that VEGP employs to protect the species. Based on 

this analysis, the Staff has determined that an additional 20 years of operation and maintenance 

of VEGP and associated transmission lines and ROWs is not likely to adversely affect the 

shortnose sturgeon population of the Savannah River.

5.0 References 

16 U.S.C. Section 1531 to 1544. “Endangered Species Act of 1973” (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 

Stat. 884), as amended. Public Law 93-205, approved December 28, 1973. 

32 FR 4001. Secretary of the Interior. “Native Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species.” Federal 

Register Notice. March 11, 1967. 

66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System:

Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities." Federal Register.

Beyers, D. W. and J. A. Rice. 2002. Evaluating Stress in Fish Using Bioenergetics-Based 

Stressor-Response Models. Chapter 8 in Biological Indicators of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress, S. 

M. Adams, ed. American Fisheries Society. 

Dadswell, M. J., B. D. Taubert, T. S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. 1984. “Synopsis of 

Biological Data on Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818.” NOAA 

Technical Report NMFS 14. National Marine Fisheries Service. October.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System – Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at 

Phase II Existing Facilities.” Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 131. July 9, 2004.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007. List of Surface Water Permittees.

Accessed at http://www.gaepd.org/Files_PDF/regcomm/wpb/swdmuind.pdf on December 24, 

2007.

Marcy, B.C., D. E. Fletcher, F.D. Martin, M.H. Paller, and M.J.M. Reichert. 2005. Fishes of the 

Middle Savannah River Basin with Emphasis on the Savannah River Site. The University of 

Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. 

McFarlane R.W., R.F. Frietsche and R.D. Miracle. 1978. Impingement and Entrainment of 

Fishes at the Savannah River Plant. An NPDES 316b Demonstration. DP-1494, E.I. Du Pont 

DE Nemours and Company, Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina.

Meyer J., M. Alber, W. Duncan, M Freeman, C. Hale, R. Jackson, C. Jennings, M. Palta, 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-70 December 2008 

Meyer J., M. Alber, W. Duncan, M Freeman, C. Hale, R. Jackson, C. Jennings, M. Palta, 

E. Richardson, R. Sharitz, J. Sheldon, and R Weyers. 2003. Summary Report Supporting the 

Development of Ecosystem Flow Recommendations for the Savannah River below Thurmond 

Dam. Summary Report 6/03. University of Georgia, River Basin Center. Accessed at: 

http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/publications/pdf/summaryreport.pdf on January 2, 2008. 

Muska, C.F. and R.A. Matthews. 1983. Biological Assessment for the Shortnose Sturgeon, 

Acipenser brevirostrum, LeSueur 1818, The Savannah River Plant. DPST-83-754. E.I. du Pont 

de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, SC. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon

(Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pages.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006. Biennial Report to Congress on the 

Recovery Program for Threatened and Endangered Species, October 1, 2004 – September 30, 

2006. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Accessed at 

http://nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/esabiennial2006.pdf on February 6, 2008.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Letter from D. M. Bernhart, Assistant 

Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, to R. Franovich, Branch Chief, 

Environmental Branch B, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

NRC, Washington, DC. Response to letter of August 22, 2007 from NRC requesting information 

on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species, critical habitat, and designated essential 

fish habitat in the vicinity of VEGP and its associated transmission line corridors. September 

11.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2007. “Shortnose Sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum).” Office of Protected Resources, NOAA Fisheries. Accessed at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm on December 31, 2007. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1985. Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

Operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1087, Washington, DC. 

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Biological Assessment of the Potential Impact 

on Shortnose Sturgeon Resulting from an Additional 20 Years of Operation of the Edwin I. 

Hatch Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. In Appendix E of the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2

(NUREG 1437, Supplement 4), May 2001. 
Appendix E 

December 2008 E-71 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007a. Letter to Mr. David Bernhart, National Marine 

Fisheries Service Regarding Request for a List of Protected Species and Essential Fish Habitat 

Within the Area under Evaluation for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

License Renewal Application Review. August 22. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007b. Draft Environmental Impact Statement For the 

Early Site Permit for Two Additional Reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Docket 

Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Georgia Power Company, et al. Washington, D.C. August. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Issuance of amendments regarding 

measurement uncertainty recapture, power uprate for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2. Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425. February. ML080350347 

Paller M.H., B.M. Soul, and D.V. Osteen. 1986. Distribution and Abundance of Ichthyoplankton 

in the Mid-Reaches of the Savannah River and Selected Tributaries. DPST-86-798 ECS-SR27. Prepared for E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company. Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, 

South Carolina. 

Paller M.H. 1992. Influence of Savannah River Discharge and Changing SRS Cooling Water 

Requirements on the Potential Entrainment of Ichthyoplankton at the SRS Savannah River 

Intakes. WSRC-RP-92-1 001. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, South Carolina. 

2008.

Reed, M. B., M. T. Swanson, S. Gaither, J. W. Joseph, and W. R. Henry. 2002. Savannah

River Site at Fifty. U. S. Government Printing Office. Accessed at:

www.srs.gov/general/about/50anniv/50anniv.htm on February 5, 2008.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2006a. "Cooling Water Blowdown Thermal 

Discharge Analysis for Plant Vogtle Early Site Permit Facility." Southern Company, 

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML063000221. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2006b. Vogtle Electric Generating PlantUnits 1 and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 13. Burke County, Georgia.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007a. Applicant’s Environmental Report – 

Operating License Renewal Stage, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. Docket 

Numbers 50-424 and 50-425. June.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC). 2007b. Enclosure 2 to NL-07-2097.

Monthly Surface Water Withdrawal Reports, 2006. Contained in: Letter from Tom Tynan, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding 

Docket Numbers 50-424 and 50-425: Supplementary Environmental Information to Support the 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 E-72 December 2008 

Application for Renewed Operating License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2. 

NL-07-2097. November 5, 2007. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1996. Water Control Manual: Hartwell, Richard B 

Russell, and J. Strom Thurmond Projects. Savannah River Basin, Savannah River District, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. Drought Contingency Plan Update: Savannah 

River Basin. Draft Environmental Assessment. Mobile/Savannah Planning Center, Savannah

River District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia. 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. Concepts of the Savannah River Basin 

Drought Contingency Plan. Accessed at http://water.sas.usace.army.mil/drought/dcp.cfm on 

December 24, 2007. 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Savannah Water Control Home Page, 

Drought Information, Lake Levels and Projections, Thurmond. Accessed at: 

http://water.sas.usace.army.mil/cf/KavaPlot/KPlot.cfm on March 4, 2008. 

University of Georgia (UGA) Carl Vinson Institute of Government. 2006. Balancing Insteam 

and Offstream Uses: Instream Flows, Surface Storage and Aquifer Management. A Report to 

the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Athens, Georgia. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007a. Savannah River Flow near Augusta, Georgia.

Accessed at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv on December 24, 2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007b. Drought Watch - USGS State Information on Drought. 

 Accessed at http://water.usgs.gov/waterwatch on September 14, 2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007c. Savannah River Flow near Waynesboro, Georgia.

Accessed at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv/ on December 4, 2007. 

Wike, L. D. 1998. “Potential Effect of Increased SRS River Water Withdrawal on the Savannah 

River Shortnose Sturgeon Population.” WSRC-TR-98-00424. Westinghouse Savannah River 

Company, Aiken, South Carolina. 
Appendix F

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable 

to Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

December 2008 F-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Appendix F 

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable 

to Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Table F-1 lists those environmental issues listed in the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NRC 1996, 1999)(a) and 10 CFR 

Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are not applicable to Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2 (VEGP) because of plant or site characteristics. 

Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to VEGP 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1

Category GEIS 

Sections Comment

SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Impacts of refurbishment on surface 

water use and quality 

1 3.4.1 VEGP does not plan on 

refurbishment. 

Altered salinity gradients 1 4.2.1.2.2, 

4.4.2 

VEGP does not discharge to 

saltwater. 

Altered thermal stratification of lakes 1 4.2.1.2.3, 

4.4.2.2 

VEGP does not discharge 

into a lake. 

Water use conflicts (plants with oncethrough cooling systems) 1 4.2.1.3 VEGP does not have a oncethrough cooling system. 

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Refurbishment impacts to aquatic 

resources 

1 3.5 VEGP does not plan on 

refurbishment. 

 

(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.
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 F-2 December 2008 

Table F-1. (cont’d) 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1

Category GEIS 

Sections Comment

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR PLANTS WITH ONCE-THROUGH AND COOLING POND HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS) 

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early 

life stages 

2 4.2.2.1.2, 

4.4.3 

This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are 

not installed at VEGP. 

Impingement of fish and shellfish 2 4.2.2.1.3, 

4.4.3 

This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are 

not installed at VEGP. 

Heat shock 2 4.2.2.1.4, 

4.4.4 

This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are 

not installed at VEGP. 

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Impacts of refurbishment on groundwater 

use and quality 

1 3.4.2 VEGP does not plan on 

refurbishment. 

Groundwater use conflicts (potable and 

service water, and dewatering; plants that 

use < 100 gpm) 

1 4.8.1.1, 

4.8.1.2 

VEGP does not use <100 

gpm of groundwater for any 

purpose. 

Groundwater-use conflicts (Ranney wells) 2 4.8.1.4 VEGP does not have or use 

Ranney wells. 

Groundwater quality degradation 

(Ranney wells) 

1 4.8.2.2 VEGP does not have or use 

Ranney wells. 

Groundwater quality degradation 

(saltwater intrusion) 

1 4.8.2.1 VEGP is not located in a 

coastal region. 

Groundwater quality degradation (cooling 

ponds in salt marshes) 

1 4.8.3 VEGP does not use cooling 

ponds. 

