SU.S.NRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment

NUREG-1872, Vol. 1

Final Environmental Impact

Statement for an Early Site

Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle

Electric Generating Plant Site

Final Report

Main Report

Office of New Reactors
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:/!wwwvnrc.qov!reading-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

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

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402-0001

Intemet:.bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161-0002

www.ntis.gov

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

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Administration

Mail, Distribution and Messenger Team

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION(cnrc.qov

Facsimile: 301-415-2289

Some publications in the NUREG series that are

posted at NRC's Web site address

http://www.nrc.qov/readinq-rm/doc-collections/nureqs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site-bear the date the material was

accessed, the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained atThe NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, fromAmerican National Standards Institute

11 West 4 2 nd Street

New York, NY 10036-8002

www.ansi.org

212-642-4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical

specifications; or orders, not in

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in

contractor-prepared publications in this series are not

necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff

(NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors

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

(NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports resulting from

international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4)

brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations

of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors'

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations

(NUREG-0750).
*U.S.NRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment

NUREG-1872, Vol. 1

Final Environmental Impact

Statement for an Early Site

Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle

Electric Generating Plant Site

Final

Main

Report

Report

Manuscript Completed: July 2008

Date Published: August 2008

Office of New Reactors
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This Environmental Impact Statement contains existing information collection requirements that

are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These

information collections were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval

numbers 3150-0011, 3150-0021, and 3150-0151.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for

information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

NUREG-1872, Vol. 1, has been reproduced

from the best available copy.

NUREG-1872 ii August 2008

/

I
Abstract

This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared pursuant to the review by the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of an application submitted by Southern Nuclear

Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) for an early site permit (ESP). The proposed action

requested in Southern's application is for the NRC to (1) approve a site within the existing

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) boundaries as suitable for the construction and

operation of a new nuclear power generating facility and (2) issue an ESP for the proposed

location at the VEGP site, adjacent to the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2.

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

construction activities performed by an ESP holder under the additional authorization (in a

limited work authorization) that may be sought pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Section 52.25. These construction activities are defined by 10 CFR

50.10(a). In accordance with the plan, the construction activities would be redressed if the NRC

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

construction activities, the ESP is not referenced in an application for a construction permit or

combined operating license, and no alternative use is found for the site.

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

of constructing and operating new units at the VEGP site or at alternative sites, and mitigation

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

recommendation to the Commission regarding the proposed action. The NRC staff's

recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the proposed

action is that the ESP should be issued as proposed. The staff's evaluation of the site safety

and emergency preparedness aspects of the proposed action will be addressed in the staffs

safety evaluation report and supporting documentation that is anticipated to be published in

February 2009. This recommendation is based on (1) the application, including the

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

and local agencies; (3) the staffs independent review; (4) the staffs consideration of comments

related to the environmental review that were received during the public scoping process and

the draft EIS; and (5) the assessments summarized in this EIS, including the potential mitigation

measures identified in the ER and this EIS. In addition, in making its recommendation, the staff

determined that there are no environmentally preferable or obviously superior sites. Finally, the

staff has concluded that the construction activities defined by 10 CFR 50.10(a)(1) requested by

Southern in its application will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact that

cannot be redressed.

August 2008 iii NUREG-1872

Contents

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

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

Abbreviations/Acronyms.............................................................................XXV1i

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

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

1.1.1 Early Site Construction Activities .............. ................................. 1-2

1.1.2 ESP Application and Review.................................................... 1-2

1.2 The Proposed Federal Action ........................................................... 1-4

1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action....................................... 1-5

1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action .................................................... 1-5

1.5 Compliance and Consultations .......................................................... 1-6

1.6 Report Contents.......................................................................... 1-6

1.7 References ............................................................................... 1-8

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

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

2.2 Land....................................................................................... 2-1

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

2.2.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way ............................................... 2-6

2.2.3 The Region....................................................................... 2-6

2.3 Meteorology and Air Quality............................................................. 2-7

2.3.1 Climate ........................................................................... 2-7

2.3.1.1 Wind.................................................................... 2-8

2.3.1.2 Atmospheric Stability.................................................. 2-9

2.3.1.3 Temperature........................................................... 2-9

2.3.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture ............................................... 2-10

2.3.1.5 Severe Weather...................................................... 2-11

2.3.2 Air Quality....................................................................... 2-12

2.3.3 Meteorological Monitoring....................................................... 2-13

2.4 Geology.................................................................................. 2-14

2.5 Radiological Environment............................................................... 2-16

2.6 Water .................................................................................... 2-17

2.6.1 Hydrology....................................................................... 2-17

2.6.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology ........................................... 2-17

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

2.6.1.3 Hydrological Monitoring ............................................. 2-31

2.6.2 Water Use....................................................................... 2-33

August 2008 V NUREG-1 872
2.6.2.1 Surface-W ater Use ...................................................................... 2-33

2.6.2.2 Groundwater Use ......................................................................... 2-34

2.6.3 W ater Q uality ............................................................................................. 2-39

2.6.3.1 Surface-W ater Quality ................................................................. 2-39

2.6.3.2 G roundwater Quality .................................................................... 2-41

2.6.3.3 Therm al Monitoring ...................................................................... 2-43

2.6.3.4 Chem ical Monitoring .................................................................... 2-4 3

2.7 Ecology ................................................................................................................... 2-44

2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology ...................................................................................... 2-44

2.7.1.1 Terrestrial Com m unities of the VEGP Site ................................... 2-47

2.7.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species ........................ 2-59

2.7.1.3 Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring ..................................................... 2-70

2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology ......................................................................................... 2-72

2.7.2.1 Aquatic Com m unities of the VEGP Site ....................................... 2-72

2.7.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species ................. ........... 2-89

2.7.2.3 Aquatic Ecology Monitoring ......................................................... 2-93

2.8 Socioeconom ics ..................................................................................................... 2-95

2.8.1 Dem ographics ............................................................................................ 2-96

2.8.1.1 Resident Population ................................... 2-97

2.8.1.2 Transient Population .................................................................... 2-99

2.8.1.3 Migrant Labor ................................. 2-101

2.8.2 Com m unity Characteristics ...................................................................... 2-101

2.8.2.1 Economy ................................................................................... 2-102

2.8.2.2 Taxes ......................................................................................... 2-103

2.8.2.3 Transportation ........................................................................... 2-104

2.8.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation ......................................................... 2-105

2.8.2.5 Housing ...................................................................................... 2-107

2.8.2.6 Public Services .......................................................................... 2-109

2.8.2.7 Education .................................................................................. 2-111

2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................... 2-112

2.9.1 Cultural Background .................................................................................. 2-113

2.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the VEGP Site ................................... 2-114

2.9.3 Consultation ............................................................................................. 2-116

2.10 Environm ental Justice ......................................................................................... 2-117

2.10.1 Analysis .................................................................................................... 2-117

2.10.2 Scoping and O utreach .............................................................................. 2-121

2.10.3 Health Preconditions and Special Circumstances of the Minority and

Low-Incom e Populations .......................................................................... 2-121

2.10.4 M igrant Populations .................................................................................. 2-122

2.10.5 Environm ental Justice Conclusion ............................................................ 2-123

2.11 Related Federal Projects and Consultation .......................................................... 2-123

NUREG-1872 vi August 2008
2.12 References ........................................................................................................... 2-124

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

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

3.2 Plant Description ............................. ........................................................................ 3-1

3.2.1 Plant W ater Use .......................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.1.1 Plant W ater Consumption .............................................................. 3-4

3.2.1.2 Plant W ater Treatment ................................................................... 3-5

3.2.2 Cooling System ............................................................................................ 3-5

3.2.2.1 Description of Operational Modes ................................................. 3-5

3.2.2.2 Component Descriptions ............................................................... 3-8

3.2.3 Radioactive W aste-Management System .................................................. 3-14

3.2.3.1 Liquid Radioactive W aste-Management System ......................... 3-15

3.2.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste-Management System .................... 3-15

3.2.3.3 Solid Radioactive W aste-Management System ........................... 3-15

3.2.4 Nonradioactive W aste Systems .................................................................. 3-16

3.2.4.1 Effluents Containing Chem icals or Biocides ................................ 3-16

3.2.4.2 Sanitary System Effluents ............................................................ 3-16

3.2.4.3 Other Effluents ............................................................................ 3-16

3.3 Power Transmission System .................................................................................. 3-17

3.4 References ............................................................................................................. 3-18

4.0 Construction Im pacts at the Proposed Site ................................... ...................... 4-1

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

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

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

4.2 Meteorological and Air-Quality Im pacts .................................................................... 4-5

4.2.1 Construction Activities .................................................................................. 4-5

4.2.2 Transportation .............................................................................................. 4-6

4.3 W ater-Related Im pacts ............................................................................................ 4-7

4.3.1 Hydrological Alterations ................................................................................ 4-8

4.3.2 W ater-Use Im pacts .................................................................................... 4-10

4.3.3 W ater-Quality Im pacts ................................................................................ 4-13

4.4 Ecological Impacts ................................... ......................................... 4-13

4.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-14

4.4.1.1 W ildlife Habitat ............................................ ; ................................ 4-14

4.4.1.2 W ildlife ......................................................................................... 4-20

4.4.1.3 State-Listed Species .................................................................... 4-22

4.4.1.4 Terrestrial Ecosystems Im pact Summary .................................... 4-24

4.4.2 Aquatic Impacts.......................................................................................... 4-25

4.4.2.1 Impacts of Construction on Aquatic Ecosystem in the Savannah

River ............................................................................................ 4-25

August 2008 vii NUREG-1872
4.4.2.2 Impacts to Ponds and Streams Onsite from Site-Preparation and

Construction Activities ................................................................. 4-28

4.4.2.3 Impacts to the Aquatic Ecosystem from Construction of the

Thomson-Vogtle 500-kV Transmission Line ................................ 4-29

4.4.2.4 Impacts to State-Listed Species ................................................... 4-29

4.4.2.5 Summary of Im pacts to Aquatic Ecosystems ............................... 4-30

4.4.2.6 Aquatic Monitoring During Construction ...................................... 4-31

4.4.3 Federally Listed Species ............................................................................ 4-31

4.4.3.1 Terrestrial Species ....................................................................... 4-31

4.4.3.2 Aquatic Species .......................................................................... 4-37

4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-37

4.5.1 Physical Impacts ............................................ 4-38

4.5.1.1 W orkers and the Local Public ...................................................... 4-39

4.5.1.2 Buildings ....................................................................................... 4-40

4.5.1.3 Roads .......................................................................................... 4-41

4.5.1.4 Aesthetics .................................................................................... 4-41

4.5.1.5 Summary of Physical Im pacts ...................................................... 4-42

4.5.2 Demography .............................................................................................. 4-42

4.5.3 Economic Impacts to the Com munity ............. ............................................ 4-43

4.5.3.1 Economy....................... ; ............................................................... 4-4 3

4.5.3.2 Taxes ........................................................................................... 4-44

4.5.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts to the Community ...................... 4-46

4.5.4 Infrastructure and Com m unity Service Impacts .......................................... 4-46

4.5.4.1 Transportation .............................................................................. 4-46

4.5.4.2 Recreation ................................................................................... 4-50

4.5.4.3 Housing ........................................................................................ 4-50

4.5.4.4 Public Services ............................................................................ 4-51

4.5.4.5 Education ..................................................................................... 4-54

4.5.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Services Impacts ..... 4-55

4.5.5 Summary of Socioeconom ic Im pacts ......................................................... 4-56

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ............................................................................. 4-56

4.6.1 Cultural Resource Monitoring During Construction .................................... 4-58

4.7 Environmental Justice Impacts ............................................................................... 4-58

4.7.1 Health and Environmental Im pacts ............................................................. 4-58

4.7.1.1 Soil ............................................................................................. 4-58

4.7.1.2 W ater .......................................................................................... 4-59

4.7.1.3 Air ................................................................................................ 4-59

4.7.1.4 Noise ............................................................................................ 4-60

4.7.2 Socioeconomic Impacts .............................................................................. 4-60

4.7.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions .......................................................... 4-60

4.7.4 Summary of Environm ental Justice Impacts .............................................. 4-61

4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts ........................................ ...................................... 4-61

NUREG-1872 viii August 2008
4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health ................................................................ 4-61

4.8.1.1 'Air Quality ................................. : .................................................. 4-62

4.8.1.2 Site Preparation and Construction W orker Health ....................... 4-62

4.8.1.3 Noise Impacts ............................................................................. 4-63

4.8.2 Impacts of Transporting Construction Materials and Construction

Personnel to the VEGP Site .............................................. ; ........................ 4-65

4.8.3 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts ................... 4-66

4.9 Radiological Health Impacts ................................................................................... 4-66

4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures ........................................................................ 4-67

4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents ............................................ 4-68

4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents ................................................. 4-68

4.9.4 Total Dose to Site-Preparation W orkers .................................................... 4-69

4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts ................................................... 4-69

4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During SitePreparation Activities and Construction ............................ 4-69

4.11 Site Redress Plan ................................................................................................... 4-72

4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts ........................................................................ 4-75

4.13 References ................................................ 4-77

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

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

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

5.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-W ay and Offsite Areas .................................... 5-2

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

5.2.1 Cooling Tower Impacts .................................... 5-3

5.2.2 Air-Quality Impacts ................................................................................. 5-4

5.2.3 Transmission Line Impacts ........................................................................... 5-4

5.3 W ater-Related Impacts ............................................................................................ 5-5

5.3.1 Hydrological Alterations ................................................................................ 5-6

5.3.2 Water-Use Impacts ....................................................................................... 5-7

5.3.2.1 Surface W ater ................................................................................ 5-7

5.3.2.2 Groundwater ................................................................................ 5-10

5.3.3 Water-Quality Impacts ................................................................................ 5-17

5.3.3.1 Savannah River ........................................................................... 5-17

5.3.3.2 Groundwater ................................................................................ 5-21

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

5.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts ...................................................................................... 5-21

5.4.1.1 Impacts on Vegetation ................................................................. 5-21

5.4.1.2 Bird Collisions with Cooling Towers ............................................. 5-23

5.4.1.3 Noise ........................................................................................... 5-23

August 2008 ix NUREG-1872
5.4.1.4 Shoreline Habitat .................................... 5-25

5.4.1.5 Transmission Line Right-of-Way Management (Cutting ahd

Herbicide Application) .................................................................. 5-26

5.4.1.6 Bird Collisions with Transmission Lines ....................................... 5-27

5.4.1.7 Impact of EMFs on Flora and Fauna ........................................... 5-27

5.4.1.8 Floodplains and Wetlands on Transmission Line Rights-of-Way.5-27

5.4.1.9 State-Listed Species .................................................................... 5-28

5.4.1.10 Summary of Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts ............. 5-28

5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts .......................................................................................... 5-29

5.4.2.1 Onsite Streams and Ponds ......................... 5-29

5.4.2.2 Savannah River ........................................................................... 5-29

5.4.2.3 Aquatic Thermal Impacts ............................................................. 5-33

5.4.2.4 Chemical Impacts ........................................................................ 5-34

5.4.2.5 Physical Impacts from Discharge ................................................. 5-36

5.4.2.6 State-Listed Species .................................................................... 5-36

5.4.2.7 Transmission Line Right-of-Way Maintenance Activities ............. 5-37

5.4.2.8 Aquatic Monitoring During Operation ........................................... 5-38

5.4.2.9 Summary of Aquatic Impacts ....................................................... 5-38

5.4.3 Federally Listed Species ........................................ .................................... 5-40

5.4.3.1 Terrestrial Species ................................................................... 5-40

5.4.3.2 Aquatic Federally Listed Species ................................................ 5-41

5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts .................................................................................. 5-42

5.5.1 Physical Impacts ..................................................................................... 5-43

5.5.1.1 W orkers and the Local Public ..................................................... 5-43

5.5.1.2 Buildings ...................................................................................... 5-44

5.5.1.3 Roads .................................................................................... 5-44

5.5.1.4 Aesthetics .................................................................................... 5-44

5.5.1.5 Summary of Physical Impacts ................................................. 5-45

5.5.2 Demography ............................................................................................... 5-45

5.5.3 Economic Impacts to the Community ......................................................... 5-46

5.5.3.1 Economy ...................................................................................... 5-46

5.5.3.2 Taxes ..................................................................................... 5-47

5.5.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts .............................................. 5-49