Groundwater quality degradation (cooling 

ponds at inland sites) 

2 4.8.3 VEGP does not use cooling 

ponds. 
Appendix F 

December 2008 F-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table F-1. (cont’d) 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, Table B-1

Category GEIS 

Sections Comment

HUMAN HEALTH

Radiation exposures to the public during 

refurbishment 

1 3.8.1 VEGP does not plan on 

refurbishment. 

Occupational radiation exposure during 

refurbishment 

1 3.8.2 VEGP does not plan on 

refurbishment. 

Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects NA 4.5.4.2 NRC categorization and 

impact-findings definitions do 

not apply. 

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Refurbishment impacts to terrestrial 

resources 

2 3.6 VEGP does not plan on 

refurbishment. 

Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial 

resources 

1 4.4.4 This issue is related to a 

heat-dissipation system that 

is not installed at VEGP. 

AIR QUALITY

Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and maintenance areas) 2 3.3 VEGP does not plan on 

refurbishment. 

SOCIOECONOMICS

Public services: education 

(refurbishment) 

2 3.7.4.1 VEGP does not plan on 

refurbishment. 

Off-site land use (refurbishment) 2 3.7.5 VEGP does not plan on 

refurbishment. 

Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 1 3.7.8 VEGP does not plan on 

refurbishment. 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 F-4 December 2008 

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.” 

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, DC. 

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, DC.
Appendix G 

Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) 

for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

December 2008 G-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Appendix G 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Evaluation of 

Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) for 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 in 

Support of License Renewal Application Review 

G.1 Introduction

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) submitted an assessment of severe accident 

mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 1 and 2 

as part of the environmental report (ER) (SNC 2007a). This assessment was based on the 

most recent VEGP probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) available at that time, a plant-specific 

offsite consequence analysis performed using the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code 

System 2 (MACCS2) computer code, and insights from the VEGP individual plant examination 

(IPE) (SNC 1992) and individual plant examination of external events (IPEEE) (SNC 1995). In 

identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs, SNC considered SAMA candidates that addressed 

the major contributors to core damage frequency (CDF) and population dose at VEGP, as well 

as SAMA candidates for other operating plants which have submitted license renewal 

applications. SNC identified 16 potential SAMA candidates. This list was reduced to 12 unique 

SAMAs by eliminating SAMAs that were determined to provide no measurable benefit or have 

estimated costs that would exceed the dollar value associated with completely eliminating all 

severe accident risk at VEGP. SNC assessed the costs and benefits associated with each of 

the potential SAMAs, and concluded that several of the candidate SAMAs evaluated are 

potentially cost-beneficial. 

Based on a review of the SAMA assessment, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

issued a request for additional information (RAI) to SNC by letter dated October 24, 2007 

(NRC 2007). Key questions concerned: major plant and modeling changes incorporated within 

each evolution of the PRA model; justification for the multiplier used for external events; reactor 

core inventory and population data used in the Level 2 analysis; and further information on 

several specific candidate SAMAs and low cost alternatives. SNC submitted additional 

information by letters dated December 20, 2007 (SNC 2007b) and February 1, 2008 

(SNC 2008). In the responses, SNC provided: additional information regarding the PRA model 

development and resultant changes to dominant risk contributors to CDF; additional justification 

for the treatment of external events; clarification regarding the reactor core inventory and 

population data; and additional information regarding several specific SAMAs. Additionally, 

SNC provided results of a revised SAMA analysis (including updated population dose and 

SAMA benefit estimates) based on several corrections/changes to the SAMA analysis contained 

in the ER. SNC’s responses and revised SAMA analysis addressed the NRC staff’s concerns. 

 

An assessment of SAMAs for VEGP is presented below. 
Appendix G 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-2 December 2008 

G.2 Estimate of Risk for VEGP

SNC’s estimates of offsite risk at VEGP are summarized in Section G.2.1. The summary is 

followed by the NRC staff’s review of SNC’s risk estimates in Section G.2.2. 

G.2.1 SNC’s Risk Estimates

Two distinct analyses are combined to form the basis for the risk estimates used in the SAMA 

analysis: (1) the VEGP Level 1 and 2 PRA model, which is an updated version of the IPE 

(SNC 1992), and (2) a supplemental analysis of offsite consequences and economic impacts 

(essentially a Level 3 PRA model) developed specifically for the SAMA analysis. The SAMA 

analysis is based on the most recent VEGP Level 1 and Level 2 PRA model available at the 

time of the ER, referred to as the VEGL2UP PRA. Subsequent to the ER, the SAMA analysis 

was revised in response to NRC staff RAIs (SNC 2007b). The scope of the VEGP PRA does 

not include external events. 

The baseline CDF for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is approximately 1.55 x 10-5 per year. 

The CDF is based on the risk assessment for internally-initiated events, which includes internal 

flooding. SNC did not include the contribution from external events within the VEGP risk 

estimates; however, it did account for the potential risk reduction benefits associated with 

external events by effectively doubling the estimated benefits for internal events. This is 

discussed further in Sections G.2.2 and G.6.2. 

The breakdown of CDF by initiating event is provided in Table G-1. This information was 

provided in response to a staff RAI (SNC 2007b), which also contains a more detailed 

breakdown. As shown in this table, events initiated by station blackout, loss of offsite power, 

and loss of nuclear service water are the dominant contributors to CDF. Anticipated transient 

without scram (ATWS) sequences are insignificant contributors to CDF. 

The Level 2 VEGP PRA model that forms the basis for the SAMA evaluation represents an 

updated version of the original IPE Level 2 model. The current Level 2 model utilizes simplified 

containment event trees (CETs), containing both phenomenological and systemic events, that 

are directly linked with the Level 1 accident sequences and linked fault trees from VEGP PRA 

model Revision 3. The CETs are based on NUREG/CR-6595 (NRC 2004b) and 

WCAP-16341-P (Westinghouse 2005). WCAP-16341-P was developed by the Westinghouse 

Owner’s Group (WOG) with the intent that Level 2 models developed using its methodology 

would meet requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) PRA 

standard (ASME 2002). 
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

Table G-1. VEGP Core Damage Frequency 

Initiating Event CDF 

(Per Year) 

% 

Contribution 

to CDF 

Station Blackout 8.2 x 10-6 54 

Loss of Offsite Power 2.4 x 10-6 16 

Loss of Nuclear Service Water 1.7 x 10-6 11 

LOCA 5.0 x 10-7 3 

Loss of DC Bus 4.3 x 10-7 3 

Loss of 4.16KV Bus 4.0 x 10-7 3 

Loss of Condenser 2.8 x 10-7 2 

Steam Generator Tube Rupture 2.8 x 10-7 2 

Other Transients 2.0 x 10-7 1 

Loss of Feedwater 1.8 x 10-7 1 

Turbine Trip 1.4 x 10-7 <1 

Reactor Trip 1.2 x 10-7 <1 

Spontaneous Reactor Vessel Failure 1.0 x 10-7 <1 

Loss of Seal Injection 9.3 x 10-8 <1 

Secondary Side Steamline Break 8.9 x 10-8 <1 

ATWS 6.2 x 10-8 <1 

Inadvertent SI Injection 6.0 x 10-8 <1 

Interfacing Systems LOCA 3.0 x 10-8 <1 

Loss of ACCW 1.4 x 10-8 <1 

Loss of 120V AC Panels 9.8 x 10-9 <1 

Loss of Instrument Air 3.7 x 10-9 <1 

Total CDF (internal events) 1.55 x 10-5 100 

The result of the Level 2 model is a set of eleven release categories with their respective 

frequency and release characteristics. The categories were defined based on the timing and 

magnitude of the release and whether the containment remains intact or is bypassed. Each 

Level 2 end state was assigned to one of the 11 release categories. The results of this analysis 
Appendix G 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-4 December 2008 

for VEGP are provided in Section F.2.2 of the ER (SNC 2007a). The frequency of each release 

category was obtained by summing the frequency of the individual Level 2 sequences assigned 

to each release category. The release characteristics for the LERF and non-LERF release 

categories are based on Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP) analyses. The release 

categories and their frequencies and release characteristics are presented in Table F.3-2 of the 

ER. 

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 

and release characteristics, site meteorological data, projected population distribution (within an 

80-kilometer (50-mile) radius) for the year 2040, emergency response evacuation modeling, and 

economic data. The magnitude of the onsite impacts (in terms of clean-up and decontamination 

costs and occupational dose) is based on information provided in NUREG/BR -0184 (NRC 

1997a). 

SNC estimated the dose to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the VEGP site to be 

approximately 0.0156 person-sievert (Sv) (1.56 person-rem) per year (SNC 2007b). The 

breakdown of the total population dose by containment release mode is summarized in 

Table G-2. Containment over-pressure failures and containment bypass sequences, such as a 

steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) accidents, are the dominant contributors to population 

dose risk at VEGP. 

Table G-2. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode 

Containment Release Mode Population Dose 

(Person-Rem1

 Per Year) 

% 

Contribution

Intact containment Negligible <1 

Containment isolation failure 0.019 1 

Containment bypass - ISLOCA (early) 0.166 11 

Containment bypass - SGTR (early) 0.337 22 

Containment bypass - SGTR (late) 0.198 13 

Containment over-pressure failure (late) 0.587 37 

Basemat melt-through (late) 0.248 16 

Total CDF 1.56 100 

 1One person-Rem = 0.01 person-Sv 

G.2.2 Review of SNC’s Risk Estimates 

SNC’s determination of offsite risk at VEGP is based on the following major elements of 

analysis: 
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

• The Level 1 and 2 risk models that form the bases for the 1992 IPE submittal (SNC 1992), 

and the external event analyses of the 1995 IPEEE submittal (SNC 1995), 

• The major modifications to the IPE model that have been incorporated in the VEGL2UP 

PRA update, and 

• The MACCS2 analyses performed to translate fission product source terms and release 

frequencies from the Level 2 PRA model into offsite consequence measures. 

Each of these analyses was reviewed to determine the acceptability of SNC’s risk estimates for 

the SAMA analysis, as summarized below. 

The NRC staff's review of the VEGP IPE is described in an NRC report dated April 15, 1996 

(NRC 1996). Based on a review of the IPE submittal and responses to RAIs, the NRC staff 

concluded that the IPE submittal met the intent of GL 88-20 (NRC 1988); that is, the licensee’s 

IPE process is capable of identifying severe accident risk contributors or vulnerabilities. The 

IPE did not identify any severe accident vulnerabilities associated with either core damage or 

poor containment performance. 

Although no vulnerabilities were identified in the IPE, several improvements to plant procedures 

were identified. These improvements have been implemented (SNC 2007a). 

There have been five revisions to the IPE model since the 1992 IPE submittal, including a 1998 

change (Revision 0) in modeling techniques and software, an extensive revision of the model in 

2006 (Revision 3) in partial response to the WOG peer review, and a revision in 2006 

(VEGPL2UP) that includes the first major update of the full Level 2 model since the IPE. The 

VEGPL2UP model reflects the VEGP configuration and design as of August 2004, but SNC 

indicated that no major physical plant or procedure changes have occurred since that time and 

the model reflects the current as-built, as-operated condition of the plant. A comparison of 

internal events CDF between the 1992 IPE and the current PRA model indicates a decrease of 

approximately 70 percent (from 4.9 x 10-5 per year to 1.55 x 10-5 per year). SNC attributes the 

decrease to a reduction in transient event frequency and crediting the switchyard of plant Wilson 

for alternate AC power source. A comparison of the contributors to the total CDF indicates that 

some have increased while others have decreased. A summary listing of those changes that 

resulted in the greatest impact on the internal events CDF was provided in response to a staff 

request for additional information and is summarized in Table G-3 (SNC 2007b). 

The CDF value from the 1992 IPE submittal (4.9 x 10-5 per year, including a contribution from 

internal flooding events of less than 2 x 10-11 per year) is near the average of the CDF values 

reported in the IPEs for PWR plants with dry containments. Figure 11.2 of NUREG-1560 shows 

that the IPE-based total internal events for these plants ranges from 9 x 10-8 to 8 x 10-5 per year, 

with an average CDF for the group of 2 x 10-5 per year (NRC 1997b). 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 event CDF result for VEGP 

(1.55 x 10-5 per year, including internal flooding) is comparable to that for other plants of similar 

vintage and characteristics. 
Appendix G 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-6 December 2008 

Table G-3. VEGP PRA Historical Summary 

PRA Version Summary of Changes from Prior Model CDF 

(per year) 

1992 

IPE 

IPE Submittal 4.90 x 10-5

1998 

Revision 0 

- Added credit for Plant Wilson (SBO recovery) 

- Added of maintenance basic events to facilitate maintenance 

rule (MR) analysis 

- Modularized some sub-fault trees, removed unused logic, and 

corrected minor errors 

3.62 x 10-5

1999 

Revision 1 

- Enhanced treatment of operator action dependency, removed 

circular logic, and corrected minor errors 

Not 

Reported 

2000 

Revision 2 

- Updated plant-specific failure data for initiating event 

frequencies, component failure, and maintenance unavailabilities 

using data collected up to 1998 

- Added new WOG-identified RCP seal LOCA failure modes 

- Improved recovery tree for recovery analysis 

1.48 x 10-5

2001 

Revision 2c 

- Updated initiating event frequencies using recent generic data 

source (NRC 1999) 

- Removed some SGTR scenarios as LERF scenarios 

- Removed circular logic in normal charging pump fault trees 

- Enhanced DC support fault tree for emergency diesel 

generators 

- Resolved some Level B Facts and Observations (F&Os) from 

WOG PRA peer review 

- Removed small size containment penetrations (2 to 4@ in 

diameter) from LERF logic 

1.60 x 10-5

2006 

Revision 3 

- Resolved remaining Level B F&Os from WOG peer review 

- Incorporated plant changes (design and procedural) through 

the end of 2004 

- Redefined initiating events definitions (internal events) to better 

reflect VEGP-specific situations 

- Revised event trees based on latest VEGP procedures and 

MAAP analyses 

- Modeled SBO using 5 different event trees depending on RCP 

seal leak rates and stuck open pressurizer (PZR) valves 

- Developed fully integrated event tree/fault tree models for 

Interfacing System LOCAs 

1.28 x 10-5
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

PRA Version Summary of Changes from Prior Model CDF 

(per year) 

- Updated the frequency of VEGP initiating events using VEGP 

event data collected for the period 1995-2004 and NRC data 

- Updated maintenance unavailability of major components using 

data collected from the beginning of the implementation of 

maintenance rule through the end of 2004 

- Updated common cause failure probabilities using alpha factors 

from VEGP-specific common cause failure analysis 

- Updated human error probabilities using EPRI HRA Calculator 

and enhanced the treatment of dependency among operator 

actions 

2006 

VEGPL2UP 

- Developed full level 2 fault tree modeling using direct Level1 

and Level 2 logic coupling (WCAP-16341-P) 

- Added containment penetrations (2 to 4@ in diameter) back to 

containment isolation failure tree for LERF 

- Corrected RCP seal failure probabilities 

1.55 x 10-5

The CDF used in the SAMA analysis is based on the risk assessment for internally-initiated 

events for Unit 1. In response to an RAI, SNC stated that the CDF for Unit 2 is the same as the 

Unit 1 CDF since there is essentially no difference in the design and operation of Units 1 and 2 

(SNC 2007b). 

The NRC staff considered the peer reviews performed for the VEGP PRA, and the potential 

impact of the review findings on the SAMA evaluation. In the ER (SNC 2007a) and in response 

to an NRC staff RAI (SNC 2007b), SNC described the peer review by the WOG of VEGP PRA 

Revision 2c. SNC noted that there were no type “A” findings and observations (F&O) and that 

all type “B” F&Os from the WOG Peer Review have been addressed and incorporated into 

Revision 3 to the PRA, upon which the VEGPL2UP model is based. SNC also noted that the 

VEGPL2UP model has been reviewed by an external contractor and reviewed independently by 

the SNC PRA team. 

Given that the VEGP internal events PRA model has been peer-reviewed and the peer review 

findings were all addressed, and that SNC has satisfactorily addressed NRC staff questions 

regarding the PRA, the NRC staff concludes that the internal events Level 1 PRA model is of 

sufficient quality to support the SAMA evaluation. 

As indicated above, the current VEGP PRA does not include external events. In the absence of 

such an analysis, SNC used the VEGP IPEEE to identify the highest risk accident sequences 

and the potential means of reducing the risk posed by those sequences, as discussed below. 

The VEGP IPEEE was submitted in November 1995 (SNC 1995), in response to Supplement 4 

of Generic Letter 88-20. This submittal included a seismic margin analysis, a fire PRA, and a 
Appendix G 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-8 December 2008 

screening analysis for other external events. No fundamental weaknesses or vulnerabilities to 

severe accident risk in regard to external events were identified. No seismic, fire, high winds, 

external floods or other external hazard improvements were identified. In a letter dated 

December 18, 2000, the NRC staff concluded that the submittal met the intent of Supplement 4 

to Generic Letter 88-20, and that the licensee’s IPEEE process is capable of identifying the 

most likely severe accidents and severe accident vulnerabilities (NRC 2000). 

The VEGP IPEEE used a focused scope Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) seismic 

margins analysis. This method is qualitative and does not provide numerical estimates of the 

CDF contributions from seismic initiators (EPRI 1991). For this assessment, a detailed 

walkdown was performed in which components were screened using an overall high confidence 

of low probability of failure (HCLPF) capacity of 0.3g, the review level earthquake (RLE) value 

for the plant, and the screening level that would be used for a focused-scope plant. The 

analysis identified 24 equipment open items for each unit, mostly seismic interaction issues. 

Corrective actions for 46 of the 48 items have been completed while the remaining 2 items were 

further evaluated and determined to require no further action (SNC 1998). 

The VEGP IPEEE used a scenario-based PRA approach that assessed the risk of core damage 

induced by fire and smoke hazards in all important plant locations. This approach met the intent 

of NUREG-1407 (NRC 1991). The analysis was performed in a two phase approach consisting 

of a spatial interactions analysis and a detailed analysis. In the spatial interactions phase, plant 

locations (fire zones) were identified and qualitative screening was performed on the basis of 

functional considerations combined with the absence of fire propagation pathways from the fire 

zone. Fire and smoke hazard location and propagation scenarios were then developed for each 

initially unscreened fire zone and quantitative screening was performed based on estimates of 

core damage frequency, in which all plant components and cabling located in each zone were 

assumed to be damaged. In the second phase of the analysis, a detailed analysis was 

performed for the location scenarios retained from the first phase of the analysis. The detailed 

analysis phase included the development of sub-scenarios, assessment of frequency reduction 

factors, and relaxation of overly conservative assumptions. 

The total fire CDF from the IPEEE was estimated to be 1.01 x 10-5 per year (SNC 2007a). The 

plant-specific data and model reflect the plant configuration as of October 1993 and is based on 

Revision 1 of the Vogtle IPE internal events PRA. In response to an RAI, SNC provided 

information on three additional fire scenarios evaluated in the IPEEE, each having a fire CDF of 

less than 1.3 x 10-7 per year (SNC 2007b). The dominant fire scenarios and their contributions 

to the fire CDF are listed in Table G-4. 