5.5.4 Infrastructure and Community Services ................................................ 5-49

5.5.4.1 Transportation .............................................................................. 5-49

5.5.4.2 Recreation ................................................................................... 5-50

5.5.4.3 Housing........................................................................................ 5-50

5.5.4.4 Public Services ............................................................................ 5-51

5.5.4.5 Education...' ........................................... 5-52

5.5.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Services .................. 5-53

5.5.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................................... 5-53

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Im pacts from Operations ...................................... 5-53

5.7 Environmental Justice ................................... ......................................................... 5-54

NUREG-1872 X August 2008
5.7.1 Health and Environmental Impacts ............................................................. 5-55

5.7.2 Socioeconomic Impacts .............................................................................. 5-56

5.7.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions .......................................................... 5-56

5.7.4 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts .............................................. 5-57

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................................................. 5-58

5.8.1 Thermophilic Microorganisms ..................................................................... 5-58

5 .8 .2 N o ise .......................................................................................................... 5 -5 9

5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields ........................ 5-60

5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields ................................................. 5-61

5.8.5 Occupational Health ................................................................................... 5-61

5.8.6 Impacts of Transporting Operations Personnel to the VEGP Site.............. 5-62

5.8.7 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................. 5-63

5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ........................................................... 5-63

5.9.1 Exposure Pathways ................. I .................................................................. 5-63

5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public ................................................ 5-67

5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway ............................................................... 5-67

5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway ......................................................... 5-67

5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public .............................................................. 5-69

5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual ...................................................... 5-69

5.9.3.2 Population Dose ......................................................................... 5-70

5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts to Members of the Public ....... 5-71

5.9.4 Occupational Doses to W orkers ................................................................. 5-72

5.9.5 Impacts to Biota Other than Members of the Public ................................... 5-72

5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway ............................................................... 5-73

5.9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway .......................................................... 5-73

5.9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Biota Doses ................................................. 5-74

5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring ............................................................................. 5-75

5.10 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents .................................................... 5-75

5.10.1 Design-Basis Accidents .............................................................................. 5-77

5.10.2 Severe Accidents ........................................................................................ 5-80

5.10.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ..................................................... 5-89

5.10.4 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts .................................................. 5-91

5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation ..................... 5-91

5.12 Summary of Operational Impacts ........................................................................... 5-92

5.13 References ............................................................................................................ 5-97

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

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

6.1.1 Land Use ...................................................................................................... 6-8

August 2008 xi NUREG-1872
6.1.2 W ater Use ..................................................................................................... 6-8

6.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts ....................................................................................... 6-8

6.1.4 Chemical Effluents ...................................... 6-9

6.1.5 Radiological Effluents ................................................................................... 6-9

6.1.6 Radiological W astes .................................................................................... 6-12

6.1.7 Occupational Dose ..................................................................................... 6-14

6.1.8 Transportation ............................................................................................ 6-14

6.1.9 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 6-14

6.2 Transportation Impacts ........................................................................................... 6-14

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

6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions ....................................................................... 6-17

6.2.1.2 Radiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents ....................... 6-22

6.2.1.3 Nonradiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents .................. 6-22

6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel ............................... 6-23

6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions ...................................................................... 6-24

6.2.2.2 Radiological Impacts of Accidents ............................................... 6-30

6.2.2.3 Nonradiological Impact of Spent Fuel Shipments ........................ 6-33

6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive W aste ......................................................... 6-34

6.2.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 6-36

6.3 Decom missioning Impacts ..................................................................................... 6-36

6.4 References ............................................................................................................. 6-37

7.0 Cum ulative Im pacts ......................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................. 7-2

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

7.3 W ater Use and Quality ............................................................................................. 7-3

7.3.1 W ater-Use Impacts ....................................................................................... 7-3

7.3.1.1 Surface-W ater-Use Impacts ........................................................... 7-4

7.3.1.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts ............................................................. 7-8

7.3.2 W ater-Quality Impacts ................................................................................ 7-10

7.3.2.1 Surface-W ater-Quality Impacts .................................................... 7-10

7.3.2.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts ...................................................... 7-12

7.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem ............................................................................................. 7-15

7.5 Aquatic Ecosystem .................................................................................................. 7-19

7.5.1 Construction ............................................................................................... 7-19

7.5.2 Operations .................................................................................................. 7-21

7.6 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice ........... 7-26

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

7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation ............................................................. 7-27

7.9 Severe Accidents ................................................................................................... 7-29

NUREG-1872 xii August 2008
7.10 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning ................................................ 7-29

7.11 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................. 7-31

7.12 References ............................................................................................................. 7-31

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

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

8.2 Power Demand/Integrated Resource Planning ........................................................ 8-4

8.3 Power Supply/Integrated Resource Planning in the State of Georgia ...................... 8-5

8.4 Assessment of Need for Power/NRC Findings on GPC's IRP ................................. 8-7

8.4.1 Evaluation of GPC's IRP .............................................................................. 8-7

8.4.2 Other Forecasts for Energy .......................................................................... 8-7

8.4.3 NRC Conclusions ....................... ................................................................ 8-10

8.5 References ............................................................................................................. 8-10

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

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

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

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

9.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity ........................................ 9-5

9.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Power Generation ....................................................... 9-6

9.2.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation .......................................... 9-12

9.2.3 Other Alternatives ....................................................................................... 9-16

9.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Power Generation ......................................................... 9-17

9.2.3.2 W ind Power ................................................................................. 9-18

9.2.3.3 Solar Power ................................................................................. 9-19

9.2.3.4 Hydropower ................................................................................. 9-19

9.2.3.5 Geothermal Energy ...................................................................... 9-20

9.2.3.6 W ood W aste ................................................................................ 9-20

9.2.3.7 M unicipal Solid W aste ................................................................. 9-21

9.2.3.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels ..................................................... 9-21

9.2.3.9 Fuel Cells .................................................................................... 9-22

9.2.4 Combination of Alternatives ........................................................................ 9-23

9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................ 9-24

9.3 System Design Alternatives ................................................................................... 9-25

9.3.1 Plant Cooling System - Once-Through Operation ..................................... 9-26

9.3.2 Dry or Hybrid Wet/Dry Cooling Towers ....................... 9-26

9.4 Region of Interest and Alternative Site-Selection Process ............... 9-27

9.4.1 Southern's Region of Interest ..................................................................... 9-27

9.4.2 Southern's Site-Selection Process.:........................................................... 9-28

9.5 Evaluation of Alternative Sites ............................................................................... 9-30

9.5.1 Plant Hatch.* ............................................................................................... 9-30

August 2008 xiii NUREG-1872
9.5.1.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way ..... 9-30

9.5.1.2 W ater Use and Quality ................................................................. 9-33

9.5.1.3 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................... 9-33

9.5.1.4 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................... 9-36

9.5.1.5 Socioeconomics ........................................................................... 9-39

9.5.1.6 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................. 9-47

9.5.1.7 Environmental Justice ................................................................... 9-48

9.5.2 Plant Farley ................................................................................................ 9-48

9.5.2.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way ..... 9-48

9.5.2.2 W ater Use and Quality ................................................................. 9-50

9.5.2.3 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................... 9-51

9.5.2.4 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................... 9-55

9.5.2.5 Socioeconomics ........................................................................... 9-59

9.5.2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................. 9-67

9.5.2.7 Environmental Justice ........................... 9-68

9.5.3 Barton Site .................................................................................................. 9-68

9.5.3.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way ..... 9-68

9.5.3.2 W ater Use and Quality .............................................................. 9-70

9.5.3.3 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................... 9-71

9.5.3.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species ..................... 9-74

9.5.3.5 Socioeconomics ........................................................................... 9-77

9.5.3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................. 9-84

9.5.3.7 Environmental Justice .................................................................. 9-84

9.6 Issues Among Sites Handled Generically .............................................................. 9-85

9.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology ...................................................................................... 9-85

9.6.1.1 Cooling Towers ............................................................................ 9-86

9.6.2 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................... 9-88

9.6.2.1 Physical Impacts .......................................................................... 9-88

9.6.3 Nonradiological Health Impacts ..................... I ............................................ 9-90

9.6.4 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations .............................................. 9-91

9.6.5 Postulated Accidents .................................................................................. 9-92

9.7 Summary of Alternative Site Impacts ..................................................................... 9-93

9.7.1 Summary of Alternative Site Construction Impacts .................................... 9-93

9.7.2 Summary of Alternative Site Operation Impacts ......................................... 9-94

9.8 References ............................................................................................................. 9-95

10.0 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites ............... 10-1

10.1 Comparison of the Proposed Site with the Alternative Sites .................................. 10-2

10.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites ........................................................................... 10-5

10.2.1 Construction ............................................................................................... 10-5

10.2.2 Operations .................................................................................................. 10-6

10.3 Obviously Superior Sites ........................................................................................ 10-7

NUREG-1872 xiV August 2008
10.4 Comparison with the No-Action Alternative ............................................................ 10-7

10.5 R eferences ............................................................................................................. 10-8

11.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 11-1

11.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................. 11-4

11.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ........................................................ 11-5

11.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction ................................... 11-6

11.2.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation ...................................... 11-8

11.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................ 11-8

11.4 Relationship between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the

H um an Environm ent ............................................................................................. 11-10

11.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................... 11-10

11.6 B enefit-C ost B alance ............................................................................................ 11-11

11.6 .1 B enefits ..................................................................................................... 1 1-12

11.6.1.1 Societal Benefits ................................ 11-12

11.6.1.2 Regional Benefits ....................................................................... 11-13

11.6.2 Costs .............................................. 11-14

11.6.2.1 Internal Costs ............. ..................................................... 11-15

11.6.2.2 External Costs .......................................................................... 11-17

11.6.3 Summary of Benefits and Costs ............................................................... 11-18

11.7 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................... 11-21

11.8 R eferences ........................................................................................................... 11-22

Appendix A: Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement ...................................... A-1

Appendix B: Organizations Contacted ................................................................................ B-1

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

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Application for an Early Site Permit at the

V E G P S ite ....................................................................................................................... C -1

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

Appendix E: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Responses ........ E-1

Appendix F: Key Early Site Permit Consultation Correspondence Regarding the VEGP

E arly S ite P erm it ............................................................................................................... F-1

Appendix G: Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment ...................... G-1

Appendix H: Authorizations and Consultations ................................................................... H-1

Appendix 1: VEGP Site Characteristics, AP1000 Design Parameters and Site Interface

V a lu e s ................................................................................................................................. I-1

Appendix J: Statements Made in the Early Site Permit Environmental Report Considered in

the NRC Staffs Environmental Review ............................................................................ J-1

August 2008 XV NUREG-1872
Figures

2-1 Proposed VEGP Site Footprint ........................................................................................ 2-2

2-2 The VEGP Site and the 80-km (50-mi) Vicinity ................................................................ 2-3

2-3 The VEGP Site and 10-km (6-mi) Vicinity ........................................................................ 2-5

2-4 P hysiographic M ap ....................................................................................................... 2-15

2-5 Daily Averaged Savannah River Discharge near Jackson, South Carolina .................. 2-19

2-6 Schematic Hydrostatigraphic Column for the Southeastern Coastal Plain Aquifer

System Underlying the VEGP Site .................................... 2-22

2-7 Water Table Aquifer: Piezometric Contour Map for June 2005 ..................................... 2-24

2-8 Tertiary Aquifer: Piezometric Contour Map for June 2005 ............................................. 2-25

2-9 Potentiometric-Surface Maps for the Dublin Aquifer System, and Midville Aquifer

System during 1992 and 2002, Near the Savannah River Site, Georgia and South

C a ro lina ......................................................................................................................... 2 -2 6

2-10 Extent of Hydrogeologic Units Underlying the Savannah River; the Upper Three

Runs Aquifer is Exposed in the Lower Right, and the Pre-Cretaceous Basement

Rock is Exposed in the Upper Left ................................................................................ 2-36

2-11 V EG P S ite Soil M ap ...................................................................................................... 2-4 5

2-12 V EG P Site W etlands M ap .............................................................................................. 2-51

2-13 2005 Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Locations at the VEGP Site ......... 2-62

2-14 Shortnose Sturgeon Probable Spawning Within an 80 km (50-mi) Radius of the

V E G P S ite ...................................................................................................................... 2 -92

2-15 Estimated Population in 2000 within 80 km (50-mi) of the VEGP Site .......................... 2-98

2-16 Recreational Areas within 80 km (50-mi) of the VEGP Site ......................................... 2-100

2-17 Major Commuter Routes in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties ...................... 2-106

2-18 Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups Meeting Environmental Justice

S election C riteria ......................................................................................................... 2-1 19

2-19 Aggregate Low Income Populations in Block Groups Meeting Environmental Justice

S election C riteria ......................................................................................................... 2-120

3-1 Artist's Conception of New Westinghouse AP1000 Units 3 and 4 Located Adjacent

to E xisting V E G P ............................................................................................................. 3-2

3-2 Simplified Flow Diagram of the Reactor Power Conversion System ............................... 3-3

3-3 General Cooling System Flow Diagram ........................................................................... 3-6

3-4 Plan View of River Intake System ................................................................................... 3-10

3-5 Section View of River Intake System ............................................................................. 3-11

3-6 Plan View of New Discharge Outfall for the Discharge System ..................................... 3-12

3-7 Section View of New Discharge Outfall for the Discharge System ................................ 3-13

NUREG-1872 xvi August 2008
4-1 Approximate Siting of the Planned New Transmission Line Right-of-W ay ...................... 4-4

5-1 Extent of the 2.8°C Above Ambient Isotherm Created by the Proposed VEGP Units

3 and 4 Discharge Pipe in the Combined Effluent Analysis ........................................... 5-19

5-2 Exposure Pathways to Man ........................................................................................... 5-65

5-3 Exposure Pathways to Biota Other than Man ................................................................ 5-66

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

6-2 Illustration of Truck Stop Model ..................................................................................... 6-27

8-1 Electricity Generating Facilities Owned and Operated by Southern Company ............... 8-3

8-2 SERC Service Territory ............................................ 8-9

9-1 Plant Hatch 80-km (50-mi) Vicinity ............................................................................... 9-32

9-2 Plant Farley 80-km (50-mi) Vicinity ............................................................................... 9-49

9-3 The Barton Site 80-km (50-mi) Vicinity .......................................................................... 9-69

August 2008 xvii NUREG-1872
Tables

2-1 Land Use in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties, Georgia ................................... 2-7

2-2 Savannah River Drought Rule Curves ........................................................................... 2-20

2-3 South Carolina and Georgia State-Listed Terrestrial Species with Known

Occurrence within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP Site ....................................................... 2-54

2-4 State-Listed Terrestrial Species in Georgia Counties Crossed by the Proposed

Thomson-Vogtle Transmission Line Right-of-Way (Burke, McDuffie, Jefferson and

W arren Counties in G eorgia) ........................................................................................ 2-58

2-5 Federally Listed Terrestrial Species Occurring in the Vicinity of the VEGP Site ........... 2-60

2-6 Federally Listed Terrestrial Species in Counties that are Proposed to Contain the

Proposed Thomson-Vogtle Transmission Line Right-of-Way (Burke, McDuffie,

Jefferson and W arren Counties in Georgia) .................................................................. 2-61

2-7 Native, Resident, Diadromous, Marine, and Upland Fish Species of the Middle

S avannah R iver ................................................................................ ............................ 2-77

2-8 Introduced Fish Species in the Middle Savannah River Basin and their Status ........... 2-80

2-9 Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species in the vicinity of the VEGP Site that are

Endangered, Threatened, and Species of Concern ...................................................... 2-86

2-10 Listed Terrestrial and Aquatic Species in Georgia Counties Crossed by the

Proposed New 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way ............................................... 2-87

2-11 Counties within 80 km (50 mi) of the Proposed VEGP Site ........................................... 2-96

2-12 Population Growth in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties (1970 to 2015) ......... 2-99

2-13 M inority and Low-Income Populations ......................................................................... 2-101

2-14 Residence Locations of the Workforce at the VEGP Site (June 2006) ........................ 2-103

2-15 Employment Changes in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties (1995-2005) ..... 2-103

2-16 Property Tax Information for Burke County (2000 - 2004) .......................................... 2-104

2-17 Recreation Areas Within 80 km (50-mi) of the VEGP Site .......................................... 2-108

2-18 Regional Housing Information by County for the Year 2000 ....................................... 2-108

2-19 Water Supply System Usage and Capacity for Groundwater Withdrawals ................. 2-110

2-20 Water Supply System Usage and Capacity for Withdrawals from Surface Water ....... 2-110

2-21 W astewater System Usage and Capacity ................................................................... 2-111

2-22 Hospitals and Physicians in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties ..................... 2-112

2-23 Number of Public Schools, Students, and Student Capacity in Burke, Columbia, and

R ichm ond C ounties ..................................................................................................... 2-112

2-24 Archaeological Sites Identified W ithin the VEGP Site ................................................. 2-115

2-25 Selected Health and Mortality Statistics for Minority and Total Population in Burke

County, the ECHD, and the State of Georgia ............................ 2-122

NUREG-1872 xviii August 2008
4-1 Existing Land Uses in Planned New Transmission Line Right-of-Way ............................ 4-5

4-2 Drawdown Due to Groundwater Withdrawal During VEGP Unit 3 and 4 Construction .4-12

4-3 Habitat Types and Acreage Associated with Permanent and Temporary

Construction Areas Associated with Construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 .................... 4-15

4-4 Number of Construction Workforce Cars per Hour on River Road during Peak Shift

C ha ng e s ................................. ..................................................................................... 4 -49

4-5 Impacts of Transporting Workers and Construction Materials to/from the VEGP Site ..4-66

4-6 Summary of Measures and Controls Proposed by Southern to Limit Adverse

Impacts during Construction of Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP Site ............... 4-70

4-7 Characterization of Impacts from Construction of New Units at the VEGP Site ............ 4-75

5-1 Savannah River Discharge and Surface-Water Withdrawals for Units 3 and 4 ............... 5-8

5-2 Consumptive Use of Savannah River Water for Units 3 and4 ........................................ 5-9

5-3 Drawdown Resulting from Groundwater Withdrawal During Operation of the

P roposed V EG P U nits 3.and 4 ...................................................................................... 5-12

5-4 Chemical discharges to the Savannah River from Proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 ....... 5-35

5-5 Potential Increase in Resident Population Resulting from Operating the Proposed

V E G P U nits 3 and 4 ....................................................................................................... 5-46

5-6 Range of Estimated Annual Property Taxes Paid to Burke County Generated by the

Proposed V EG P U nits 3 and 4 ....................................................................................... 5-48

5-7 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Workers to/from the VEGP Site .................... 5-63

5-8 Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual from Gaseous Effluent Pathway for

T w o U n its ....................................................................................................................... 5-6 8

5-9 Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Estimates for a Single New

Nuclear Unit from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I,

D esign O bjectives .......................................................................................................... 5-69 .