In the ER, SNC states that the use of the fire analysis results as a reflection of CDF may be 

inappropriate and that while the fire PRA is generally self-consistent within its calculational 

framework, the fire analysis does not compare well with internal events PRAs because of the 

number of conservative assumptions that have been included in the fire analysis process. The 

ER provides a list of fire analysis topics (involving technical inputs, data and modeling) that 

prevent the effective comparison of the CDF between the internal events PRA and the fire 

analysis. In response to an RAI requesting the applicability of the general topics to the VEGP 

fire analysis (NRC 2007), SNC provided several VEGP-specific examples of conservatisms in 
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

the fire analysis, including: potential reduction in fire ignition frequencies, use of generic fire 

protection system failure rate data, conservative target fire damage assumptions, conservative 

application of generic COMPBRN results, conservative failure probabilities for human recovery 

actions, and guaranteed failure of certain systems (SNC 2007b). Although arguments regarding 

the conservatisms in the fire analysis are presented in the ER and RAI responses, SNC used 

the baseline fire CDF of 1.01 x 10-5 per year in the SAMA analysis rather than some reduced 

value. 

Table G-4. Fire Scenarios and Their Contribution to Fire CDF 

Fire Scenario Fire Area Description CDF 

(per year) 

CONT-46 Main Control Room 1.3 x 10-6

1-CB-LA-G-91-L-F3 Train A 4.16-kV Switchgear Room (small) 7.6 x 10-7

1-CB-LA-H-92-L-01 Train B 4.16-kV Switchgear Room (large) 6.2 x 10-7

1-CB-LA-N-85-L-R2 Level A Corridor and Cable Chase (large) 4.2 x 10-7

1-CB-LA-I-88-L-R2 Train B Electrical Penetration Area (transient) 3.4 x 10-7

1-CB-LA-R-97-L-G1 Train B Electrical Raceway Room (small) 2.3 x 10-7

1-CB-LB-A-73-L-R2 Train A Electrical Mezzanine (transient) 2.0 x 10-7

1-CB-LA-G-91-L-R4 Train A 4.16-kV Switchgear Room (large) 2.0 x 10-7

1-CB-LA-K-95-L-G2 Train A Lower Cable Spreading Room (cable set 1) 1.7 x 10-7

1-CB-LA-K-95-L-G3 Train A Lower Cable Spreading Room (cable set 2) 1.7 x 10-7

1-CB-LB-A-73-L-G1 Train A Electrical Mezzanine (cables) 1.3 x 10-7

1-CB-LA-I-88-L-G1 Train B Electrical Penetration Area (cables) 1.2 x 10-7

1-CB-L2-B-120-L-G2 Train B Cable Spreading Room (cables) 1.1 x 10-7

All other Scenarios 5.4 x 10-6

Total Fire CDF 1.01 x 10-5

The IPEEE analysis of high winds, floods, and other external events followed the screening and 

evaluation approaches described in Supplement 4 of GL 88-20 (NRC 1991) and did not identify 

any significant sequences or vulnerabilities (SNC 1995). Based on this result, SNC concluded 

that these other external hazards would not be expected to impact the conclusions of the SAMA 
Appendix G 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-10 December 2008 

analysis and did not consider specific SAMAs for these events. It is noted that the risks from 

deliberate aircraft impacts were explicitly excluded since this was being considered in other 

forums along with other sources of sabotage. 

Based on the aforementioned results, SNC estimated that the external events CDF is 

comparable to, or no higher than, the internal events CDF. This is based on a fire CDF of 1.01 

x 10-5 per year, which represents just 66 percent of the internal events CDF of 1.55 x 10-5 per 

year, and the argument that fire risk is typically the largest external risk contributor. Accordingly, 

the total CDF from internal and external events would be approximately 2 times the internal 

events CDF. In the SAMA analysis submitted in the ER, SNC doubled the benefit that was 

derived from the internal events model to account for the combined contribution from internal 

and external events. In response to an RAI requesting additional justification for increasing the 

internal events CDF by only a factor of 2, SNC provided arguments related to the conservative 

bias and modeling limitations of the fire analysis, and that the IPEEE identified no potential 

vulnerabilities to external events (SNC 2007b). The NRC staff agrees with the licensee’s overall 

conclusion concerning the impact of external events and concludes that the licensee’s use of a 

multiplier of 2 to account for external events is reasonable for the purposes of the SAMA 

evaluation. 

The NRC staff reviewed the general process used by SNC to translate the results of the Level 1 

PRA into containment releases, as well as the results of the Level 2 analysis, as described in 

the ER and in response to NRC staff requests for additional information (SNC 2007b). The 

Level 2 model utilizes event trees based on NUREG/CR-6595 (NRC 2004b) and 

WCAP-16341-P (Westinghouse 2005), containing both phenomenological and systemic events, 

which are linked directly to the Level 1 event trees. WCAP-16341-P was developed by the 

WOG with the intent that Level 2 models developed using its methodology would meet 

Capability Category II requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 

PRA standard (ASME 2002), which includes the use of plant-specific data and models for the 

dominant contributors to CDF and the ability to identify the relative importance of the dominant 

contributors at the component level. Each Level 1 core damage sequence was evaluated using 

five attributes: (1) is AC power available, (2) is the containment bypassed, (3) is the containment 

isolated, (4) is reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure high or low, and (5) are all steam 

generators wet. After assignment of attributes, the Level 1 sequences were assigned to Level 2 

event sequences using a defined set of logic rules. 

SNC characterized the releases for the spectrum of possible radionuclide release scenarios 

using a set of 11 release categories, defined based on the timing and magnitude of the release 

and whether the containment remains intact or is bypassed. Each Level 2 end state was 

assigned to one of the 11 release categories. The frequency of each release category was 

obtained by summing the frequency of the individual Level 2 sequences assigned to each 

release category. The release characteristics for the LERF and non-LERF release categories 

are based on Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP) analyses. The release categories 

and their frequencies and release characteristics are presented in Table F.3-2 of the ER. 

The NRC staff’s review of the Level 2 IPE concluded that it addressed the most important 

severe accident phenomena normally associated with large, dry containments, and identified no 
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

significant problems or errors (NRC 1996). Based on the NRC staff’s review of the Level 2 

methodology, the fact that the updated Level 2 model was reviewed by an external contractor 

and independently reviewed by the SNC PRA team, and the responses to the RAIs concerning 

the changes to the Level 2 model since the WOG peer review, the NRC staff concludes that the 

Level 2 PRA provides an acceptable basis for evaluating the benefits associated with various 

SAMAs. 

The reactor core radionuclide inventory used in the consequence analysis contained in the ER 

corresponds to the end-of-cycle values for VEGP at 3565 MWt. This was evaluated in 1990 

using the ORIGEN code. All releases were modeled as occurring at ground level, and buoyant 

plume rise was not modeled. SNC assessed the impact of alternatively assuming an elevated 

release and a heated (buoyant) plume. The results of this sensitivity study showed that a 

maximum elevated release produces about a 10 percent increase in population dose-risk, and a 

bounding high plume heat produces about a 14 percent increase in population dose-risk. 

In response to an RAI (SNC 2007b), SNC provided results of a revised SAMA analysis which 

accounted for the planned 1.7 percent power uprate (to 3698 MWt) for VEGP, as well as several 

additional changes to the ER SAMA analysis, as described in Section G.6.1. The results of the 

revised analysis are reflected in the population dose values reported in Table G-2 and in the 

benefit estimates reported later in Table G-5. 

The NRC staff reviewed the process used by SNC to extend the containment performance 

(Level 2) portion of the PRA to an assessment of offsite consequences (essentially a Level 3 

PRA). This included consideration of the source terms used to characterize fission product 

releases for the applicable containment release categories and 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 an 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius for 

the year 2040, emergency evacuation modeling, and economic data. This information is 

provided in Attachment F of the ER. 

SNC used site-specific meteorological data for the 1999 calendar year as input to the MACCS2 

code. The data were collected from the onsite meteorological tower. Data from 1998 through 

2002 were also considered, but the 1999 data were chosen because they were the most 

complete and because results of a MACCS2 sensitivity analysis indicated that the 1999 data 

produced slightly more conservative results than the data sets for the other years. Missing data 

were obtained by either using corresponding data from another level, interpolating if the data 

gap was less than 4 hours, or using data for a similar day/hour from a previous year. The NRC 

staff notes that previous SAMA analyses results have shown little sensitivity to year-to-year 

differences in meteorological data and concludes that the use of the 1999 meteorological data in 

the SAMA analysis is reasonable. 

The population distribution the licensee used as input to the MACCS2 analysis was estimated 

for the year 2040, based on the U.S. Census Bureau population data for 2000, as provided by 

the SECPOP 2000 program (NRC 2003), and the expected annual population growth rate. The 
Appendix G 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-12 December 2008 

baseline population was determined for each of sixteen directions and each of ten concentric 

rings (total of 160 sectors) out to a radius of 50 miles surrounding the site. The transient 

population within 10 miles of the site was included. The county-level census data were used to 

estimate the annual population growth rate for each of the 160 sectors (USCB 2000a and 

2000b). The county population was proportioned within each sector by the fractional area of 

each county within each sector. Population projections were based on the county growth rates, 

with the fraction of each county in each sector determining the sector growth rate. The NRC 

staff considers the methods and assumptions for estimating population reasonable and 

acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 

The emergency evacuation model was modeled as a single evacuation zone extending out 16 

kilometers (10 miles) from the plant. Based on information in the ER and in response to an RAI 

(SNC 2007b), it was assumed that 95 percent of the population would evacuate. This 

assumption is conservative relative to the NUREG-1150 study (NRC 1990), which assumed 

evacuation of 99.5 percent of the population within the emergency planning zone (EPZ). The 

evacuation time used in the SAMA analysis was based on a projection for the year 2040. The 

evacuation speed for year 2010 was estimated to be approximated 3.2 meters per second with 

a delayed start time of 42 minutes. This speed is derived from the time to evacuate the entire 

EPZ under adverse weather conditions for the year 2010, which is the year for which the 

evacuation time estimate was performed (IEM 2006). The evacuation speed was projected to 

year 2040 by assuming that year 2010 traffic was at maximum throughput and no new roads 

would be constructed. The 2040 evacuation speed was estimated to be 2.2 meters per second, 

based on the 2010 speed multiplied by the ratio of the 2010 to 2040 populations within the EPZ. 

A sensitivity analysis was performed in which the evacuation speed was not adjusted to year 

2040 (i.e., the speed was increased from 2.2 to 3.2 meters/second). The result was a 1 percent 

decrease in the total population dose, which is insignificant (SNC 2007a). The NRC staff 

concludes that the evacuation assumptions and analysis are reasonable and acceptable for the 

purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 

Much of the site-specific economic data was provided from SECPOP2000 (NRC 2003) by 

specifying the data for each of the counties surrounding the plant to a distance of 50 miles. 

SECPOP2000 utilizes economic data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture (USDA 1998). 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. Some of this data was 

adjusted using cost escalation factor of 1.84. This was applied to parameters describing the 

cost of evacuating and relocating people, land decontamination, and property condemnation. 

The scaling factor is taken from the U.S. department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

Inflation Calculator from year 1984 to 2006. Other escalation factors (e.g., farm and non-farm 

wealth for the area surrounding VEGP) were similarly extrapolated based on the reference year 

of the data. In response to an RAI (SNC 2007b), the farm wealth escalation factor was 

identified as being in error in the original SAMA analysis and was corrected in the revised SAMA 

analysis. 

In response to another RAI (SNC 2007b), SNC addressed the impact on the SAMA analysis of 

three recently reported problems with SECPOP2000. These errors are: (1) inconsistency in the 

format in which several economic parameters were output from the SECPOP2000 code and 
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

input to the MACCS2 code, (2) an error that resulted in use of agricultural/economic data for the 

wrong counties in the SECPOP2000 calculations, and (3) an error that resulted in the economic 

data for some counties being handled incorrectly. (The first of these errors was identified prior 

to the ER but not fully reflected in the baseline risk estimates provided in the ER. The two 

remaining errors were identified subsequent to the ER.) The results of a revised SAMA analysis 

reflecting these corrections was provided in response to the RAI. 

The NRC staff concludes that the methodology used by SNC to estimate the offsite 

consequences for VEGP provides an acceptable basis from which to proceed with an 

assessment of risk reduction potential for candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the NRC staff based 

its assessment of offsite risk on the CDF and revised offsite doses reported by SNC. 

G.3 Potential Plant Improvements

The process for identifying potential plant improvements, an evaluation of that process, and the 

improvements evaluated in detail by SNC are discussed in this section. 

G.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Plant Improvements 

SNC's process for identifying potential plant improvements (SAMAs) consisted of the following 

elements: 

• Review of the most significant basic events from the current, plant-specific PRA, 

• Review of potential plant improvements identified in the VEGP IPE and IPEEE, 

• Review of dominant fire areas from the fire analysis and SAMAs that could potentially 

reduce the associated fire risk, 

• Review of Phase II SAMAs from license renewal applications for six other U.S. nuclear sites, 

and 

• Review of other industry documentation discussing potential plant improvements. 

Based on this process, an initial set of 16 candidate SAMAs, referred to as Phase I SAMAs, was 

identified. In Phase I of the evaluation, SNC performed a qualitative screening of the initial list 

of SAMAs and eliminated SAMAs from further consideration using the following criteria: 

• The SAMA was determined to provide no measurable benefit, or 

• The SAMA has estimated costs that would exceed the dollar value associated with 

completely eliminating all severe accident risk at VEGP. 

Based on this screening, 4 SAMAs were eliminated leaving 12 for further evaluation. The 

remaining SAMAs, referred to as Phase II SAMAs, are listed in Table F.6-1 of the ER (SNC 
Appendix G 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-14 December 2008 

2007a). In Phase II, a detailed evaluation was performed for each of the 12 remaining SAMA 

candidates, as discussed in Sections G.4 and G.6 below. To account for the potential impact of 

external events, the estimated benefits based on internal events were multiplied by a factor of 2. 

G.3.2 Review of SNC’s Process 

SNC’s efforts to identify potential SAMAs focused primarily on areas associated with internal 

initiating events, but also included explicit consideration of potential SAMAs for fire events. The 

initial list of SAMAs generally addressed the accident sequences considered to be important to 

CDF from functional, initiating event, and risk reduction worth (RRW) perspectives at VEGP, 

and included selected SAMAs from prior SAMA analyses for other plants. 

SNC provided a tabular listing of the PRA basic events sorted according to their RRW 

(SNC 2007a). SAMAs impacting these basic events would have the greatest potential for 

reducing risk. SNC used a RRW cutoff of 1.02, which corresponds to about a two percent 

change in CDF given 100-percent reliability of the SAMA. This equates to a benefit of 

approximately $20,000 (after the benefits have been multiplied to account for external events). 

SNC also provided and reviewed the large early release frequency (LERF)-based RRW events 

down to a RRW of 1.02. SNC correlated the basic events with highest risk importance in the 

Level 1 and 2 PRA with the SAMAs evaluated in Phase I or Phase II, and showed that, with a 

few exceptions, all of the significant basic events are addressed by one or more SAMAs 

(SNC 2007a). Of the basic events of high risk importance that are not addressed by SAMAs, 

each is closely tied to other basic events that had been addressed by one or more SAMAs. 

For a number of the Phase II SAMAs listed in the ER, the information provided did not 

sufficiently describe the proposed modification. Therefore, the NRC staff asked the applicant to 

provide more detailed descriptions of the modifications for several of the Phase II SAMA 

candidates (NRC 2007). In response to the RAI (SNC 2007b), SNC provided the requested 

information (SNC 2007b). 

SNC did not identify or evaluate any Phase I SAMAs in the ER that reduce the magnitude of 

releases from SGTR events, which are a dominant contributor to population dose risk and 

economic cost risk at VEGP. In response to an RAI (SNC 2007b), SNC evaluated several 

SAMAs from ER Table A-1 that would reduce the source term released during SGTR events. 

SNC indicated that all of the alternatives identified in the RAI are either: not applicable, 

effectively already implemented or already addressed by existing plant procedures, or not 

effective at VEGP (SNC 2007b). 

SNC identified and evaluated a number of Phase I and II SAMAs in the ER that address RCP 

seal LOCAs, one of the largest contributors to the internal events CDF at VEGP. In response to 

an RAI (SNC 2007b), SNC evaluated several lower cost, procedure-only SAMAs from ER Table 

A-1 that also addressed RCP seal LOCAs. SNC indicated that all of the alternatives identified in 

the RAI are either not applicable, effectively already implemented or already addressed by 

existing plant procedures, or not effective at VEGP (SNC 2007b). 

The NRC staff questioned SNC about other lower cost alternatives to some of the SAMAs 

evaluated (NRC 2007), including: 
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

• Enhancing procedures to direct PCS cooldown on loss of RCP seal cooling, which was 

determined to be potentially cost-beneficial at another PWR plant. 

• Proceduralizing local manual operation of auxiliary feedwater when control power is lost, 

which was determined to be potentially cost-beneficial at another PWR plant. 

• Using a portable generator to provide backup power to selected instrumentation and to the 

turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump controls, thereby extending the ability of the plant to 

cope with loss of AC power events. 

• Providing alternate DC feeds (using a portable generator) to panels supplied only by DC 

bus, as an alternative to SAMAs 5 and 8 

• Modifying emergency procedures to isolate a faulted SG due to a stuck open safety valve. 

• Providing hardware connections to allow service water to cool normal charging pump (NCP) 

seals, as an alternative to SAMA 1. 

In response to an RAI (SNC 2007b), SNC addressed the suggested lower cost alternatives 

(SNC 2007b). This is discussed further in Section G.6.2. 

Although no vulnerabilities were identified in the IPE, several procedural improvements were 

identified and subsequently implemented by the plant (SNC 2007a). These enhancements 

included: (1) revising procedures for operators to open doors to important electrical equipment 

rooms following loss of cooling to obtain natural circulation to cool the rooms; (2) changing the 

loss of all AC power procedure so operators attempt local manual operation of the turbine driven 

auxiliary feedwater pump (TDAFW) upon loss of DC power; and (3) revising the procedure for 

loss of the nuclear service cooling water systems (NSCW) to have operators reduce heat loads 

to support cooling of reactor coolant pump seals while single NSCW pump operation is 

established (NRC 1996). 

Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that the set of SAMAs evaluated in the ER, 

together with those identified in supplemental information to the ER and in response to NRC 

staff RAIs, addresses the major contributors to internal event CDF. 