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

Gaseous Effluents to 40 CFR Part 190 Standards ........................................................ 5-70

5-11 Comparison of Biota Doses from the VEGP Site to 40 CFR Part 190 ........................... 5-73

5-12 Comparison of Biota Doses from the Proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP

Site to Relevant Guidelines for Biota Protection ............................................................ 5-74

5-13 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for VEGP Site DBA Calculations ............................... 5-78

5-14 DBA Doses for a Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor ......................................................... 5-79

5-15 Mean Environmental Risks from a Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor Severe Accident

at the V E G P S ite ............................................................................................................ 5-83

5-16 Comparison of Environmental Risks for a Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor at the

VEGP Site with Risks for Current-Generation Reactors at Five Sites Evaluated in

NUREG-1 150 and with Risks for the Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor at Three Other

E S P S ite s ....................................................................................................................... 5 -8 4

August 2008 xix NUREG-1872
5-17 Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by Internal

Events for a Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor at the VEGP Site with Risks Initiated

by Internal Events for Current Plants, Including VEGP Units 1 and 2, Undergoing

Operating License Renewal Review and Environmental Risks of the Westinghouse

AP1000 Reactor at Other ESP Sites ............................................................................ 5-85

5-18 Summary of Measures and Controls Proposed by Southern to Limit Adverse

Impacts During Operation of Proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP Site.. .......... 5-92

5-19 Characterization of Operational Impacts at the VEGP Site .................. 5-95

6-1 Table S-3 from 10 CFR 51.51, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data ......... 6-2

6-2 Comparison of Annual Average Dose Received by an Individual from All Sources ...... 6-12

6-3 Numbers of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for Each Advanced Reactor Type..6-18

6-4 RADTRAN 5 Input Parameters for Fresh Fuel Shipments ............................................ 6-19

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

the V E G P S ite ................................................................................................................ 6-19

6-6 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to the VEGP Site,

Norm alized to Reference LW R ..................................................................................... 6-23

6-7 Transportation Route Information for Shipments from Advanced Reactor Sites to the

Yucca Mountain Spent Fuel Disposal Facility ................................................................ 6-26

6-8 RADTRAN 5 Normal (Incident-free) Exposure Parameters ........................................... 6-26

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

Shipping Spent Fuel from the VEGP Site to the Proposed High-Level Waste

Repository at Y ucca M ountain ...................................................................................... 6-27

6-10 Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for

Each Advanced Reactor Type ...................................................................................... 6-31

6-11 Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for Advanced Reactors,

Normalized to Reference 1100-MW LWR Net Electrical Generation ............................ 6-33

6-12 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Spent Fuel from the VEGP site to Yucca

M ountain, Norm alized to Reference LW R ..................................................................... 6-34

6-13 Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the VEGP Site .................................. 6-35

6-14 Nonradiological Impacts of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the VEGP Site ........... 6-36

7-1 Savannah River Discharge Rates and Combined Surface-Water Withdrawal Rates ...... 7-4

7-2 Consumptive Use of Savannah River W ater ................................................................... 7-5

9-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation .......................... 9-12

9-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation .............. 9-17

9-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources .................... 9-23

9-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Construction and Operation of New Nuclear,

Coal-Fired, and Natural-Gas-Fired Generating Units, and a Combination

o f A lte rna tive s ................................................................................................................ 9-2 5

'9-5 Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species within Vicinity of the Plant Farley Site .. 9-58

NUREG-1872 XX August 2008
9-6 Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species Within Vicinity of the Barton Site .......... 9-76

9-7 Characterization of Construction Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites ......................... 9-93

9-8 Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites .......................... 9-94

10-1 Comparison of Construction Impacts at the VEGP Site and Alternative Sites .............. 10-3

10-2 Comparison of Operational Impacts at the VEGP Site and Alternative Sites ................ 10-4

11-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction of VEGP

U nits 3 and 4 .................................................................................................................. 11-7

11-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation of VEGP

U nits 3 and 4 ................................................................................................................. 11-9

11-3 Summary of Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Action ............................................. 11-19

11-4 Summary of Environmental Significance of Locating Two New Nuclear Reactors at

the VEGP Site and at Alternative Sites and for the No-Action Alternative ................... 11-22

August 2008 xxi NUREG-1872

Executive Summary

On August 14, 2006, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) submitted to the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) an application for an early site permit (ESP) for a

site within the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site, adjacent to the existing VEGP Units

1 and 2. The site is located in Burke County, Georgia, approximately 42 km (26 mi) southeast

of Augusta, Georgia. An ESP is a Commission approval of a site for one or more nuclear power

facilities and is a separate action from the filing of an application for a construction permit (CP)

or combined license (COL) for such a facility. An ESP is not a license to build a nuclear power

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

proposed site is suitable should Southern decide to pursue a CP or COL.

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

that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for major Federal actions that

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section

102 of NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. Subpart A of

10 CFR Part 52 contains the NRC regulations related to ESPs. As set forth in 10 CFR 52.18,

the Commission has determined that an EIS will be prepared during the review of an application

for an ESP. The purpose of Southern's requested action, issuance of the ESP, is for the NRC

to determine whether the VEGP site is suitable for the proposed two new units (VEGP Units 3

and 4) by resolving certain safety and environmental issues before Southern incurs the

substantial additional time and expense of designing and seeking approval to construct such a

facility at the site. Part 52,of CFR Title 10 describes the ESP as a "partial construction permit."

An applicant for a CP or COL for a nuclear power plant or plants to be located at the site for

which an ESP was issued can reference the ESP, thus eliminating the review of siting issues at

that stage of the licensing process. However, granting a CP or COL to construct and operate a

nuclear power plant is a major Federal action and would require an EIS be issued in accordance

with 10 CFR Part 51.

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

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

Southern's proposal in relation to these issues and determines if the application meets the

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the NRC regulations. This EIS addresses

the potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of two new

units at the VEGP site.

An ESP application may refer to a plant parameter envelope, which is a set of postulated design

parameters that bound the characteristics of one or more reactor designs that might be built at a

selected site; alternatively, an ESP application may refer to a detailed reactor design. In its ESP

application, Southern has specified the Westinghouse AP1000 as the proposed detailed reactor

design.

In its application, Southern requested authorization to perform certain construction activities if

an ESP is issued. The application, therefore, includes a site redress plan that specifies how

Southern would stabilize and restore the portion of the site associated with construction

August 2008 xxiii NUREG-1872
activities to its preconstruction condition (or conditions consistent with an alternative use) in the

event a nuclear power plant is not constructed on the approved site. In addition, Southern

addressed the benefits of the proposed action (e.g., the need for power). In accordance with

10 CFR 52.18, the EIS is focused on the environmental effects of construction and operation of

a reactor, or reactors, that have characteristics that fall within the postulated site parameters.

Upon acceptance of the Southern application, the NRC began the environmental review

process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent

(71 FR 58882) to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping. The staff held a public scoping meeting

in Waynesboro, Georgia, on October 19, 2006, and visited the VEGP site in October 2006.

Subsequent to the scoping meeting and the site visit, and in accordance with the provisions of

NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51, the staff determined and evaluated the potential environmental

impacts of constructing and operating new units at the VEGP site. Included in this EIS are

(1) the results of the NRC staffs analyses, which consider and weigh the environmental effects

of the proposed action (i.e., issuance of the ESP) and of constructing and operating two

additional nuclear units at the ESP site; (2) mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding

adverse effects; (3) the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and

(4) the staffs recommendation regarding the proposed action.

During the course of preparing this EIS, the staff reviewed the application, including the

Environmental Report (ER) submitted by Southern; consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and

local agencies; and followed the guidance set forth in NRC review standard RS-002, Processing

Applications for Early Site Permits, to conduct an independent review of the issues. The review

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

Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants, and NUREG-1 555, Environmental

Standard Review Plan (ESRP). In addition, the staff considered the public comments related to

the environmental review received during the scoping process. These comments are provided

in Appendix D of this EIS.

The results of this evaluation were documented in a draft EIS issued for public comment in

September 2007. During the comment period, the staff conducted a public meeting on October

4, 2007, in Waynesboro, Georgia, to describe the results of the NRC environmental review,

answer questions, and provide members of the public with information to assist them in

formulating comments on the draft EIS. After the comment period closed, the staff considered

and dispositioned all the comments received. These comments are addressed in Appendix E of

this EIS.

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

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

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

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

levels are as follows:

SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they

would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the

resource.

NUREG-1872 xxiv August 2008
MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to

destabilize important attributes of the resource.

Mitigation measures were considered for each environmental issue and are discussed in the

appropriate sections.

The staffs recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the

proposed action is that the ESP should be issued as proposed. The staffs evaluation of the site

safety and emergency preparedness aspects of the proposed action will be addressed in the

staffs safety evaluation report anticipated to be published in February 2009.

This recommendation is based on (1) the application and supporting documentation, including

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

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

related to the environmental review that were received during the scoping process and the draft

EIS public comment period; and (5) the assessments summarized in the EIS, including the

potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and this EIS. In addition, in making its

recommendation to the Commission, the staff has determined that there are no environmentally

preferable or obviously superior sites among the alternative sites considered. Finally, the staff

has concluded that the construction activities requested by Southern (as defined under 10 CFR

50.10(a)) would not result in any significant adverse environmental impact that cannot be

redressed.

August 2008 XXV NUREG-1872

AbbreviationslAcronyms

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic

ac acre(s)

ac-ft acre-feet

ADAMS Agencywide Document Access and Management System

ADCNR Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management

AEC Atomic Energy Commission

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable

ALNHP Alabama Natural Heritage Program

ANSP (The) Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia

APE Area of Potential Effect

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

AQI Air Quality Index

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

AWEA American Wind Energy Association

BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation

BMP best management practices

Bq becquerel

Bq/yr becquerel per year

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Btu British thermal unit(s)

Btu/hr British thermal units per hour

BWR boiling water reactor

°C degree Celsius

CAA Clean Air Act

CDC U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CDF core damage frequency

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second (water flow)

Ci curies

Ci/yr curies per year

Ci/MTU curies per metric ton uranium

cm centimeter(s)

cm/s centimeters per second

cm/yr centimeters per year

CO carbon monoxide

CO 2 carbon dioxide

COL combined license

CORMIX Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System

CP construction permit

CSSI Coastal Sound Science Initiative

August 2008 xxvii NUREG-1872
CWA Clean Water Act

CWIS cooling water intake structure

CWS circulating water system

CSX CSX Transportation, Inc.

d day

dBA decibel(s)

DBA design basis accident(s)

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

EAB exclusion area boundary

ECHD East Central Health District

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS environmental impact statement

ELF extremely low frequency.

EMC Electric Membership Corporation

EMF electromagnetic field(s)

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPD Environmental Protection Division

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

ER Environmental Report

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESP early site permit

ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan

OF degree Fahrenheit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

Farley Joseph M Farley Nuclear Plant

FCWA Federal Clean Water Act (also known as the Clean Water Act)

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FES Final Environmental Statement

FR Federal Register

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report

FSER Final Safety Evaluation Report

ft foot/feet

ft/s feet per second

ft3/yr cubic feet per year

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

gal gallon(s)

gal/d/ft gallon(s) per day per foot

gal/yr gallon(s) per year

GBq gigabecquarel

GDHR Georgia Department of Human Resources

GDNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources

GDOT Georgia Department of Transportation

GElS generic environmental impact statement

GOPBP Georgia Office of Planning and Budget Policy

GOSA Governor's Office of Student Achievement

NUREG-1872 xxviii August 2008
GPC Georgia Power Company

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute

GPSC Georgia Public Service Commission

GTC Georgia Transmission Corporation

ha hectare(s)

Hatch Edwin I Hatch Nuclear Plant

HLW high-level waste

hr hour

hz hertz

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle

in. inch(es)

in./s inch(es) per second

in./yr inch(es) per year

Inc. Incorporated

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

IRP Integrated Resource Plan

ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

ISWA Integrated Waste Services Association

kg kilogram(s)

kg/ac kilogram(s) per acre

kg/ha/mo kilogram(s) per hectare per month

km kilometer(s)

km 2 square kilometer(s)

kV kilovolt

kVh kilovolt hour

L liter(s)

lb pound(s)

LC50 Lethal Concentration 50 (i.e., the concentration of a chemical that kills

50 percent of the sample population)

L/d liter(s) per day

L/d/m liter(s) per day per meter -

Us liter(s) per second

lbs/ac/mo pounds per acre per month

lbs/acre pounds per acre

LLC limited liability company

LPZ low population zone

LWA limited work authorization

LWR light-water reactor

m meter(s)

m/s meter(s) per second

m2/s square meter(s) per second

m3

/d cubic meter(s) per day

m3/s cubic meter(s) per second

August 2008 xxix NUREG-1872
m3/yr

MACC2

MBq

MCL

MEAG

MEI

mg/I

MGD

mGy/yr

mi

mi2

MIT

mL

MOX

mph

mR

mrad

mrem

mrem/hr

mrem/yr

MSL

mSv

mSv/yr

MT

MTBE

MTU

MTU/yr

MW

MWd/MTU

MW(e)

MWh

MW(t)

NAAQS

NAGPRA

NAS

NAVD

NCDC

NCES

NCI

NCRP

NEPA

NESC

NHPA

NIEHS

NMFS

NOAA

NUREG-1872

cubic meter(s) per year

MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System Version 2

million Becquerel(s)

maximum concentration limit

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia

maximally exposed individual

milligram(s) per liter

million gallons per day

milligray per year

mile(s)

square mile(s)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

milliliter(s)

mixed oxide fuel

miles per hour

milliroentgen(s)

millirad(s)

millirem(s)

millirem(s) per hour

millirem(s) per year

mean sea level

millisievert(s)

millisievert(s) per year

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

methyl tert-butyl ether

metric ton(s)-uranium

metric ton(s)-uranium/per year

megawatt(s)

megawatt-days per metric ton of uranium

megawatts electric

megawatt hour(s)

megawatts thermal

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Native American Graves Protection and- Repatriation Act of 1990

National Academy of Sciences

North American Vertical Datum

National Climatic Data Center

National Center for Education Statistics

National Cancer Institute

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

National Electrical Safety Code

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

XXX August 2008
NOAA-CSC

NO,

NPCC

NPDES

NPF

NRC

NRCS

NRSAL

NSA

NSC

NSPS

OCGA

OECD

OPC

OSHA

PAM

PARS

pCi/L

PM

PM2.5

PM10

PNNL

POR

PPE

ppm

PRA

PSD

PWR

RAI

RCRA

RDC

REMP

rkm

RM

ROI

RRCC

RSICC

Ryr

SACTI

SAMA

SAMDA

SC DHEC

SC DNR

SCE&G

SCR

SDWtS

August 2008,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Service Center

nitrogen oxide

Northwest Power and Conservation Council

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Nuclear Power Facility

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Natural Resource Spatial Analysis Laboratory

New South Associates

National Safety Council

new source performance standards

Official Code of Georgia

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

Oglethorpe Power Corporation

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

primary amoebic meningoencephalitis

Publicly Available Records System

picocuries per liter

particulate matter

particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers

particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

period of record

plant parameter envelope

parts per million

probabilistic risk assessment

prevention significant deterioration

pressurized water reactor

Request(s) for Additional Information

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Representative Delineated Corridor

radiological environmental monitoring program

River Kilometers

River Mile

region of interest

Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee

Radiation Safety Information Computational Center

per reactor year

Seasonal and Annual Cooling Tower Impacts

severe accident mitigation alternative

severe accident mitigation design alternative

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

South Carolina Electric and Gas

selective catalytic reduction

Safe Drinking Water Information System

xxxi NUREG-1872
SEARPDC

SERC

SER

SHPO

S02

SO,

Southern

SPCC

SSAR

SSURGO

Sv

Sv/yr

SWPPP

SWS

TBq

TBq/MTU

TDS

TEDE

THPO

TLD

tpy

TRC

TRU

UHS

USACE

USBEA

USBLS

USC

USCB

USGS

VEGP

VOC

Westinghouse

WMA

WNA

WSRC

x/Q

yr

Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission

South Eastern Reliability Council

safety evaluation report

State Historic Preservation Office/Officer

sulfur dioxide

sulfur oxide

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan

Site Safety Analysis Report

Soil Survey Geographic

sievert

sievert per year

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

service water system

terabecquerel

terabecquerel per metric ton(s)-uranium

total dissolved solids

total effective dose equivalent

Tribal Historic Preservation Offices/Officers

thermoluminescent dosimeter

tons per year

Third Rock Consultants, LLC

transuranic (waste)

ultimate heat sink

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

United States Code

U.S. Census Bureau

U.S. Geological Survey

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

volatile organic compound

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC

Wildlife Management Area

World Nuclear Association

Westinghouse Savannah River Company

dispersion values

year(s)

NUREG-1872 xxxii August 2008
August 2008 xxxiii. NUREG-1872

1.0 Introduction

On August 14, 2006, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) submitted to the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) an application for an early site permit (ESP) for a

site within the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. The

VEGP site and existing facilities are owned by Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power

Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the city of Dalton, Georgia. Southern

is the licensee and operator of the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2, and has been authorized by the

VEGP co-owners to apply for an ESP for two additional units at the VEGP site.

Under the NRC regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52, and in

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

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

prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) as part of its review of an ESP application.

As required by 10 CFR 51.26, the NRC published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent

(71 FR 58882) to prepare an EIS, conduct scoping, and publish a draft EIS for public comment.

The staff considered the scoping and draft EIS public comments in developing the final EIS. A

separate safety evaluation report (SER) will also be prepared inaccordance with

10 CFR Part 52.

1.1 Background

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

The filing of an application for an ESP is a process that is separate from the filing of an

application for a construction permit (CP) or combined license (COL) for such a facility. The

ESP application and review processes make it possible to evaluate and resolve safety and

environmental issues related to siting before the applicant makes large commitments of

resources. If the ESP is approved, then the applicant can "bank" the site for up to 20 years for

future reactor siting. In addition, if the ESP applicant requests a limited work authorization

(LWA) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.10 and 52.17(c) that is issued by the Commission, and if the ESP

includes a site redress plan, the ESP holder can conduct certain construction activities as

defined by 10 CFR 50.10(a). An ESP does not authorize construction and operation of a

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

obtain a CP and operating license or a COL, which is a separate major Federal action and

would require that an EIS be issued in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.

To document its evaluation of the environmental impacts of the action proposed in an ESP

application, the NRC prepares an EIS in accordance with 10 CFR 52.18. Because site

suitability encompasses construction and operational parameters, the EIS addresses impacts of

both construction and operation of reactors and associated facilities. In a review separate from

August 2008 1-1 NUREG-1872
Introduction

the EIS process, the NRC analyzes the safety characteristics of the proposed site and

emergency planning information. These latter two analyses are documented in an SER that

presents the conclusions reached by the NRC regarding (1) whether there is reasonable

assurance that two Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) AP1000 advanced

light-water reactors can be constructed and operated at the VEGP site without undue risk to the

health and safety of the public, (2) whether there are significant impediments to the

development of emergency plans, and (3) whether site characteristics are such that adequate

security plans and measures can be developed. In addition, if the applicant proposes major

features of emergency plans or complete and integrated emergency plans, the SER would

document whether such major features are acceptable or whether the complete and integrated

emergency plans provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and

would be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

1.1.1 Early Site Construction Activities

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

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

construction activities as defined by 10 CFR 50.10(a), provided that the final ESP EIS concludes

the activities would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be

redressed. Southern provided a site redress plan as part of its ESP application (Southern 2008)

to obtain authorization to conduct certain site construction activities. Southern's site redress

plan is discussed in more detail in Section 4.11 of this EIS.

1.1.2 ESP Application and Review

In accordance with 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2), Southern submitted an Environmental Report (ER) as

part of its ESP application (Southern 2008). The ER focuses on the environmental effects of

construction and operation of two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors. Southern's ER also includes

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

to the proposed site (Southern 2008). An ESP ER is not required to include an assessment of

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

Southern did include a discussion on need for power and energy alternatives, and the analyses

are evaluated in Chapters 8 and 9 of this EIS. In addition, Southern elected to provide a

discussion of benefits and costs of the proposed action in its application. Therefore, the staff

also performed this analysis, which is provided in Chapter 11 of this EIS.

The NRC standards for review of an ESP application are outlined in 10 CFR 52.18. As does

Southern in its ER (Southern 2008), this EIS focuses on the environmental effects of

construction and operation of two Westinghouse AP1 000 reactors, and includes an evaluation

of alternative sites to determine whether there is any obviously superior alternative to the

VEGP site.

NUREG-1872 1-2 August 2008
Introduction

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

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

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

the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1987), and NUREG-1 555,

Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000). RS-002 provides guidance to NRC

staff reviewers to help ensure a thorough, consistent, and disciplined review of any ESP

application.

If a CP or COL application referencing an ESP is filed, the staff will assess any new and

significant information pertaining to environmental impacts of the construction and operation of

the proposed facilities. As a result of the staffs environmental review-of the ESP application,

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

areas, as set forth in 10 CFR 52.24. In this EIS, the staff has identified when and how

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

particular resource.

In accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51, on October 5, 2006, the NRC

published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping

(71 FR 58882). On October 19, 2006, the NRC environmental staff, (and technical experts from

the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory [PNNL] who were retained to assist the staff) held a

scoping meeting to obtain public input on the scope of the environmental review. To gather

information and to become familiar with the sites and their environs, the NRC and PNNL team

visited the VEGP site in October 2006 and the alternative sites (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant

[Farley], Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant [Hatch], and the Barton site [Barton]) in November 2006.

During the VEGP site visit, the staff and its contractors met with Southern staff, public officials,

and the public. The staff reviewed the comments received during the scoping process and

contacted Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local agencies to solicit comments. A list of the

organizations contacted is provided in Appendix.B. Other documents related to the VEGP site

were reviewed and are listed as references where appropriate.

The results of the NRC staffs analysis were documented in a draft EIS issued for public

comment in September 2007. A 75-day comment period began on September 14, 2007, when

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a Notice of Availability (72 FR 52586) of the

draft EIS to allow members of the public to comment on the results of the NRC staff's review. A

request for 30-day extension of the comment period was granted, and the comment period

officially ended on December 28, 2007. A public meeting was held on October 4, 2007, in

Waynesboro, Georgia, during the public comment period. During this public meeting, the staff

described the results of the NRC environmental review, answered questions related to the

review, and provided members of the public with information to assist them in formulating their

comments. Comments on the draft EIS and the staffs response are provided in Appendix E.

August 2008 1-3 NUREG-1872
Introduction

This final EIS has change bars in the page margins to denote where changes have been made

since the draft EIS was published.

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

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

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

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

levels are 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.

LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to

destabilize important attributes of the resource.

This EIS presents the staff's analysis, which considers and weighs the environmental impacts of

the proposed action at the VEGP site, including the environmental impacts associated with

construction and operation of reactors at the site, the impacts of construction and operation of

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

the mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. This

EIS also provides the NRC staffs recommendation to the Commission regarding the issuance

of the ESP for the VEGP site.

1.2 The Proposed Federal Action

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

the VEGP site, including a LWA pursuant to 10 CFR 52.24(c). In addition, Southern proposes

that a plan for redressing the environmental effects of certain construction activities (i.e., those

activities allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(a) is authorized to be performed by an ESP holder pursuant

to 10 CFR 52.25. In accordance with the redress plan, the site would be redressed if (1) the

NRC issues the requested ESP (containing the site redress plan), (2) the ESP holder performs

these preliminary construction activities, and (3) the ESP is not referenced in an application for

a CP or COL. While an ESP applicant does not request construction and operation of a new

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

operation of new units at the VEGP site or at one of the three alternative sites. These impacts

are analyzed to determine if the proposed ESP. site is suitable for the addition of the new units

and whether any of the alternative sites is considered obviously superior to the proposed site.

NUREG-1872 1-4 August 2008
Introduction

The site proposed by Southern is located in Burke County, Georgia, approximately 42 km

(26 mi) southeast of Augusta, Georgia. The site is completely within the confines of the current

VEGP site, with the proposed new Units 3 and 4 to be adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2.

In this EIS, the proposed site is evaluated for construction and operation of two Westinghouse

AP1000 reactors, with a total combined thermal power rating of 6800 MW(t). The new units

would use a closed-cycle cooling system and require a single natural draft cooling tower for

each unit.

1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose and need for the proposed action (i.e., issuance of an ESP) is to provide for early

resolution of many safety and environmental issues that may be identified for the ESP site.

Alternatively, all safety and environmental issues would have to be addressed at the time of the

staffs review of a COL submitted under 10 CFR Part 52 if no ESP for the site were referenced.

Although actual construction and operation of the facility would not take place until a COL is

granted, certain long lead-time activities, such as ordering and procuring certain components

and materials necessary to construct the plant, may begin before the COL is granted. As a

result, without the ESP review process, there could be a considerable expenditure of funds,

commitment of resources, and passage of time before site safety and environmental issues are

finally resolved.

1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA states that ElSs are to include a detailed statement on

alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC regulations for implementing Section 102(2) of

NEPA provide for including in an EIS a chapter that discusses the environmental impacts of the

proposed action and the alternatives (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A). Chapter 9 of

this EIS discusses the environmental impacts of four categories of alternatives: (1) the

no-action alternative, (2) energy source alternatives, (3) system design alternatives, and (4) site

alternatives. The Commission determined that evaluation of energy alternatives is not required

for an ESP. However, Southern included a discussion of energy alternatives in its ER;

therefore, the staff conducted an evaluation of energy alternatives.

The three alternative sites that are considered are all owned by Southern. Plant Hatch is

located in Georgia, and Plant Farley and the Barton site (a greenfield site) are located in

Alabama. Plant Hatch and Plant Farley both currently have operating nuclear reactors. The

environmental analysis of the alternative sites was performed using reconnaissance-level

information. Chapter 9 also includes sections discussing (1) Southern's region of interest for

identification of alternative plant sites, (2) the methodology used by Southern to select

alternative sites and the proposed VEGP site, and (3) generic environmental issues consistent

August 2008 1-5 NUREG-1872
Introduction

among alternative sites. Chapter 10 compares the environmental impacts at the VEGP site to

the alternative sites and to the no-action alternative and qualitatively determines whether there

is an obviously superior alternative site to the proposed site.

1.5 Compliance and Consultations

Prior to construction and operation of new units, Southern is required to hold certain Federal,

State, and local environmental permits, as well as meet applicable Federal and State statutory

requirements. Southern (2008) provided a list of environmental approvals and consultations

associated with the VEGP ESP application. Because an ESP is limited to establishing the

acceptability of the proposed site for future development, the authorizations Southern will need

from Federal, State, and local authorities for construction and operation are not yet required;

therefore, they have not been obtained. However, Southern will need to obtain the necessary

authorizations to conduct site-preparation activities that might precede the construction activities

specified in the site redress plan as well as those construction activities. Potential

authorizations and consultations relevant to the proposed ESP are included in Appendix H. The

information provided in Appendix H is based on guidance in NUREG-1555, Environmental

Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000).

The staff reviewed the list of environmental approvals and consultations and has contacted the

appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies to identify any compliance, permit, or

significant environmental issues of concern to the reviewing agencies that may impact the

suitability of the VEGP site for the construction and operation of the proposed two

Westinghouse AP1000 reactors.

1.6 Report Contents

The subsequent chapters of this EIS are organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the

proposed site and discusses the environment that would be affected by the addition of the new

units. Chapter 3 examines the power plant characteristics to be used as the basis for evaluating

the environmental impacts. The evaluations described in Chapter 3 are based on the

characteristics of the Westinghouse API1000 reactor as well as site characteristics for which

information is currently available. Chapters 4 and 5 examine site suitability by analyzing the

environmental impacts of construction (Chapter 4) and operation (Chapter 5) of the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4. Chapter 6 analyzes the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle,

transportation of radioactive materials, and decommissioning, while Chapter 7 discusses the

cumulative impacts of the proposed action. Chapter 8 addresses the need for power.

Chapter 9 discusses alternatives to the proposed action, (including the no-action alternative),

and analyzes alternative sites, systems, and energy sources. Chapter 10 compares the

proposed action with the alternatives, and Chapter 11 summarizes the findings of the preceding

I chapters and presents the staff's recommendation with respect to (1) the Commission's

NUREG-1872 1-6 August 2008
Introduction

approval of the proposed site for an ESP based on the staff's evaluation of environmental

impacts and (2) the conclusions regarding the site redress plan.

As mentioned above, the staff analyzes the impacts of construction and operation of the

proposed action in Chapters 4 and 5, and discusses cumulative impacts in Chapter 7. As a

result of the NRC's recent new rule on the LWAs for nuclear power plants (see 72 FR 57416),

the definition of construction activities in 10 CFR 50.10 has changed to more clearly reflect the

NRC's jurisdiction. The staffs draft EIS for the VEGP ESP review was published prior to the

issuance of the final rule. To reflect the effects of the new rule, site preparation and

preconstruction activities would most appropriately be analyzed in the staff's EIS as cumulative

impacts rather than as impacts of construction or operation of the proposed facility. However, in

this instance, to ensure appropriate consideration of public comments on the draft EIS and

avoid confusion from reorganizing the document following those comments, the staff will keep

discussions of such impacts (i.e., those no longer defined by regulation as construction

activities) in the chapters in which they were discussed in the draft EIS. While the staffs

analysis of construction activities in the draft EIS and its discussion of cumulative impacts are

different, they are generally at a similar depth of analysis. The staff believes this approach will

allow effective consideration of public comments while still ensuring that impacts relevant to the

NEPA analysis are disclosed and fully evaluated.

The appendixes provide the following additional information.

" Appendix A - Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement

" Appendix B - Organizations Contacted

" Appendix C - Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related to

Southern Nuclear Operating Company Inc., Application for Early Site Permit at the VEGP

Site

" Appendix D - Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses

* Appendix E - Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Responses

" Appendix F - Key Early Site Permit Consultation Correspondence Regarding the VEGP

Early Site Permit

* Appendix G - Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment

* Appendix H - Authorizations and Consultations

* Appendix I - VEGP Site Characteristics, AP1000 Design Parameters and Site Interface

Values

" Appendix J - Statements Made in the Early Site Permit Environmental Report Considered in

the NRC Staffs Environmental Review

August 2008 1-7 NUREG-1872
Introduction

1.7 References

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

Production and Utilization Facilities."

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses,

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."

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

1508, "Terminology and Index."

71 FR 58882. October 5, 2006. "Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle ESP Site;

Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process."

.Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

72 FR 52586. September 14, 2007. "Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Notice of

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the

Vogtle ESP Site and Associated Public Meeting." Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission. Accessed May 1, 2008 at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAIMPACT/2007/September/Day-14/i18143.htm.

72 FR 57416. November 8, 2007. "Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants."

Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

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

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008. Vogtle Early Site Permit

Application, Revision 4. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No.

ML081020073.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plans for the Review of

Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, Volumes 1 and 2, Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr0800.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan:

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

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/srl 555/.

NUREG-1872 1-8 August 2008
Introduction

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Processing Applications for Early Site

Permits. RS-002, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008

at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/esp-public-comments-rs-002.html.

August 2008 1-9 NUREG-1872

2.0 Affected Environment

The site proposed by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) for an early site

permit (ESP) is located in Burke County, Georgia, within the existing boundaries of the current

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP). The VEGP property is owned by Georgia Power

Company (GPC), Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and

the city of Dalton (Dalton Utilities). The site is located on the shores of the Savannah River

approximately 24 km (15 mi) east-northeast of Waynesboro, Georgia, and 42 km (26 mi)

southeast of Augusta, Georgia. Two operating nuclear generating units (Units 1 and 2) are

currently located on the VEGP site. The station location is described in Section 2.1, with the

land, meteorology and air quality, geology, radiological environment, water, ecology,

socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice aspects of the site

presented in Sections 2.2 through 2.10, respectively. Section 2.11 examines related Federal

projects, and references are presented in Section 2.12.

2.1 Site Location

Southern's proposed location for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 is within the VEGP site (see

Figure 2-1). The center line of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be located

approximately 640 m (2100 ft) west and 120 m (400 ft) south of the center of Unit 2 containment

building. Unit 4 would be located approximately 244 m (800 ft) west of Unit 3.

The VEGP site is located in rural Burke County. The nearest population center that has more

than 25,000 residents is Augusta. Figure 2-2 shows the location of VEGP in relationship to the

counties and important cities and towns within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the site. The VEGP

site is generally bounded by River Road, Hancock Landing Road, and the Savannah River.

Access to the site is from River Road. Barge access is available from the Savannah River, and

a railroad spur runs to the site from the Norfolk Southern Savannah-to-Augusta track. The

community of Girard is located approximately 13 km (8 mi) to the south. Rhodes Air Ranch, a

privately owned airstrip, is located north of the VEGP site. The VEGP site occupies

approximately 1282.5 ha (3169 ac) of land, and it is located directly across the Savannah River

from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Savannah River Site (Southern 2008a).

2.2 Land

This section discusses land-related issues for the VEGP site. Section 2.2.1 describes the site

and the vicinity around the site. Section 2.2.2 discusses the existing and proposed transmission

line rights-of-way. Section 2.2.3 discusses the region, defined as the area within 80 km (50 mi)

of the VEGP site boundary.

August 2008 2-1 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Siten ap, nsmission Lino

so satpr b: N- kr Op~tqhi;~ o. Poposd Tranvmi~ssoný UneA

__________ ~~~~~~O- ,~Ak(oc n 

Figure 2-1. Proposed VEGP Site Footprint (Southern 2007a,b)

NUREG-1872 2-2 August 2008
Affected Environment

Figure 2-2. The VEGP Site and the 80-km (50-mi) Vicinity (Southern 2008a)

August 2008 2-3 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity

The VEGP site comprises 1282.5 ha (3169 ac) in an unincorporated area of Burke County,

Georgia. The VEGP site, including the planned footprint for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4,

is shown in Figure 2-1.

The VEGP site contains two existing nuclear generating units, VEGP Units 1 and 2, which are

licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and have a combined net electric

generating capacity of 2297 MW(e). Unit 1 began commercial operation in March 1987, and

Unit 2 began commercial operation in March 1989. The oil-fired Plant Wilson is also located on

the VEGP site. Plant Wilson is a 354-MW(e) peaking power generating facility owned by GPC

(Southern 2008a). Together, the two existing nuclear units, Plant Wilson, auxiliary facilities

such as the training center, and transmission line rights-of-way occupy approximately 320 ha

(800 ac) of the VEGP site. The remaining VEGP site includes approximately 661.3 ha

(1634 ac) of pine forest, 247.7 ha (612 ac) of hardwood forest, and 38.8 ha (96 ac) of open

areas including mowed grass (Southern 2008a). Several small ponds and three small unnamed

streams are located on the VEGP site (Figure 2-1).

The VEGP site boundary is located on a bluff adjacent to the southwest bank of the Savannah

River. The centerline of proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be approximately 640 m (2100 ft)

west and 120 m (400 ft) south of the center of the existing Unit 2 containment building. The

Unit 4 containment building would be approximately 244 m (800 ft) west of the Unit 3

containment building (Southern 2008a).

The 803-km2 (310-mi 2) Savannah River Site is located immediately across the Savannah River

from the VEGP site. The Savannah River Site has restricted access that is controlled by the

DOE and its contractors. The VEGP site is approximately 24 km (15 mi) east-northeast of

Waynesboro, the county seat of Burke County, and 42 km (26 mi) southeast of Augusta,

Georgia. Features within a 10-km (6-mi) radius of the VEGP site are shown in Figure 2-3.

Most of the VEGP site is separated from the Savannah River floodplain by steep bluffs. The

Savannah River is not a wild and scenic river as that term is defined in Title 36 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) 297.3.

Access to the VEGP site is from River Road to the east of the site on a spur road owned by the

VEGP site owners (see Figure 2-3). A railroad spur runs to the VEGP site from the Norfolk

Southern Savannah-to-Augusta track. No natural gas pipelines traverse the VEGP site.

Currently, no zoning applies to the VEGP site. The GPC maintains a land management plan for

the VEGP site. None of the site constitutes prime farmland as that term is defined by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service at 7 CFR 657.5(a).

No mineral deposits or mines occur in Burke County (Southern 2008a).

NUREG-1872 2-4 August 2008
Affected Environment

Figure 2-3. The VEGP Site and 10-km (6-mi) Vicinity (Southern 2008a)

August 2008 2-5 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

The topography in the vicinity of the VEGP site consists of low rolling hills with elevations

ranging from 24 m (80 ft) to 91 m (300 ft) above mean sea level (MSL). The vicinity of the

VEGP site on the Georgia side of the Savannah River is primarily rural undeveloped land with a

few homes and small farms. The 3160-ha (7800-ac) Yuchi Wildlife Management Area (WMA)

managed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) is south of the VEGP site

(see Figure 2-3). The GPC provides access to the Savannah River at a boat landing

immediately downstream of the VEGP site.

Approximately 46 percent of the land in Burke County is agricultural, 43 percent is forest, and

9 percent are wetlands (Southern 2008a). Burke County is not within the portion of Georgia

covered by the Coastal Zone Management Act (GDNR 2003).

2.2.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

The existing transmission system supporting VEGP Units 1 and 2 has two 500-kV lines and four

230-kV transmission lines in four rights-of-way (Southern 2008a). An additional 230-kV

transmission line to Plant Wilson can provide offsite power to the VEGP site in case of

emergency. The existing transmission system in the vicinity of the VEGP site is shown in

Figure 2-3.

The Scherer 500-kV transmission line right-of-way generally runs west from the VEGP site to

Plant Scherer, north of Macon, Georgia. The Scherer transmission line right-of-way is

approximately 248 km (154 mi) long and 46 m (150 ft) wide in most areas, although it is up to

120 m (400 ft) wide in some locations. The Thalmann 500-kV transmission line right-of-way

generally runs to the south of the VEGP site to the West McIntosh substation north of

Savannah, Georgia. The Thalmann right-of-way is approximately 256 km (159 mi) long and

46 m (150 ft) wide. The South Augusta right-of-way contains three 230-kV transmission lines.

The right-of-way runs north from the VEGP site to the Goshen and Augusta Newsprint

substations. Two lines run approximately 31 km (19 mi) to the Goshen substation in a 83.8-m

(275-ft)-wide right-of-way. A third line runs 27 km (17 mi) in the South Augusta right-of-way and

then branches off for approximately 5 km (3 mi) to the Augusta Newsprint substation in a 30- to

38.1--m (100- to 125-ft)-wide right-of-way. The South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) rightof-way contains a 230-kV transmission line. The right-of-way runs north and east for 7.2 km

(4.5 mi), crosses the Savannah River, and then runs an additional 27 km (17 mi) to a substation

operated by SCE&G on the Savannah River Site. The portion of the right-of-way in Georgia is

38.1 m (125 ft) wide; the portion in South Carolina is 30 m (100 ft) wide.

2.2.3 The Region

The region surrounding the VEGP site is shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3. Waynesboro, the

County Seat of Burke County, and the Burke County communities of Girard and Sardis are

shown in Figure 2-2. The principal highways, parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and

NUREG-1872 2-6 August 2008
Affected Environment

military installations in proximity to the VEGP site also are shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3. There

are no tribal lands for Federally recognized Indian Tribal entities within the region.

All or portions of 16 counties in Georgia and 12 counties in South Carolina are within 80 km

(50 mi) of the VEGP site. Seventy-nine percent of employees currently working at the VEGP

site reside in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties in Georgia. Land use within these three

counties is shown in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Land Use in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties, Georgia

Land Uses

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Transportation/

Communication/

Utilities

Public/Institutional

Parks/Open Space/

Conservation

Agriculture/Forestry/

Undeveloped

Source: Southern 2008a

Burke County, 1990

10,440 ha (25,800 ac)

296 ha (731 ac)

81 ha (201 ac)

No data

3743 ha (9250 ac)

No data

178,000 ha (440,000 ac)

(includes open space)

Columbia County, 2000

17,480 ha (43,200 ac)

979 ha (2420 ac)

894 ha (2210 ac)

3104 ha (7670 ac)

1748 ha (4320 ac)

4170 ha (10,300 ac)

51,400 ha (127,000 ac)

Richmond County, 2003

21,970 ha (54,300 ac)

2335 ha (5770 ac)

3800 ha (9400 ac)

4820 ha (11,900 ac)

21,410 ha (52,900 ac)

2390 ha (5900 ac)

28,300 ha (70,000 ac)

2.3 Meteorology and Air Quality

The following three subsections describe the climate and air quality of the VEGP site.

Section 2.3.1 describes the climate of the region and area in the immediate vicinity of the

VEGP site, Section 2.3.2 describes the air quality of the region, and Section 2.3.3 describes the

meteorological monitoring program at the site.

2.3.1 Climate

Climatological information was obtained from the Augusta, Georgia (Bush Field), first-order

National Weather Service station (NCDC 2006), which is approximately 32 km (20 mi) northwest

of the VEGP site. In addition, climatological data from the nearby Savannah River Site was

obtained (Hunter 2004). The Savannah River Site maintains a comprehensive meteorological

observation network, and its primary observation station, called the Central Climatology site, is

13 km (8 mi) northeast of the VEGP site. Both the Augusta National Weather Service and

Savannah River Site stations can be used to characterize the climate at the ESP site and

surrounding region because of their comparable elevation, location within the Savannah River

Valley, and long period of record.

August 2008 2-7 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

The climate in and around the VEGP site is classified as subtropical, with long, warm, humid

summers and relatively short, mild winters. Summer-like conditions generally begin in early

May and continue through mid-September. During this period, the Bermuda high builds in the

western Atlantic and anticyclonic (clockwise) winds transport warm, moist air into the region.

Thunderstorm activity peaks in July, with a monthly average of 12 thunderstorms (NCDC 2006).

Mean daily temperatures also peak in July, with a normal maximum temperature of 33.30C

(92.0°F) and a normal minimum temperature of 20.9°C (69.6°F) (NCDC 2006). The winter

months of December through February are characterized by frequent periods of cooling and

warming from mid-latitude, low-pressure systems and associated fronts passing through the

area. Extremely cold temperatures are rare, because the Appalachian Mountains to the north

and northwest generally block arctic air masses from the region. January is the coldest month

of the year, with a normal daily maximum and minimum temperature of 13.6°C (56.5°F) and

0.6 0C (33.1°F), respectively (NCDC 2006). Both spring and autumn tend to be short,

transitional seasons. Spring is normally the windiest season, with the highest monthly mean

wind speed of 3.3 m/s (7.4 mph) occurring in March. Autumn is the driest season, with a

minimum monthly mean precipitation amount of 6.81 cm (2.68 in.) at Augusta (NCDC 2006) and

7.37 cm (2.90 in.) at Savannah River Site during November (Hunter 2004).

2.3.1.1 Wind

Regionally, predominant wind direction patterns exist that can be characterized by season.

From late spring through early fall, the wind has a southerly component and reflects the flow

associated with the Bermuda high in the Western Atlantic. Wind speeds tend to be lighter

during this time, with mean speeds ranging between 2.2 to 2.7 m/s (5.0 to 6.0 mph). Through

much of autumn, the prevailing wind direction is from the northeast. Then, from late fall through

the early spring, winds become more westerly, as low-pressure storm systems approach the

area from the west. Mean wind speeds are generally highest during this time and average

around 3.1 m/s (7.0 mph) (NCDC 2006).

Based on onsite meteorological data collected from 1998 through 2002 at VEGP, the prevailing

winds are from the west-southwest at both the 10- and 60-m (33- and 197-ft) levels. A

secondary maximum occurs from the northeast. On a seasonal basis, the prevailing winds are

from the southwest at both levels in the spring and summer. During winter, the prevailing winds

are from the west; during autumn, the winds are from the northeast at both levels

(Southern 2008a). This annual and seasonal wind pattern is consistent with nearby Augusta

and Savannah River Site observation stations in the Savannah River Valley.

The mean annual wind speeds at the VEGP site are 2.5 m/s (5.6 mph) and 4.6 m/s (10.3 mph)

at the lower- and upper-tower levels, respectively (Southern 2008a). The mean wind speed

varies seasonally. At the 1 0-m (33-ft) level, maximum average winds of 2.8 m/s (6.3 mph) occur

in the spring; minimum average winds of 2.3 m/s (5.1 mph) occur in autumn. At the 60-m

(197-ft) level, maximum average winds of 5.0 m/s (11.2 mph) occur during both winter and

NUREG-1872 2-8 August 2008
Affected Environment

spring; minimum average wind speeds of 4.1 m/s (9.2 mph) are observed during the summer.

The annual frequency of calm winds is 0.52*and 0.09 percent for the lower and upper levels,

respectively (Southern 2008a). These trends are consistent with other stations in the region.

Wind persistence is defined as a continuous flow from a given direction or range of directions.

This is determined by grouping continuous hourly wind direction readings into one of sixteen

22.5-degree cardinal range directions, centered on north and continuing clockwise through a

complete circle through north-northwest. The longest wind persistence event at the 10-m (33-ft)

level is 24 hours from the northeast. At the 60-m (197-ft) level, the longest wind persistence

event is 36 hours and is also from the northeast direction (Southern 2008a).

2.3.1.2 Atmospheric Stability

Atmospheric stability is a meteorological parameter that describes the dispersion characteristics

of the atmosphere. It can be determined by the difference in temperature between two heights.

A seven-category atmospheric stability classification scheme based on temperature differences

is set forth in Safety Guide 23 (AEC 1972). Categories are defined using letter designations A

through G, which represent a range of atmospheric stabilities. When the temperature

decreases rapidly with height, the atmosphere is unstable and atmospheric dispersion is

greater. Unstable conditions are designated by categories A, B, and C, representing extreme,

moderate, and slight instability, respectively. Conversely, when temperature increases with

height, the atmosphere is stable and dispersion is more limited. Stable conditions are

designated by categories E, F, and G, representing slight, moderate, and extreme stability,

respectively. Neutral atmospheric conditions exist between slightly stable and slightly unstable

conditions, and is designated by category D.

Five years (1998 to 2002) of temperature difference measurements made between the 60- and

10-m (197- and 33-ft) VEGP onsite meteorological tower levels indicate that unstable categories

A, B, and C occur 6.48 percent, 4.54 percent, and 7.34 percent of the time, respectively. Stable

categories E, F, and G occur 28.99 percent, 13.97 percent, and 11.17 percent of the time,

respectively. Neutral conditions (category D) occur 27.50 percent of the time (Southern 2008a).

Seasonally, spring and summer tend to have more extremely unstable conditions because of

increased solar heating occurring at the surface. Autumn and winter months exhibit more

extremely stable conditions because of reduced solar heating resulting in greater radiational

cooling at the surface.