SNC did not identify VEGP-specific candidate SAMAs for seismic events. In the VEGP IPEEE 

seismic analysis, both VEGP Units 1 and 2 have a HCLPF capacity of at least 0.3g. Also, as 

noted in Section 2.2, 24 minor equipment open items, mostly seismic interaction issues, were 

originally identified. They included a gap between the battery rack end rails and batteries, and 

potential interactions between the diesel generators and crane controller. As noted in the ER, 

all of these issues have been addressed, as documented in a letter to the NRC dated March 31, 

1998 (SNC 1998). The NRC staff concludes that the opportunity for seismic-related SAMAs has 

been adequately explored and that it is unlikely that there are any cost-beneficial, seismicrelated SAMA candidates. 
Appendix G 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-16 December 2008 

The IPEEE did not identify opportunities for improvements related to fire events (SNC 1995). 

Nevertheless, SNC considered potential SAMAs for fire events, and determined that four of the 

Phase I SAMAs identified based on internal events risk also mitigate the fire risk (e.g., SAMAs 

5, 6, 8, and 11). Although these four SAMAs contribute to the reduction in fire risk, no SAMAs 

unique to the fire analysis were identified. In response to an RAI on the potential for SAMAs 

that could reduce the fire initiators, improve fire detection or suppression, or relocate 

components or cabling, SNC stated that the IPEEE concluded that no plant improvement to 

reduce fire risk is necessary because of the relatively low fire risk impact to the operations at 

VEGP (SNC 2007b). The NRC staff concludes that the opportunity for fire-related SAMAs has 

been adequately explored and that it is unlikely that there are any cost-beneficial, fire-related 

SAMA candidates. 

The NRC staff notes that the set of SAMAs submitted is not all inclusive, since additional, 

possibly even less expensive, design alternatives can always be postulated. However, the NRC 

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 NRC staff concludes that SNC used a systematic and comprehensive process for 

identifying potential plant improvements for VEGP, and that the set of potential plant 

improvements identified by SNC is reasonably comprehensive and therefore acceptable. This 

search included reviewing insights from the plant-specific risk studies, and reviewing plant 

improvements considered in previous SAMA analyses. While explicit treatment of external 

events in the SAMA identification process was limited, it is recognized that the absence of 

external event vulnerabilities reasonably justifies examining primarily the internal events risk 

results for this purpose. 

G.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Plant Improvements

SNC evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the 12 remaining SAMAs that were applicable to 

VEGP. The majority of the SAMA evaluations were performed in a bounding fashion in that the 

SAMA was assumed to completely eliminate the risk associated with the proposed 

enhancement. Such bounding calculations overestimate the benefit and are conservative. 

SNC used model re-quantification to determine the potential benefits. The CDF and population 

dose reductions were estimated using the VEGP PRA (version VEGPL2UP) model. The 

changes made to the model to quantify the impact of SAMAs are detailed in Section F.6 of 

Attachment F to the ER (SNC 2007a). Table G-5 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 estimated benefits reported in Table G-5 reflect the combined benefit in 

both internal and external events, as well as a number of changes to the analysis methodology 

subsequent to the ER. The determination of the benefits for the various SAMAs is further 

discussed in Section G.6. 
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 

The NRC staff questioned the assumptions used in evaluating the benefits or risk reduction 

estimates of certain SAMAs provided in the ER (NRC 2007). For example, the NRC staff 

requested the bases for the assumption for SAMA 11 that 90 percent of all loss of nuclear 

service cooling water (NSCW) scenarios are avoided (i.e., 10 percent of loss of NSCW 

scenarios still proceed to core damage). The licensee clarified that very quick operator action 

would be required to prevent a reactor coolant pump (RCP) seal LOCA and, additionally, a loss 

of NSCW has other deleterious effects on VEGP systems that could still result in core damage 

even without the seal LOCA. The licensee also provided a qualitative argument that the costrisk assessment is not particularly sensitive to changes in probability of avoiding loss of NSCW 

above 90 percent, as this value will provide 90 percent of the SAMA benefit. The NRC staff 

considers the assumptions, as clarified, to be reasonable and acceptable for purposes of the 

SAMA evaluation. 

The NRC staff has reviewed SNC’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 generally conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is higher than what 

would actually be realized). Accordingly, the NRC staff based its estimates of averted risk for 

the various SAMAs on SNC’s risk reduction estimates. 
Table G-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for VEGP(a) 

 % Risk Reduction 

SAMA Assumptions CDF Population Dose 

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate(b)

 ($) 

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate(b)

 ($) Cost ($) 

1 - Permanent, self-powered pump to backup NCP 

Modify event tree to include pump having a hardware and operator error failure probability of 1.0E-1. 

48 17 348,000 423,000 2,700,000 

2 - Maintain full-time black start capability of the Wilson Switchyard combustion turbines 

Include credit for the availability of the black start Plant Wilson CTs (and black start DGs) all the time. The black start CTs and DGs were assumed to have a failure probability of 5.0E-02. 

43 37 336,000 414,000 25,000 

4 - AC cross-tie capability Reduce human error 

probabilities for cross-tying to the opposite unit EDG within 7 hours after an SBO by a factor of 2 and after 7 hours by a factor of 1.6. 

22 19 171,000 211,000 25,000 

6 - Add bypass line around NSCW CT return valves 

Modify event tree to include a bypass line and valve, around each CT tower return line isolation valve, having a failure probability of 6.26E-3, a common cause failure probability of 2.66E-4, and an actuation signal failure probability of 3.69E-3. 

32 16 241,000 294,000 816,000(c)

7 - Implement enhanced RCP seal design 

Completely eliminate RCP seal leakage events greater than 21 gpm. 

53 19 384,000 468,000 1,050,000 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-18 December 2008 

Appendix G 
Appendix G 

Table G-5. (cont’d) 

 % Risk Reduction 

SAMA Assumptions CDF Population Dose 

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate(b)

 ($) 

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate(b)

 ($) Cost ($) 

9 - Implement automatic initiation of HPI on low RCS level after AC recovery during an SBO 

Modify event tree to include HPI auto initiation system having a probability of failure of 6.42E-4. 

3 1 21,000 25,000 250,000 

10 - Additional training and/or procedural enhancement to implement timely RCS depressurization 

Completely eliminate delayed RCS depressurization in both Level 2 SBO and non-SBO event trees. 

0 2 5,000 7,000 25,000 

11 - Use hydrostatic test pump as an alternate means of providing seal injection 

Eliminate 90% of all Loss of NSCW events. 

10 4 74,000 91,000 520,000(c)

12 - Ensure all ISLOCA releases are scrubbed 

Completely eliminate all ISLOCA events. 

~0 9 14,000 20,000 >100,000 

13 - Completely automate swap over to recirculation on RWST depletion 

Reduce human error probabilities for all basic events that refer to high pressure injection to a negligible value (1.00E-05). 

2 3 14,000 18,000 >100,000 

14 - Install additional instrumentation for ISLOCA detection 

Completely eliminate all ISLOCA events. 

~0 9 14,000 20,000 425,000 

15 - Install permanent dedicated generator for NCP 

Modify event tree to include pump having a hardware and operator error failure probability of 1.0E-1. 

48 17 348,000 423,000 900,000 

December 2008 G-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 
Table G-5. (cont’d) 

 % Risk Reduction 

SAMA Assumptions CDF Population Dose 

Total Benefit 

Using 7% 

Discount Rate(b)

 ($) 

Total Benefit 

Using 3% 

Discount Rate(b)

 ($) Cost ($) 

16 - Enhance procedures for ISLOCA response 

Completely eliminate all ISLOCA events. 

~0 9 14,000 20,000 25,000

(a) SAMAs in bold are potentially cost-beneficial(b) Estimated benefits reflect revised values provided after correction of three SECPOP2000 economic data file errors, corrected escalation factor for farm 

wealth, and corrected source term inventory and replacement power cost to reflect proposed 1.7 percent power uprate (SNC 2007b, SNC 2008)

(c) Estimated costs reflect revised values provided in response to RAIs (SNC 2007b)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-20 December 2008 

Appendix G 
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

G.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Plant Improvements

SNC estimated the costs of implementing the 12 candidate SAMAs through the application of 

engineering judgment, and use of other licensees’ estimates for similar improvements. The cost 

estimates conservatively did not include the cost of replacement power during extended 

outages required to implement the modifications, nor did they generally include contingency 

costs associated with unforeseen implementation obstacles (SNC 2007a, SNC 2008). The cost 

estimates provided in the ER did not account for inflation, which is considered another 

conservatism. For those cost estimates that were developed for a dual-unit SAMA analysis, 

SNC reduced the estimated costs by half so that all cost estimates were on a “per unit” basis. 

The NRC staff reviewed the bases for the applicant’s cost estimates (presented in Section F.6 

of Attachment F to the ER). For certain improvements, the NRC 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. In response to an RAI requesting a more detailed description of the 

changes associated with SAMAs 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13, SNC provided additional information 

detailing the analysis and plant modifications included in the cost estimate of each improvement 

(SNC 2007b). In the response to the RAI, SNC provided a revised cost estimate for SAMA 6, 

add bypass line around NSCW cooling tower (CT) return valves, of $816,000. The staff 

reviewed the costs and found them to be reasonable, and generally consistent with estimates 

provided in support of other plants’ analyses. 

The NRC staff requested additional clarification on the estimated cost of $580,000 for 

implementation of SAMA 11, use hydrostatic test pump as an alternate means of providing seal 

injection, when the cost estimate for this same SAMA for the V.C. Summer plant was only 

$150,000 (NRC 2007). In response to the RAI (SNC 2007b), SNC further described this 

modification as involving the installation of additional piping, valves, pumps, and controls. SNC 

also provided the bases for a revised cost estimate of $520,000. Based on this additional 

information, the NRC staff considers the estimated cost of $520,000 to be reasonable and 

acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 

The NRC staff concludes that the cost estimates provided by SNC are sufficient and appropriate 

for use in the SAMA evaluation.