2.3.1.3 Temperature

Temperature measurements made at the 10-m (33-ft) level of VEGP's onsite meteorological

tower are considered to be representative of the VEGP site. The average temperature at this

level for the 5-year period from 1998 through 2002 is 18.1°C (64.6°F). This value is consistent

with the average temperature of 17.9 0C (64.20F) measured at the Savannah River Site

August 2008 2-9 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

(Hunter 2004) for the same period and is 0.80C (1.5°F) higher than the longer, 30-year average

measured at Augusta, Georgia (NCDC 2006). The maximum and minimum temperatures at the

VEGP's onsite tower during the same 5-year period were 39.8°C (103.6°F) and -8.6°C (16.6°F),

respectively. These temperature extremes are consistent with the range of temperatures observed at Augusta and the Savannah River Site.

2.3.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture

The moisture content of the atmosphere can be represented in a variety of ways; however, the

most common are precipitation, relative humidity, and fog.

Annual precipitation amounts average around 113.23 cm (44.58 in.) at Augusta. On average,

March is the wettest month, with a monthly average of 11.71 cm (4.61 in.). A secondary

precipitation maximum occurs during August, with an average of 11.38 cm (4.48 in.); this

maximum is the result of higher thunderstorm activity and tropical storm remnants. November is

the driest month, with an average of 6.81 cm (2.68 in.) (NCDC 2006). At the Savannah River

Site, the annual average precipitation amount is higher at 125.7 cm (49.5 in.) (Hunter 2004).

However, similar monthly and seasonal precipitation trends exist.

The 5-year period (1998 through 2002) used in the analysis provided in the Environmental

Report (ER) (Southern 2008a) was an abnormally dry period in the southeast. At Augusta,

Georgia, the annual average precipitation amount during this 5-year period was 99.95 cm

(39.35 in) or 13.28 cm (5.23 in.) less than normal (NCDC 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). The

Savannah River Site had an annual average of 107.85 cm (42.46 in.), which is 17.88 cm

(7.04 in.) less than the normal 30-year average measured at the Savannah River Site.

Relative humidity is not measured at the VEGP site. However, relative humidity is measured at

both Augusta and the Savannah River Site, and these stations are representative of the regional

climate. Measurements from these stations show that relative humidity varies diurnally, with a

maximum occurring during the early morning hours and a minimum occurring during the early

afternoon. In Augusta, morning mean relative humidity ranges from 84 percent in January and

February to 92 percent in August; afternoon mean relative humidity ranges from 45 percent in

April to 56 percent in August (NCDC 2006). Similar diurnal trends in relative humidity occur at

the Savannah River Site. Relative humidity also varies on a seasonal basis. The springtime

months of March and April have the lowest average relative humidity of 66 percent; the mid-tolate summertime months of August and September have the highest average relative humidity

of 77 percent (NCDC 2006). Overall, the annual average relative humidity is 72 percent

(NCDC 2006) at Augusta and 69 percent at the Savannah River Site (Hunter 2004). On about

36 days per year, the air becomes saturated and fog forms, which limits visibility to less than

0.40 km (0.25 mi) (NCDC 2006).

NUREG-1872 2-10 August 2008
Affected Environment

The dew point temperature, which is related to relative humidity, is measured at the 10-m (33-ft)

level on the VEGP onsite meteorological tower. The dew point temperature is the temperature

at which air becomes saturated when it is cooled. When the ambient temperature and dew

point temperature are equal, the relative humidity is 100 percent. The dew point depression,

which is the difference between the ambient temperature and dew point temperature, can be

used in the design of wet cooling systems and to predict the occurrence of fog. Staff analyzed

VEGP onsite meteorological data at the 10-m (33-ft) level for the period of 1998 through 2002 to

determine frequency of occurrence when the dew point depression was 5.0 0C (9.0 0 F) or less.

Over the 5-year period, a dew point depression of 5.0°C (9.0°F) or less occurred 39 percent of

the time. September had the highest frequency of occurrence (51 percent), and May had the

lowest (23 percent). These trends are consistent with the seasonal trends for relative humidity,

as noted previously.

2.3.1.5 Severe Weather

The VEGP site can experience severe weather in the form of thunderstorms, hail, and

tornadoes. On average, thunderstorms occur 52 days per year, with approximately 30 of those

occurring during the summer months of June through August (NCDC 2006). In contrast, the

months of October through January average one thunderstorm per month (NCDC 2006). Hail

can sometimes accompany thunderstorms. Over the 10-year period spanning 1996 through

2005, 21 separate hail events with hail a diameter of 1.9 cm (0.75 in.) or greater were reported

in Burke County (NCDC 2007).

From 1996-2005, three tornadoes were reported in Burke County (NCDC 2007). The strongest

tornado reported on record (1950-2005) occurred on January 13, 1972, and was a magnitude

F3 (i.e., wind speed between 70.6 and 92.1 m/s [158 and 206 mph])(NCDC 2007). Using

tornado data for the period from January 1, 1950, through August 31, 2003, the best estimate

tornado strike probability for a 1-degree box that includes VEGP is 3.76 x 104 (Ramsdell 2005).

Snowfall events are infrequent in the Savannah River Valley. Annually, the region receives an

average of 3.6 cm (1.4 in.) of snowfall each year. Days with snowfall in excess of 2.54 cm

(1.0 in.) are rare. However, a 35.6-cm (14.0-in.) snowfall event did occur in February 1973

(NCDC 2006).

Burke County is sufficiently far inland that tropical cyclones are often less than hurricane, strength

by the time they are in the vicinity of the VEGP site. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration's Coastal Service Center (NOAA-CSC) maintains a database of tropical cyclone

tracks and intensities that covers the period from 1851 through 2005. Hurricane Gracie, which

moved through the region on September 29, 1959, is the strongest hurricane to pass within an

80-km (50-mi) radius of the site. Gracie was a Category 3 hurricane, with maximum sustained

surface 10-m (33-ft) winds of 49.6 m/s (111.0 mph) to 58.1 m/s (130.0 mph), inclusive

August 2008 2-11 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

(NOAA-CSC 2007). In addition to Gracie, four other Category 3 hurricanes have passed within a

160-km (100-mi) radius of the site since 1851 (NOAA-CSC 2007).

2.3.2 Air Quality

The VEGP site is centrally located within the Augusta (Georgia) - Aiken (South Carolina)

Interstate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) (40 CFR 81.114). All of the counties in this AQCR

are designated as in attainment or unclassified for all criteria pollutants for which National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established (40 CFR 81.314). Parts of

Richland and Lexington Counties, South Carolina, which are within the Columbia Intrastate

AQCR (40 CFR 81.108) and border the Augusta (Georgia) - Aiken (South Carolina) AQCR to

the north-northeast, are in non-attainment with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard

(40 CFR 81.341). There are no mandatory Class 1 Federal Areas where visibility is an

important issue within the 160-km (100-mi) radius of the VEGP site.

The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the GDNR operates a statewide air-monitoring

network, with more than 68 monitoring locations in 37 counties (Georgia EPD 2005). Burke

County does not have a monitoring station; the closest monitoring station is located in

Richmond County. Monitoring takes place throughout the year, with the exception for ozone,

which is sampled from March through October. Monitoring results for this location for the years

2001 through 2005 show an exceedance with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard in 2001

(3 days), 2002 (5 days), 2004 (3 days), and 2005 (1 day) (Georgia EPD 2002, 2003, 2004,

2005, 2006). Standards were not exceeded for any other measured criteria pollutant.

The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a national standard method for reporting air-pollution levels for the

general public. The AQI is based on comparison of the concentrations of six pollutants within

the NAAQS. The six pollutants are ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide,

particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers (PM1o), and particulate matter smaller than

2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). The air-pollution level for each day is placed in one of six categories

based on the AQI. In order of decreasing air quality, the categories are Good, Moderate,

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups, Unhealthy, Very Unhealthy, and Hazardous.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), AQIs are available for Richmond

County (EPA 2007). From 2001 to 2005, there were no days where the AQI was classified as

Unhealthy, Very Unhealthy, or Hazardous. On average, the air quality was classified as

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups on 4 days each year for this period. For the remainder of the

time, the air quality was classified as Good or Moderate, with Good days far outnumbering

Moderate days.

NUREG-1 872 2-12 August 2008
Affected Environment

The area for which air monitoring has been conducted and AQIs have been calculated generally

reflect the more densely populated Augusta city region within Richmond County. It is likely that

air quality in Burke County and in the immediate vicinity of the VEGP site is better than that of

Richmond County.

2.3.3 Meteorological Monitoring

The meteorological monitoring for the proposed VEGP site would consist of the current onsite

monitoring program used for VEGP Units 1 and 2. The meteorological monitoring program has

been in place since 1972 and is described in the ER for the ESP site (Southern 2008a).

Meteorological data for the period of January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2002, were used to

generate atmospheric dispersion factors (X/Q values) to estimate radiological impacts in the

areas surrounding the VEGP site.

The primary meteorological monitoring system is a 60-m (1 97-ft) tower instrumented at the 1 0-in

(33-ft) and 60-m (197-ft) levels. Wind speed, wind direction, wind direction fluctuation, and

temperature are measured at both levels. The vertical temperature difference is calculated by

taking the difference between the measured temperature at both levels. Dew point temperature

is also measured at the 10-m (33-ft) level. A tipping bucket rain gauge is used to measure

precipitation near the base of the tower and is augmented with human observations. A 45-m

(148-ft) backup meteorological tower is sited nearby and provides additional measurements of

wind speed, wind direction, wind direction fluctuation, and temperature at the 10-in (33-ft) level.

Data from both towers are collected and processed on a digital recording system that is located

in a shelter near the base of the meteorological tower. These data are available locally on

digital strip chart recorders that are housed within the shelter. Five-second-sampled data are

averaged to 15-minute and hourly values and made available to control room and facility

personnel. The data collection process uses an uninterruptible power supply to provide backup

power for data storage and transmission in the event of power failure at the site.

The current meteorological monitoring system would remain in operation during the site

preparation, construction, and operational phases of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the

VEGP site. The proposed cooling towers for these units will be 180-m (600-ft) tall and located

approximately 915 m (3000 ft) north of the existing meteorological monitoring site.

The staff reviewed the available information relative to the onsite meteorological measurements

program and the data collected by the program. The staff concludes that the system provides

adequate data to represent onsite meteorological conditions as required by 10 CFR 100.20 and

10 CFR 100.21. The onsite data also provide an acceptable basis for making estimates of

atmospheric dispersion for design-basis accident and routine releases from the plant to meet

the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, 10 CFR 50.34, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

August 2008 2-13 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

2.4 Geology

A detailed description of the geological, seismological, and geotechnical conditions at the VEGP

site is provided in Section 2.5 of the Site Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) (Southern 2008a). A

summary of the geology of the proposed VEGP site is provided in Section 2.6 of the ER

I (Southern 2008a). In addition to characterization conducted for the existing plant, results of

subsurface investigations performed as part of the ESP application provide further definition of

the site geology. The staffs description of the site and vicinity geological features and the

detailed analyses and evaluation of geological, seismological, and geotechnical data as

required for an assessment of the site-safety issues related to the proposed VEGP site are

included in the staffs safety evaluation report.

The VEGP site lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, and is approximately 48 km

(30 mi) southeast of the Fall Line, which represents the transition between the Piedmont and

Coastal Plain Physiographic Provinces (Figure 2-4). The Coastal Plain province is a wedge of

unconsolidated and semi-consolidated sediments that increases in thickness as it extends to the

southeast from the contact with the Piedmont to the edge of the continental shelf. The

thickness of Coastal Plain sediments varies from less than 60 m (200 ft) at the Fall Line to

1200 m (4000 ft) at the coastline, and is approximately 300 m (1000 ft) thick at the VEGP site

(Southern 2008a; Clarke and West 1997). Sediments below the site range in age from

Cretaceous at depth to Quaternary at the surface. The Coastal Plain sediments are underlain

by bedrock consisting of sedimentary Triassic basin rock and Paleozoic crystalline rock.

A surface topography of gently rolling hills at the VEGP site ranges in elevation from 24 m (80 ft)

above MSL to nearly 91 m (300 ft) above MSL in the immediate vicinity of the VEGP site

(Southern 2008a). Developed portions of the site have ground surface elevations of

approximately 67 m (220 ft) above MSL. The Savannah River has incised the Coastal Plain

sediments and formed steep bluffs exhibiting topographic relief of nearly 46 m (150 ft) from the

river (approximately 24 m [80 ft] above MSL) to the developed portions of the existing VEGP

site. Alluvial material that forms the floodplain of the Savannah River is 1.8 to 3.0 m (6 to 10 ft)

above the river.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) documentation on the mineral industry of Georgia and South

Carolina indicates that there are no major production areas for mineral resources in Burke

County, Georgia (USGS 2003a, b). Neighboring counties with mineral resources are Richmond

County, Georgia, which produces crushed stone, common clay, construction sand and gravel,

and kaolin; Jefferson County, Georgia, which produces kaolin and Fuller's earth, and Aiken

County, South Carolina, which produces construction sand and gravel, kaolin, crushed stone,

and common clay. Other neighboring counties are not noted for major mineral production areas

(USGS 2003a,b).

NUREG-1872 2-14 August 2008
Affected Environment

3-'CrTN- -34 UTN

Atlantlic Ov'en

0 50 100 Miles

94 07W Q00W

Figure 2-4. Physiographic Map (Southern 2008a)

August 2008 2-15 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

There is no sole-source aquifer within a 320-km (200-mi) radius of the VEGP site (EPA 2006;

Southern 2008a).

The staff acquired and reviewed a recently completed USGS national assessment of the oil and

gas reserves potentially existing in geologic provinces onshore and offshore of the United

States (USGS 2007). Two provinces, the Appalachian Basin Province (USGS 2003c) and the

South Florida Basin Province (Pollastro et al. 2001), touch on the State of Georgia. The former

touches the northwest corner of the State and the latter touches the boundary with Florida, but

neither are near Burke County. There is no estimate of any potential additions to oil, gas, and

natural gas reserves in or near Burke Country.

2.5 Radiological Environment

A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been conducted around the

VEGP site since operations began in 1987. This program measures radiation and radioactive

materials from all sources, including the existing units at VEGP and the Savannah River Site.

The REMP includes the following pathways: direct radiation, atmospheric, aquatic and

terrestrial environments; and ground water and surface water. A pre-operational environmental

monitoring program was conducted before 1987 to establish a baseline to observe fluctuations

of radioactivity in the environment after operations began. After routine operation of Unit 1

started in 1987 and Unit 2 started in 1989, the monitoring program continued to assess the

radiological impacts to workers, the public, and the environment. The results of this monitoring

are documented in an annual environmental operating report for the VEGP site. The NRC staff

reviewed historical data from the REMP reports for a 4-year period (2001 through 2004). Each

year, Southern issues a report entitled Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the

Vogtle Power Station, which documents gaseous and liquid releases and resulting doses from

VEGP. The NRC staff reviewed annual radioactive effluent release reports for calendar years

2001 through 2004 (Southern 2002, 2003a, 2004, 2005). Maximum doses to a member of the

public were calculated using effluent concentration and historical meteorological data for the

site. For the 4 years reviewed, the maximum annual dose to a member of the public was less

than 0.001 mSv (less than 0.1 mrem) for operation of VEGP Units I and 2. These data show

that doses to the maximally exposed individuals around the VEGP site were a small fraction of

the limits specified in Federal environmental radiation standards, 10 CFR Part 20; 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix I; and 40 CFR Part 190.

In addition, these data show that exposures or concentrations in air, water, and vegetation at

locations near the plant perimeter (i.e., indicator locations) and at distances greater than 16 km

(10 mi) (i.e., control locations) are comparable, if not statistically indiscernible. During the

10-year period from 1992 to 2001 the average annual direct radiation exposure at the indicator

and control locations ranged from 48.0 to 54.4 mR and 48.4 to 54.4 mR, respectively

(Southern 2002). The indicator and control location results are similarly comparable for drinking

NUREG-1872 2-16 August 2008
Affected Environment

water, vegetation, and fish. The maximum exposure to a member of the public resulting from

operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2 is a small fraction of the exposure measured at the control

locations (i.e., background) and much smaller than the variability of measured exposure values

(i.e., 48.4 to 54.4 mR).

Concerning the groundwater, the State of Georgia (Summerour et al. 1998) determined that

elevated levels of tritium in the unconfined aquifer in Georgia originated from the Savannah

River Site, are a result of atmospheric deposition from Savannah River Site releases, are well

below the drinking water standard, and are not a public health threat. The USGS (Clarke and

West 1997, 1998; Cherry 2006) determined that transriver flow is not responsible for the

elevated tritium levels measured in the unconfined aquifer. See Sections 2.6.3.2, 7.3.2.2, and

7.8 for more information on offsite sources of tritium and other radionuclides.

2.6 Water

This section describes the hydrological processes governing movement and distribution of water

in the existing environment at the VEGP site. The historic low-water periods with VEGP Units 1

and 2 in operation were considered in the analysis. However, since Savannah River discharge

at the site during low-water periods is regulated by upstream dam operations, present-day

operating rules adapted from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (USACE 2006a;

NRC 2007a,b) for the upstream dams were also factored into the analysis.

2.6.1 Hydrology

This section describes the site-specific and regional hydrological features that could be altered

by construction and operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. A description of the site's -

hydrological features was presented in Section 2.3.1 of the ER (Southern 2008a). Hydrological

features of the site related to site safety (e.g., probable maximum flood) are described by

Southern in the Site Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) portion (Part 2) of the application

(Southern 2008a).

2.6.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology

The dominant hydrological feature of the VEGP site is the Savannah River, which forms the

border between Georgia and South Carolina. The total size of the Savannah River watershed is

approximately 27,400 km 2 (10,579 mi 2), 15,200 km2 (5870 mi 2) of which are in Georgia,

11,700 km 2 (4530 mi2) in South Carolina, and 464 km2 (179 mi 2) are in North Carolina

(USACE 1996a). The confluence of the Seneca and Tugaloo Rivers, which is now part of

Hartwell Lake, is considered the upstream end of the Savannah River (USACE 1996a). The

Savannah River then flows 464.9 km (288.9 mi) from Hartwell Dam to its mouth, where it enters

the Atlantic Ocean at Savannah, Georgia.

August 2008 2-17 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

The VEGP site is located at Savannah River river mile (RM) 150.9, and three large dams,

constructed and operated by the USACE, lie upstream of the site. Hartwell Dam, at Savannah

RM 288.9, is 222 km (138 mi) upstream of the VEGP site and is capable of storing a maximum

of 4230 million m3 (3,430,000 acre-feet (ac-ft)) (USACE 1996a). The dam was completed and

began storing water in February 1961 (USACE 1996a). Richard B. Russell Dam, at Savannah

RM 259.1, is 174 km (108 mi) upstream of the VEGP site and is capable of storing a maximum

1836 million m3 (1,488,155 ac-ft) (USACE 1996a). This was the last of the three large dams to

be completed, and it began storing water in October 1983. At Savannah RM 221.6, J. Strom

Thurmond Dam is 114 km (71 mi) upstream of the VEGP site. Its reservoir is capable of storing

a maximum of 4564 million m3 (3,700,000 ac-ft) of water. J. Strom Thurmond Dam, first of the

three dams to be completed, began storing water in December 1951 (USACE 1996a).

Between J. Strom Thurmond Dam and the VEGP site lies Stevens Creek Dam (RM 208.1), the

city of Augusta (approximately RM 200), New Savannah Bluffs Lock and Dam (RM 187.7), and

the mouths of several small creeks (USACE 1996a). Stevens Creek Dam, operated by SCE&G,

functions as a re-regulating reservoir to mitigate the large flow variations from J. Strom

Thurmond Dam and to generate hydroelectric power. New Savannah Bluffs Dam, constructed

and operated by USACE, is part of the inactive Savannah River Below Augusta Navigation

Project (USACE 1996a).

Channel modifications have been made to the Savannah River to allow for a 2.7-m (9-ft) deep

by 27-m (90-ft) wide navigation channel from the Savannah Harbor to the city of Augusta. By

1980, shipping along the river had essentially ceased, and maintenance of the channel was

discontinued (USACE 2006a). Consequently, Hartwell, Russell, and Thurmond dams are no

longer operated for navigation, and minimum discharges from J. Strom Thurmond Dam are

based on the needs of downstream water supply withdrawals without concern for navigation

(USACE 2006a).

USGS flow gage 02197320, located near Jackson, South Carolina, was installed approximately

9.6 km (6 mi) upstream of the VEGP site at Savannah RM 156.8 (USGS 2002). The staff

computed flow statistics for the gage's entire period-of-record (October 1971 to September

2002). The average-daily discharge during the period-of-record was 250 m3/s (8830 cfs), the

maximum discharge was 623 m3

/s (22,000 cfs) (December 2, 1976; April 16, 1977; August 29,

1994; March 9, 1997; January 19,1998), and the minimum discharge was 91.2 m 3

/s (3220 cfs)

(December 9, 1981). The period-of-record discharge dataset is shown in Figure 2-5.

USGS stream flow gages are typically accurate to within 5 to 10 percent of the actual stream

flow (Hirsch and Costa 2004). Each flow gage dataset appearing in published USGS reports

have an assigned accuracy level. USGS (2002) states that the accuracy of daily-reported

discharges collected at the Jackson, South Carolina gage are within 10 percent of the

true value.

NUREG-1872 2-18 August 2008
Affected Environment

Savannah RKer Discharge near Jackson, South Carolina

25000

CCu

-T CD r- . W M 0 N M U) ~C I-- W O0, " M V 0 $ N MC

Cz C C a a C C C C C a C C C C C C C C C C C C C C S Cu Cu m Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu

Figure 2-5. Daily Averaged Savannah River Discharge near Jackson, South Carolina

(USGS 2002)

Discharge passing the VEGP site is highly regulated by releases from J. Strom Thurmond Dam.

Although the dams located downstream of J. Strom Thurmond Dam re-regulate the daily peaks

and troughs of water released from J. Strom Thurmond Dam, they are not capable of storing

any significant volumes of water. Therefore, the average discharge passing the VEGP site is

directly proportional to the average quantity of flow released from J. Strom Thurmond Dam. The

quantity of flow released from J. Strom Thurmond Dam is based on Drought Contingency Plan

rule curves. During periods of relative water scarcity, outflow released from J. Strom Thurmond

Dam is a function of the volume of water stored behind the Hartwell and J. Strom Thurmond

dams (the two dams with significant storage capacity). The most recent Drought Contingency

Plan developed by USACE is presented in Table 2-2 (USACE 2006a; NRC 2007a,b).

August 2008 2-19 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Table 2-2. Savannah River Drought Rule Curves

April 1 - Oct 15 Dec 15 - Jan 1

Drought Elevation Elevation

Level (ft above MSL) (ft above MSL) Action

1 Hartwell = 656 ft Hartwell = 654 ft Limit Thurmond Dam discharge to maximum of

Thurmond = 326 ft Thurmond = 324 ft 4200 cfs

2 Hartwell = 654 ft Hartwell = 652 ft Limit Thurmond Dam discharge to maximum of

Thurmond = 324 ft Thurmond = 322 ft 4000 cfs

3 Hartwell = 646 ft Hartwell = 646 ft Limit Thurmond Dam discharge to maximum of

Thurmond = 316 ft Thurmond = 316 ft 3800 cfs

4 Hartwell = 625 ft Hartwell = 626 ft Inflow to Thurmond Lake = Outflow from

Thurmond = 312 ft Thurmond = 312 ft Thurmond Dam (i.e., keep reservoir at minimum

conservation pool elevation)

Source USACE 2006a.

The Drought Contingency Plan rule curves were developed after the extreme drought that

affected the southern United States between 1998 and 2002 (USACE 2006a). This drought

exceeded the previous drought-of-record for the region, which lasted from 1986 to 1989

(USACE 1996). The impacts of these drought periods on the average-daily flows in the

Savannah River near the site can be seen in Figure 2-5.

Although the Savannah River near the VEGP site is highly regulated by upstream dams,

Southern developed a statistical analysis of the low flows in the Savannah River at Augusta

(Southern 2008a). By examining the period between April 1986 and March 2003, Southern

developed a 7Q10 low-flow statistic, which is an estimate of the lowest 7 consecutive-day

average flow with a statistical recurrence interval of 10 years. The 7Q10 reported by Southern

was 108.40 m3

/s (3828 cfs) (Southern 2008a). Coincidentally, this low-flow statistic is

approximately equal to the Drought Level 3 release (see Table 2-2) discharge from J. Strom

Thurmond Dam proposed by the USACE in the draft Drought Contingency Plan

(USACE 2006a).

Savannah River water temperature data were collected by the GDNR at Shell Bluff Landing,

approximately 11 river miles upstream of the VEGP site, and reported by Southern

(Southern 2006a). The period of record for these monthly grab-sampled water temperature

measurements was from January 30, 1973, to August 13, 1996. From these data, the following

water temperature statistics were generated: minimum = 5.0°C (41.0 0F), average = 17.40C

(63.4°F), median = 18.0°C (64.4°F), and maximum = 27.20C (81.0°F).

NUREG-1872 2-20 August 2008
Affected Environment

2.6.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology

The groundwater aquifers in the region and in the vicinity of the site are described in

Sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.3.2 of the ER (Southern 2008a). Within a 320-km (200-mi) radius of

the VEGP site, there are parts of four physiographic provinces. The VEGP site lies within the

Coastal Plain Physiographic province, about 48 km (30 mi) southeast of the Fall Line that

separates the Piedmont province from the Coastal Plain province. The Coastal Plain sediments

range in thickness from less than 60 m (200 ft) thick at the Fall Line to more than 1200 m

(4000 ft) thick in an eastern-to-southeastern direction, and are approximately 300 m (1000 ft)

thick at the VEGP site (Southern 2008a; Clarke and West 1997). They range in age from

Holocene at the surface to Cretaceous at depth, and overlie an eastward extension of the

Piedmont province, which is composed of crystalline igneous and metamorphic bedrock. The

stratigraphic section for VEGP is shown in Figure 2-6. This figure details the geologic age,

geologic units, hydrogeologic units, and the depth of sediments underlying the VEGP site.

Geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations performed by Southern for the ESP application

have shown the site to be underlain by the Southeastern Coastal Plain aquifer system

composed of the Water Table aquifer (also known as the Upper Three Runs aquifer), the

Tertiary aquifer, and the Cretaceous aquifer (Southern 2008a). The upper two aquifers are

separated by the Lisbon Formation, a confining unit that provides hydraulic isolation between

the unconfined and confined aquifers. The lower two aquifers are separated by the Snapp

Formation and Black Mingo Formation, comprising a semi-confining unit. This semi-confining

unit allows some hydraulic connection between the two lower aquifers. The lowest confined

aquifer system is composed of Cretaceous aged sediments, and spans from the Cape Fear

Formation to the Steel Creek Formation. The middle aquifer, also a confined aquifer system, is

composed of Tertiary aged permeable sands of the Still Branch sands and Congaree

Formation. The uppermost aquifer is unconfined and is composed of Tertiary aged sands, silts,

clays and limestone of the Barnwell Formation. The hydrostratigraphic section for the VEGP

site is shown in Figure 2-6. Naming conventions for aquifers vary. In State of Georgia reports

on water quality, the Barnwell Formation sediments of the Water Table aquifer are described as

the Jacksonian aquifer (Donahue 2004). As the aquifers dip to the southeast, the Water Table

aquifer becomes confined and is the upper Floridan aquifer, and the Tertiary aquifer becomes

the lower Floridan aquifer (Clarke and West 1997; Summerour et al. 1994). During its review of

numerous reports on the regional and local hydrogeology, the staff found the comparison of

hydrogeologic unit naming conventions found in Figure 4 of Clarke and West (1997) to be

useful.

August 2008 2-21 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Bamwell Gr. Water Table

Aquifer Ground Surface +223

Lisbon FmIBlue Confining Unit 86 +137

Bluff Mbr.

0

W

4, I--

Still Branch Fm.

Congaree Fm.

Tertiary Sand

Aquifer 149 +74

4) C

a.

Snapp Fm.

Black Mingo Fm.

Semi-Confining

Unit 331 -108

A 4 4 4 +

U)

'U

Steel Creek Fm:

Gaillard Fm,/

Black Creek Fm.

Pio-Nono Fm./

Unnamed Sands

Cape Fear Fm.

Cretacous

Aquifer

477

1049

-254

-826

Notes: Geologic unit naming convention (Huddleston end Summerour 1996; Falls and Prowell 2001)

Regional hydrogeologic unit naming convention (Miller 1990)

Depths and elevations from boring B-1003 (Southern 2007a)

Figure 2-6. Schematic Hydrostatigraphic Column for the Southeastern Coastal Plain Aquifer

System Underlying the VEGP Site (Southern 2008a)

Water Table Aquifer

The water table of the unconfined aquifer at the VEGP site is described by the tabular and

graphic representations of piezometric head provided by Southern (Southern 2008a). The

contour map showing the piezometric head for June 2005 is representative and is shown in

Figure 2-7. The local high of the water table is approximately 50 m (165 ft) above MSL

NUREG-1872 2-22 August 2008
Affected Environment

(Southern 2008a), and the hydraulic gradient indicates groundwater flow to the north towards

Mallard Pond through the powerblock area and to the south from the cooling tower area for the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 region. The top of the Blue Bluff Marl, the unit of the Lisbon

Formation that forms the base of the unconfined aquifer has a maximum elevation of

approximately 49 m (160 ft) above MSL but drops off sharply to the northwest of the powerblock.

Hydraulic head and flow within the Water Table aquifer is governed by local topography and net

infiltration from precipitation. Discharge from the Water Table aquifer is to local drainages

(i.e., springs, streams, and ponds), the Savannah River, and wells.

Tertiary Aquifer

The piezometric head of the confined Tertiary aquifer at the VEGP site is described by Southern

in Section 2.3.1 of the ER (Southern 2008a). The contour map showing the piezometric head

for June 2005 is representative and is shown in Figure 2-8. The highest plotted contour of

38.1 m (125 ft) above MSL lies to the west of the proposed site for VEGP Units 3 and 4 and

drops to 27.4 m (90 ft) above MSL near the river (Southern 2008a). The contours indicate flow

toward and potential interception by the Savannah River. Southern states the zero flow level or

river bottom elevation is approximately 20.59 m (67.56 ft) above MSL (Southern 2008a)

opposite the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 intake location, and this is lower than the reported

base elevation of the Lisbon Formation opposite the VEGP site, portions of which are

approximately 24 m (80 ft) above MSL (Southern 2008a). The USGS (Clarke and West 1997)

also indicates the potential for the Savannah River to have incised the confining unit of the

Tertiary aquifer (the Lisbon Formation) where it intercepts the Pen Branch fault in the vicinity of

the plant, and the potential for the Tertiary aquifer to discharge locally to the Savannah River

alluvium.

The base of the Blue Bluff Marl forms the top of the confined Tertiary aquifer. This surface has

a maximum elevation of approximately 24 m (80 ft) above MSL in the vicinity of the proposed

site for VEGP Units 3 and 4 but drops off sharply to the north-northwest. The base of the

Tertiary aquifer is at the upper surface of the Paleocene-age Black Mingo and Snapp

Formations, which are at approximately 33 m (108 ft) below MSL. The staff concurs with

Southern's interpretation that the Tertiary aquifer is confined by the Blue Bluff Marl, and is

substantially, if not completely isolated hydraulically from the Water Table aquifer. Local to the

VEGP site, there is a downward hydraulic gradient from the Water Table aquifer toward the

Tertiary aquifer.

Recharge to the confined Tertiary aquifer occurs primarily at outcrop regions between the VEGP

site and the Fall Line, which lies approximately 48 km (30 mi) to the northwest at RM 203,

where Tertiary sediments are exposed to infiltration from precipitation. Discharge from the

Tertiary aquifer occurs to the alluvial deposits underlying the Savannah River in regions where

the confining unit has been incised, and to groundwater wells, natural springs, and subaqueous

outcrops offshore (Southern 2008a).

August 2008 2-23 NUREG-1872
z

c

... ........

.142

7y

-7 - UA` TJ2

Legend3ý 0 Obsrvatin Wef (OW

~ Watr Tabe Eleatio

Wee80

1010

obvb Wel OW '10-2

Wae Tal eain
c

(a

c

Cl

z

m

r%)

CD

CD

Cm

0

3

,-D

Figure-2-8. Tertiary Aquifer: Piezometric Contour Map for June 2005 (Sou hern 2008a)
Affected Environment

Cretaceous Aquifer

The piezometric head of the confined Cretaceous aquifer at the VEGP site is represented in the

contour maps shown in Figure 2-9 A,B for the years 1992 and 2002 (Cherry 2006). These two

panels show the hydraulic head in upper and lower sequences of the Cretaceous aquifer,

described here as the Dublin aquifer system and the Midville aquifer system, respectively. The

staffs interpretation of this figure indicates the hydraulic head of the Dublin aquifer system in the

vicinity of the VEGP site has decreased from 49 to 431m (160 to 140 ft) above MSL between

1992 and 2002, while the deeper Midville aquifer system has decreased from 52 to 49 m (170 to

160 ft) above MSL.