G.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison

SNC's cost-benefit analysis and the NRC staff’s review are described in the following sections. 

G.6.1 SNC’s Evaluation 

The methodology used by SNC was based primarily on NRC’s guidance for performing 

cost-benefit analysis, i.e., NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

Handbook (NRC 1997a). The guidance involves determining the net value for each SAMA 

according to the following formula: 
Appendix G Appendix G

Appendix G 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-22 December 2008

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. SNC’s derivation of 

each of the associated costs is summarized below. 

NUREG/BR-0058 has recently been revised to reflect the agency's policy on discount rates. 

Revision 4 of NUREG/BR-0058 states that two sets of estimates should be developed, one at 3 

percent and one at 7 percent (NRC 2004a). SNC provided both sets of estimates 

(SNC 2007a, SNC 2007b, SNC 2008). 

Averted Public Exposure (APE) Costs

The APE costs were calculated using the following formula: 

APE = Annual reduction in public exposure (Δ person-rem per year) 

x monetary equivalent of unit dose ($2000 per person-rem) 

x present value conversion factor (15.04 based on a 20-year period with a 

 3-percent discount rate). 

As stated in NUREG/BR-0184 (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 due to a single accident. Rather, it is the present value of a stream of potential 

losses extending over the remaining lifetime (in this case, the renewal period) of the facility. 

Thus, it reflects the expected annual loss due to a single accident, the possibility that such an 

accident could occur at any time over the renewal period, and the effect of discounting these 

potential future losses to present value. For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes 

elimination of all severe accidents due to internal events, SNC calculated an APE of 

approximately $46,900 for the 20-year license renewal period. 

Averted Offsite Property Damage Costs (AOC)

The AOCs were calculated using the following formula: 

AOC = 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 due to internal events 

are eliminated, SNC calculated an annual offsite economic risk of about $2,000 based on the 
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

Level 3 risk analysis. This results in a discounted value of approximately $30,100 for the 

20-year license renewal period. 

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. 

SNC derived the values for averted occupational exposure from information provided in Section 

5.7.3 of 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-year 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 3 percent, and a time 

period of 20 years to represent the license renewal period. For the purposes of initial screening, 

which assumes all severe accidents due to internal events are eliminated, SNC calculated an 

AOE of approximately $9,600 for the 20-year license renewal period. 

Averted Onsite Costs

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. SNC derived the values for AOSC based on 

information provided in Section 5.7.6 of NUREG/BR-0184, the regulatory analysis handbook 

(NRC 1997a). 

SNC divided this cost element into two parts – the onsite cleanup and decontamination cost, 

also commonly referred to as averted cleanup and decontamination costs, and the replacement 

power cost. 

Averted cleanup and decontamination costs (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 

the regulatory analysis handbook to be $1.5 x 109

 (undiscounted). This value was converted to 

present costs over a 10-year cleanup period and integrated over the term of the proposed 

license extension. For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents 

due to internal events are eliminated, SNC calculated an ACC of approximately $302,000 for the 

20-year license renewal period. 
Appendix G Appendix G

Appendix G 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-24 December 2008

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 

SNC based its calculations on the value of 1253 megawatt electric (MWe), which includes the 

proposed 1.7 percent power uprate for VEGP. Therefore, SNC applied a power scaling factor of 

1253/910 to determine the replacement power costs. For the purposes of initial screening, 

which assumes all severe accidents due to internal events are eliminated, SNC calculated an 

RPC of approximately $118,000 for the 20-year license renewal period. For the purposes of 

initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, SNC calculated the AOSC 

to be approximately $420,000 for the 20-year license renewal period. 

Using the above equations, SNC estimated the total present dollar value equivalent associated 

with completely eliminating severe accidents from internal events at VEGP to be about 

$507,000 for a single unit. Use of a multiplier of 2 to account for external events increases the 

value to $1,014,000 and represents the dollar value associated with completely eliminating all 

internal and external event severe accident risk for a single unit at VEGP, also referred to as the 

Modified Maximum Averted Cost Risk (MMACR). 

SNC’s Results

If the implementation costs for a candidate SAMA exceeded the calculated benefit, the SAMA 

was considered not to be cost-beneficial. In the baseline analysis contained in the ER (using a 

3 percent discount rate), SNC identified two potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. The potentially 

cost-beneficial SAMAs are: 

• SAMA 2 - Maintain full-time black start capability of the Plant Wilson combustion turbines. 

• SAMA 4 - Prepare procedures and operator training for cross-tying an opposite unit DG. 

SNC performed additional analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices and 

uncertainties on the results of the SAMA assessment (SNC 2007a). If the benefits are 

increased by a factor of 2 to account for uncertainties, two additional SAMA candidates were 

determined to be potentially cost-beneficial: 

• SAMA 6 - Implementation of a bypass line for the cooling tower return isolation valves. 

• SAMA 16 - Enhance procedures for ISLOCA response. 
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

Subsequent to the ER, and in response to NRC staff RAIs, SNC provided revised population 

dose and SAMA benefit estimates based on several corrections/changes to the SAMA analysis 

contained in the ER, as summarized below (SNC 2007b): 

• Correction to one SECPOP2000 input/output error that was not fully reflected in the ER 

SAMA analysis, and corrections to two input/output errors related to the SECPOP2000 code 

that were identified subsequent to the ER, 

• An increase in reactor core radionuclide inventory and replacement power costs to reflect a 

proposed 1.7 percent power uprate for VEGP that was not accounted for in the ER SAMA 

analysis, 

• Use of a revised offsite population dose risk of 1.56 person-rem per year instead of a value 

of 2.04 person-rem per year referenced in the ER, 

• Use of a revised offsite economic cost risk of $2,003 instead of a value of $1,412 referenced 

in the ER, and 

• Use of a revised farm wealth escalation factor of 1.256 instead of 1.095 utilized in the ER 

SAMA analysis. 

SNC provided revised population dose and benefit estimates reflecting the results of these 

corrections/changes (SNC 2007b). The population dose and SAMA benefit estimates reported 

in the present document (e.g., in Tables G-2 and G-5) reflect these revisions. The revised 

analysis produced an insignificant change to the MMACR (i.e., a 0.4 percent decrease, from 

$1.018M to $1.014M), and a change in the estimated benefits for the various SAMAs ranging 

from a 1.0 percent reduction to a 3.4 percent increase. These changes resulted in no impact on 

the Phase I screening results, or on the list of SAMAs determined to be potentially costbeneficial in the baseline and uncertainty analyses. Thus, the overall results of the SAMA 

assessment were not affected (SNC 2007b). 

The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs, and SNC’s plans for further evaluation of these SAMAs 

are discussed in more detail in Section G.6.2. 

G.6.2 Review of SNC’s Cost-Benefit Evaluation 

The cost-benefit analysis performed by SNC was based primarily on NUREG/BR-0184 

(NRC 1997a) and was executed consistent with this guidance. 

To account for external events, SNC multiplied the internal event benefits by a factor of 2 for 

each SAMA. Given that the CDF from internal fires and other external events as reported by 

SNC is less than the CDF for internal events, the NRC staff agrees that the factor of 2 multiplier 

for external events is reasonable. 

SNC considered the impact that possible increases in benefits from analysis uncertainties would 

have on the results of the SAMA assessment. In the absence of a detailed uncertainty 
Appendix G Appendix G

Appendix G 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-26 December 2008

distribution from the VEGP PRA model, SNC applied an additional multiplier of 2 to the internal 

and external event benefit estimates, which is representative of the ratio of the 95th percentile 

CDF to the mean CDF in typical PRA uncertainty calculations. SNC reexamined the initial set of 

SAMAs to determine if any additional Phase I SAMAs would be retained for further analysis if 

the benefits (and Modified Maximum Averted Cost-Risk) were increased by a factor of 2. One 

such Phase I SAMA was identified, i.e., SAMA 5 - permanent, dedicated generator for one 

motor driven AFW pump and a battery charger. 

SNC also considered the impact on the Phase II screening if the estimated benefits were 

increased by a factor of 2 (in addition to the multiplier of 2 for external events). The additional 

Phase I SAMA, SAMA 5 as described above, was included in this sensitivity analysis. Two 

additional SAMAs became cost-beneficial in SNC’s analysis (SAMAs 6 and 16 as described 

above). However, SNC concluded that neither of these SAMAs was likely to be cost-beneficial 

because not all required equipment and material had been included in the cost estimate for 

SAMA 6, and because the full calculated benefit of SAMA 16 was unlikely to be achievable 

since procedures to deal with ISLOCA events already exist at VEGP. 

The NRC staff questioned why these two SAMAs shouldn’t continue to be considered for 

implementation at VEGP since the factor of 2 is not demonstratively conservative (this factor is 

reported to be as high as 2.5 for other Westinghouse plants and as high as 5 for other plants) 

(NRC 2007). In response to the RAI, SNC provided a revised implementation cost estimate for 

SAMA 6 of $816,000 that included additional costs for an inverter, heavy gauge cabling, and 

additional pipe supports. Based on the revised cost estimate, SAMA 6 would no longer be costbeneficial (SNC 2007b). 

SNC’s response on SAMA 16 was that the relatively low potential cost-benefit of $14,500 and 

the fact that procedures to deal with ISLOCA events already exist at VEGP made this SAMA an 

unlikely candidate for implementation (SNC 2007b). The staff agrees that the benefits of this 

SAMA are only slightly greater than its estimated implementation costs, and that the risk 

reduction provided by this SAMA would be relatively small. Furthermore, since VEGP already 

has a plant procedure to deal with ISLOCA events and recognizing that the assumption that all 

ISLOCA events are eliminated is conservative, the staff agrees that further evaluation of this 

SAMA by SNC is not warranted. 

The NRC staff questioned the estimated cost of $900,000 for implementation of SAMA 15, 

install permanent dedicated generator for the normal charging pump (NCP), when a recent cost 

estimate for this same SAMA for another plant was only $800,000 (NRC 2007). In response to 

the RAI, SNC reevaluated this SAMA using an implementation cost of $800,000 and determined 

that this SAMA would be potentially cost-beneficial if analysis uncertainties were taken into 

account (SNC 2007b). However, SNC noted that if either of low cost SAMAs 2 and 4, which 

were determined to be potentially cost-beneficial, were implemented at VEGP, the benefit of 

SAMA 15 would be greatly reduced. The staff agrees that SAMAs 2 and 4 provide much of the 

same benefit that SAMA 15 does at much lower cost and that further evaluation of this SAMA by 

SNC is not warranted. 
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

The NRC staff asked the licensee to evaluate several lower cost alternative SAMAs that had 

been found to be potentially cost-beneficial at other PWR plants. These alternatives were: (1) 

directing PCS cooldown on loss of RCP seal cooling, (2) proceduralizing local manual operation 

of auxiliary feedwater when control power is lost, (3) using a portable generator to extend the 

coping time in loss of AC power events (to power selected instrumentation and DC power to the 

turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump), (4) providing alternate DC feeds (using a portable 

generator) to panels supplied only by a DC bus, (5) modifying emergency procedures to isolate 

a faulted SG due to a stuck open safety valve, and (6) providing hardware connections to allow 

service water to cool NCP seals (NRC 2007). SNC provided a further evaluation of these 

alternatives, as summarized below (SNC 2007b). 

• Enhancing procedures to direct PCS cooldown on loss of RCP seal cooling - This SAMA is 

effectively already implemented at VEGP for SBOs by Emergency Operating Procedure 

19100-C and for LOCAs by Emergency Operating Procedure 19010-C. 

• Proceduralizing local manual operation of auxiliary feedwater when control power is lost - 

This SAMA is effectively already implemented at VEGP by Emergency Operating Procedure 

19100-C. 

• Using a portable generator during a loss of AC power to power selected instrumentation 

and DC power - This SAMA is effectively already implemented at VEGP because the 

turbine-driven AFW pump can be manually operated without DC power per existing 

Emergency Operating Procedure 19100-C. 

• Providing alternate DC feeds to panels supplied only by the DC bus - This SAMA is 

effectively already implemented at VEGP because the turbine-driven AFW pump can be 

manually operated without DC power per existing Emergency Operating Procedure 19100-

C. 

• Modifying emergency procedures to isolate a faulted SG due to a stuck open safety valve - 

This SAMA is effectively already implemented at VEGP by Emergency Operating Procedure 

19020-C E-2. 

• Providing hardware connections to allow service water to cool NCP seals - The purpose of 

this SAMA is effectively already implemented at VEGP because VEGP uses two centrifugal 

charging pumps to provide service water for RCP seal injection if the normal charging pump 

fails. VEGP Procedure 13006 directs operators to establish this system to provide RCP seal 

injection if NCP is not available. 

• SNC indicated that the remaining low cost alternatives identified in the RAI are either not 

applicable, effectively already implemented or already addressed by existing plant 

procedures, or not effective at VEGP. 

The NRC staff notes that the two potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified in SNC’s baseline 

analysis will be considered further through the appropriate VEGP action process (SNC 2007a). 
Appendix G Appendix G

Appendix G 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-28 December 2008

The NRC staff concludes that, with the exception of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs 

discussed above, the costs of the other SAMAs evaluated would be higher than the associated 

benefits. 

G.7 Conclusions

SNC compiled a list of 16 SAMAs based on a review of: the most significant basic events from 

the plant-specific PRA, insights from the plant-specific IPE and IPEEE, Phase II SAMAs from 

license renewal applications for other plants, and review of other NRC and industry 

documentation. An initial screening removed SAMA candidates that (1) were determined to 

provide no measurable benefit, or (2) had estimated costs that would exceed the dollar value 

associated with completely eliminating all severe accident risk at VEGP. Based on this 

screening, 4 SAMAs were eliminated leaving 12 candidate SAMAs for evaluation. 

For the remaining SAMA candidates, a more detailed design and cost estimate were developed 

as shown in Table G-4. The cost-benefit analyses showed that two of the SAMA candidates 

were potentially cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis (SAMAs 2 and 4). SNC performed 

additional analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices and uncertainties on the results 

of the SAMA assessment. As a result, two additional SAMAs (SAMAs 6 and 16) were identified 

as potentially cost-beneficial,. However, these two SAMAs were subsequently dismissed based 

on a higher estimated implementation cost for SAMA 6 and low potential benefit for SAMA 16. 

SNC has indicated that the two potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs (SAMAs 2 and 4) will be 

considered further through the appropriate VEGP action process. 

The NRC staff reviewed the SNC analysis and concludes 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 SNC are reasonable 

and sufficient for the license renewal submittal. Although the treatment of SAMAs for external 

events was somewhat limited, the likelihood of there being cost-beneficial enhancements in this 

area was minimized by improvements that have been realized as a result of the IPEEE process, 

and inclusion of a multiplier to account for external events. 

The NRC staff concurs with SNC’s identification of areas in which risk can be further reduced in 

a cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of the identified, potentially cost-beneficial 

SAMAs. Given the potential for cost-beneficial risk reduction, the NRC staff agrees that further 

evaluation of these SAMAs by SNC is warranted. However, these SAMAs do not 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 Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, Part 54. 
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

G.8 References

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). 2002. “Standard for Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications,” ASME RA-S-2002, April 5, 2002.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1991. “A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear 

Power Plant Seismic Margin,” EPRI NP-6041-SL, Revision 1, Palo Alto, CA, August 1991. 

IEM, 2006. “Evacuation Time Estimates for Vogtle Electric generating Plant”. April 2006. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 1992. “Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1 

and 2, Individual Plant Examination Report,” November 1992. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 1995. “Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1 

and 2, Individual Plant Examination of External Events,” November 1995. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 1998. Letter from C.K. McCoy, Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: “Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Response to Request for Additional Information on the Individual Plant 

Examination of External Events,” dated March 31, 1998. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007a. Applicant’s Environmental ReportOperating License Renewal Stage for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2, Appendix 

E - Environmental Report, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Birmingham, Alabama. June 

2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2007b. Letter from Tom E. Tynan, Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk. 

Subject: “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle License Renewal Application, Request 

for Additional Information Regarding the Analysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives,” 

dated December 20, 2007. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2008. Letter from Tom E. Tynan, Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk. 

Subject: “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle License Renewal Application, Follow 

Up to Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Request for Additional Information, Review 

Questions,” dated February 1, 2008. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Population and 

Housing Unit Counts, United States, 1990 CPH-2-1. Available online at: 

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cph2/cph-2-1-1.pdf. 

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t4/tab01.pdf 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. Census 2000 Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary 

File and 1990 Census. Table 1 – Counties in Alphabetical Sort within State, 1990 and 2000 
Appendix G Appendix G

Appendix G 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34 G-30 December 2008

Population, Numeric and Percent Change: 1990 to 2000. April 2, 2001. Available online at:

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t4/tab01.xls. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998. “1997 Census of Agriculture,” National 

Agriculture Statistics Service, 1998. Available online at: 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/volume1/vol1pubs.htm. 

U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Inflation Calculator, 

available online at www.bls.gov. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1988. Generic Letter 88-20, “Individual Plant 

Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,” November 23, 1988. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment 

for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1991. “Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the 

Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,” 

NUREG-1407, Washington, D.C., June 1991. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. “NRC Staff’s Evaluation of the Vogtle 

Electric Generation Plant, Units 1 and 2, Individual Plant Examination (IPE),” (TAC Nos. 

M74485 and M74486),” Washington, D.C., April 15, 1996. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Individual Plant Examination Program: 

Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. NUREG-1560, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Rates of Initiating Events at U.S. Nuclear 

Power Plants: 1987-1995. NUREG/CR-5750, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. “Review of Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2 Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Submittal (TAC 

Nos. M83690 and M83691),” Washington, D.C., December 18, 2000. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. SECPOP 2000: Sector Population, Land 

Fraction, and Economic Estimation Program. NUREG/CR-6525 Revision 1, Washington, D.C., 

August 2003. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, Washington, D.C. 
Appendix G 

December 2008 G-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. An Approach for Estimating the 

Frequencies of Various containment Failure modes and Bypass Events. NUREG/CR-6595 

Revision 1, Washington, D.C., 2004. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Letter from J.P. Leous, U.S. NRC, to Tom 

E. Tynan, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Subject: “Request for Additional 

Information Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal (TAC Nos. MD5905 and MD5906),” October 24, 2007. 

Westinghouse. Simplified Level 2 Modeling Guidelines, WCAP-16341-P, November 2005. 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(9-2004)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 34

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

December

YEAR

2008

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS)

Supplement 34 

Regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2

Final Report

5. AUTHOR(S)

See Appendix B of report

6. TYPE OF REPORT

Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Division of License Renewal

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Same as 8 above

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket Numbers 50-424 & 50-425

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the Operating

Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (VEGP) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. The 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.

The NRC staff's recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal

for VEGP are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be

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

submitted by SNC; (3) consultation with federal, state, and local agencies; (4) the staff's own independent review; and (5) the

staff's consideration of public comments.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 

VEGP

Vogtle

Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement

FSEIS

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA

License Renewal

GEIS

NUREG 1437, Supplement 34

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001