Sao mnodlud from Ut. OalogicalSway OOO0O-wab.dqgfaIdals 0 6 to MILES

-0 -6 0 0 O M OMETERS EXPLANATION

-2-v- Estimated potentlometrlc contour- Shows altitude at which

water tevel would have stood in tightly cased wells during 2002.

Contour interval 20 or.40 teet, Datum is NAVO 88

- no- Estimated potentlometrtc contour-Shows altitude at which water

level would have stood In tightly cased wells during 1992. Contour

interval:20 or 40 feet. Datum is NAVD 88 (Clarke and West, 1997)

Well data point

.Figure 2-9. Potentiometric-Surface Maps for the (A) Dublin Aquifer System, and (B) Midville

Aquifer System during 1992 and 2002, Near the Savannah River Site, Georgia

and South Carolina (Cherry 2006)..

The Dublin aquifer system is confined above by the Black Mingo and Snapp formations and its

groundwater is identified with the Steel Creek Formation through Black Creek Formation in

Figure 2-6. The Midville aquifer system is-confined above by the Midville confining unit that is

located in the middle to lower portion of the Black Creek Formation (Clarke and West 1997).

Groundwater of the Midville aquifer system is identified with the Pio-Nono Formation through

NUREG-1872 2-26 August 2008
Affected Environment

Cape Fear Formation of the hydrostratigraphic cross section (Figure 2-6). Elevations of the

upper surfaces of the hydrogeologic units identified in the B-1003 boring are shown in

Figure 2-6. The Cretaceous sediments consist of fluvial and estuarine deposits of cross-bedded

sand and gravel with silt and clay interbeds. They extend from the upper surface of the Steel

Creek Formation (i.e., elevation -77.4 m [-254 ft] above MSL), to the upper surface of the

Triassic basin bedrock (i.e., elevation -251.8 m [-826 ft] above MSL). Local to the VEGP site,

there is an upward hydraulic gradient from the Cretaceous aquifer toward the Tertiary aquifer

through the semi-confining unit that separates them.

Recharge to and discharge from the Cretaceous aquifer is similar to that of the Tertiary aquifer.

Recharge to the Cretaceous aquifer occurs primarily in outcrop regions near the Fall Line

(RM 203) where Cretaceous sediments are exposed to infiltration from precipitation. Flow in the

Cretaceous aquifer is initially unconfined, but as the sediments become more deeply overlain by

the Tertiary deposits, they become confined beneath the Snapp and Black Mingo Formations.

Discharge from the Cretaceous aquifer occurs primarily to presumed subaqueous outcrops

offshore; however, the Cretaceous aquifer also discharges to alluvial deposits Underlying the

Savannah River in regions where the confining unit has been incised upstream of the VEGP site

and to groundwater wells (Southern 2008a; Clarke and West 1997).

Groundwater and the Accessible Environment

Southern's consideration of pathways in the two uppermost aquifers, (i.e., the Water Table and

Tertiary aquifers) (Southern 2008a) make it clear that the Water Table aquifer provides the most

immediate pathway to the terrestrial and aquatic environment and man. Southern concludes.

that release from the Water Table aquifer is to a surface-water drainage headed by Mallard

Pond on the VEGP site, and therefore, immediate impacts would be to potential wetlands

controlled by Southern and not to the public. Review of the change in the piezometric surface in

the Water Table aquifer since 1971 leads staff to conclude that alteration of the land surface,

infiltration patterns, run-off patterns, and vegetation can influence the piezometric surface and

subsurface flow paths.

Hydraulic Properties

Measured values of aquifer and sediment properties are reported in Section 2.3.1.2.4 of the ER

(Southern 2008a). Measurements completed during the ESP site investigation are

supplemented by earlier reported values in the FSAR for existing VEGP Units 1 and 2

(Southern 2003b). The staff reviewed USGS reports on the regional aquifer to confirm the

range of values reported by Southern (Clarke and West 1998).

Key hydraulic properties of the Cretaceous aquifer, which supplies the bulk of the groundwater

required by VEGP Units 1 and 2 and would supply the groundwater required by the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4, are the transmissivity and storage coefficient of the deep confined aquifer

August 2008 2-27 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

system. Aquifer tests conducted when the existing deep production wells were installed provide

the mid-range transmissivity of 2.27 x 102 m2/s (158,000 gal/d/ft), and the mean storage

coefficient of 3.1 x 10-4 (dimensionless). These values are shown in the ER and used by

Southern in calculations (Southern 2008a). The staff performed independent calculations and

independently reviewed work conducted by the USGS to confirm these values. The USGS

derived minimum and maximum ranges of transmissivity estimates based on field data

(i.e., 4 x 10-5 m2/s to 2.75 x 10-2 m2/s [300 to 191,000 gal/d/ft]) and regional simulation

(i.e., 1 x 106 m2

/s to 3.69 x 10-2 m2/s 10 to 257,000 gal/d/ft) bracket the mid-range value of

transmissivity identified by Southern (Clarke and West 1998). The USGS modeling effort

(Clarke and West 1998) cites storage coefficients for the Cretaceous aquifers ranging from

7.1 x 10,5 to 4.4 x 10-4 that are similar to those cited by Southern (i.e., 2.1 x 10-5 to 6.60 x 104).

Key hydraulic properties of the Tertiary aquifer are the hydraulic conductivity and storage

coefficients, as well as the effective porosity. Southern reports the geometric mean of the

hydraulic conductivity as 2.9 x 106 m/s (0.83 ft/day) (Southern 2008a) based on five slug tests.

Storage coefficient of the Tertiary aquifer was not measured; however, Southern stated that

tests on the combined Tertiary and Cretaceous aquifers suggest I x 10-4 is a reasonable

estimate. Southern estimates an effective porosity of 31 percent. The USGS-derived minimum

and maximum ranges of transmissivity estimates based on field data (i.e., 1.9 x 104 m2/s to

1.31 x 10-2 m2/s [1346 to 91,200 gal/d/ft]) and regional simulation (i.e., 1.4 x 10-5 m2/s to

2.66 x 10-2 m2/s [100 to 185,000 gal/d/ft]).when combined with the local thickness of the Tertiary

aquifer (i.e., approximately 55 m (182 ft) bracket the central value of hydraulic conductivity

found by Southern but are generally higher (Clarke and West 1998). The USGS modeling effort

(Clarke and West 1998) cites storage coefficients for the Tertiary aquifer ranging from 3.0 x 104

to 3.7 x 10-4 that are similar to, but higher than, the value assumed by Southern (i.e., 1 x 104

Key hydraulic properties of the Water Table aquifer are the hydraulic conductivity, storage

coefficient, and the effective porosity. Southern presents previously derived values for hydraulic

conductivity from the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Southern 2003b) for the Barnwell

sands, silts, and clays ranging from 1.9 x 10-6 to 2.6 x 10" m/s (200 to 267 ft/yr) for well

permeameter tests and from 9.5 x 10- to 2.9 x 10-6 m/s (9.8 to 302 ft/yr) for undisturbed

samples in the laboratory. The potentially highly transmissive material is the Utley Limestone,

and its pumping test values ranged from 3.1 x 10.5 to 1.2 x 10-3 m/s (3250 to 125,400 ft/yr).

Falling and constant head tests on Utley Limestone suggest a lower range from 9.3 x 10-7 to

5.6 x 10-5 m/s (96 to 5800 ft/yr). The mean total porosity of Barnwell material is reported as

44 percent. Hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity determined recently as part of the ESP

investigation yielded a geometric mean of 1.75 x 10-6 m/s (0.5 ft/d) and mean of 32 percent,

respectively (Southern 2008a). Specific yield was estimated by Southern from published

literature to range between 0.20 and 0.33 (Southern 2008a). The staff independently

determined that the USGS-derived minimum and maximum range of transmissivity estimates

based on field data (i.e., 5.4 x 104 to 1.0 x 10.2 m2/s [3700 gal/d/ft to 71,000 gal/d/ft])

NUREG-1872 2-28 August 2008
Affected Environment

(Clarke and West 1998), when combined with the local thickness of the Water Table aquifer

(i.e., approximately 9 m (30 ft), are indicative of the higher values of the Utley limestone portion

of the Barnwell.

Interactions between the site surface and groundwater, and between aquifers

The Water Table aquifer is unconfined and recharge to it is infiltration from precipitation.

Locally, discharge from the aquifer is to surface-water drainages and groundwater wells.

Discharge to Utley Cave at the head of Mallard Pond (Huddlestun and Summerour 1996) is one

example of unconfined aquifer discharge in the immediate vicinity of the VEGP site. The USGS

(Clarke and West 1997) shows the Savannah River has incised into the Water Table aquifer in

the vicinity of and downstream of the VEGP site. Thus, in-addition to discharging to drainages,

springs, seeps, and groundwater wells, the aquifer discharges to the alluvial deposits in the river

valley. The majority of the hydraulic head data for the Water Table aquifer suggest an aquifer

dominated by infiltration from precipitation and by topography. Based on potentiometric contour

maps (Southern 2008a), groundwater movement from the VEGP site powerblock region

appears to be toward Mallard Pond. The staff notes that an alternate conceptual model is

supported by two data points. The data and alternate model are discussed in the following

paragraph.

The Tertiary aquifer is believed to be confined in the vicinity of the VEGP site; however, some

isolated data suggest the potential for local communication between the Water Table aquifer

and the Tertiary aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the Pen Branch fault (Southern 2008a). This

communication may provide a pathway from the Water Table aquifer into the uppermost

confined aquifer. Hydraulic head in the Water Table aquifer ranges from 49 to 44.2 m (160 to

145 ft) above MSL over the powerblock while the Tertiary aquifer ranges from 37 to 32 m

(120 to 105 ft) above MSL in the same vicinity. The anomalous data indicate a Water Table

aquifer hydraulic head of 35.7 to 36.0 m (117 to 118 ft) MSL in the vicinity of monitoring wells

OW-1 001 and B-1 004 at the eastern edge of the powerblock. Thus, groundwater flow could be

downward into the Tertiary aquifer at this point. If this communication exists, it appears to be

local and not linear (e.g., it is only observed at a single point). The Water Table aquifer does

not appear to be strongly influenced by a line sink representing a loss of groundwater into the

confined system along the entire structural feature of the Pen Branch fault. Based on

potentiometric contour maps of the Tertiary aquifer (Southern 2008a), groundwater movement

from the powerblock region is directed toward the Savannah River. Infiltration from precipitation

recharges the aquifer in its outcrop area to the northwest of the VEGP site. Some recharge also

moves through the upper and lower confining beds to recharge the Tertiary aquifer. The USGS

(Clarke and West 1997) show the Savannah River has incised into the upper confining unit of

the Tertiary aquifer upstream of the VEGP site, and the aquifer is believed to discharge into the

Savannah River alluvium and into the river in the vicinity of the incision.

August 2008 2-29 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

The Cretaceous aquifer is separated from the overlying Tertiary aquifer by a leaky confining

unit. Heads in the vicinity of the VEGP site in the Tertiary aquifer range from 38.1 m (125 ft)

above MSL east of the powerblock to 25.9 m (85 ft) above MSL at the Savannah River

shoreline. Heads in the Cretaceous aquifer vary but are approximately 46 m (150 ft) above

MSL in the deep production wells (Southern 2006b). Thus, leakage would occur from the

Cretaceous upward into the Tertiary aquifer. Some interpret seismic survey data to suggest that

fractures (stress release faults) in close association with the Pen Branch fault may cut the

aquitards separating aquifers within the Cretaceous sediments and aquitards separating the

Tertiary and Cretaceous deposits (Summerour et al. 1998). However, the deep production wells

are open to conductive zones of the aquifer from the lower portion of the confining zone above

the Cretaceous sediments for nearly the entire depth of the Cretaceous sediments. Thus,

communication among and between the aquifers that comprise the Cretaceous aquifer is locally

a function of the well screen and not only the fault structure. Based on potentiometric contour

maps (Clarke and West 1997; Cherry 2006), groundwater movement in the Cretaceous aquifer

system underlying the VEGP site is made complex because of the location of a groundwater

divide that separates groundwater flow toward regions where the Savannah River has incised

through the semi-confining units that overlay the Cretaceous sediments (upstream of the VEGP

I site) and groundwater flow toward the coast and presumed discharge points offshore. It

appears that in both the shallow (Dublin aquifer system) and the deep (Midville aquifer system)

portions of the Cretaceous aquifer, groundwater beneath the site is moving northeast toward

discharge points in the Savannah River alluvial deposits.

The contour plot (see Figure 2-9) for the Dublin aquifer system (i.e., shallow Cretaceous aquifer)

also suggests that current pumping from the VEGP site deep production wells may draw water

toward the VEGP site from South Carolina and Georgia's portions of the deep aquifer. The staff

believes that because the Savannah River incision into the Cretaceous deposits occurs

relatively far upstream from the VEGP site, there is no evidence to suggest barriers to

groundwater flow from South Carolina in the deep aquifer; therefore, communication or

transriver flow is possible. However, because the Savannah River does incise into the Water

Table aquifer adjacent to the VEGP site and into the Tertiary aquifer adjacent to or immediately

upstream of the VEGP site, there is less likelihood of transriver flow in these aquifer systems.

Cherry (2006) also shows that tracer particles originating in South Carolina that are subject to

transriver flow appear to be intercepted by the Savannah River alluvial deposit shortly after

migrating into the State of Georgia. The staff found no evidence to suggest physical or

hydraulic barriers to groundwater movement between the two states in the Cretaceous aquifer,

and has examined the influence of an alternate conceptual model allowing transriver flow when

evaluating the potential impact of planned deep groundwater production in this EIS.

The confined aquifers are recharged in outcrop areas between the VEGP site and the Fall Line,

which lies approximately 48 km (30 mi) to the northwest. The USGS provides an estimate of

the deep aquifer baseflow in Aucott et al. (1987). That estimate of baseflow is based on the

NUREG-1872 2-30 August 2008
Affected Environment

difference in measured Savannah River streamflow between Augusta and Millhaven, Georgia,

and on the measured flow in tributaries to the river. The estimated deep aquifer baseflow is

4.36 m3

/s (154 cfs, 100 MGD) based on measurements made during September to October

1968, a drought period in the region. The USGS estimated groundwater usage in the deep

aquifer during the period from 1961 to 1970 to be 0.83 m3

/s (29.4 cfs, 19 MGD) (Clarke and

West 1998). Thus, a pre-development (pre-1953) deep aquifer baseflow is estimated to be

5.21 m3/s (184 cfs, 119 MGD). In the 1990s, the USGS estimated a basin-wide water budget

for a 13,330 km 2 (5147 mi2) study area extending southeast of the Fall Line and focused on the

Savannah River Site and Burke County, Georgia (Clarke and West 1997, 1998). The USGS.

concluded that the mean annual groundwater discharge to the Savannah River was 34.5 m3

/s

(1220 cfs), and of that discharge, 13 percent or 4.36 m3

/s (154 cfs) is from the regional

(Cretaceous) aquifer system (Clarke and West 1997). This more recent USGS work is based in

part on the Aucott et al. (1987) estimate of deep aquifer baseflow. Long-term average recharge

was approximated by the USGS (Clarke and West 1997) by weighting the groundwater

discharge values according to drainage area. Of the estimated average groundwater recharge

of 36.8 cm/yr (14.5 in./yr), USGS estimates 17.3 cm/yr (6.8 in./yr) is to the Water Table aquifer,

14.7 cm/yr (5.8 in./yr) is to the Tertiary aquifer, and 4.8 cm/yr (1.9 in./yr) is to the Cretaceous

aquifers in the study region.

Recently, the USGS completed an update of the Clarke and West (1997, 1998) model and

examined future groundwater management scenarios (Cherry 2006). Defining the deep

regional aquifer as the Cretaceous strata from which Southern draws groundwater, water

balance elements (i.e., inflows and outflows) were obtained from the USGS report

(Cherry 2006). Examining three water-use periods of 1987 to 1992, 2002, and an estimated

2020, the deep regional aquifer flux over time is respectively 10.7 m3

/s, (378 cfs) (244 MGD),

10.3 m3

/s (364 cfs) (235 MGD), and 10.1 m3/s (356 cfs) (230 MGD). The regional flux estimates

based on outflow include discharges to the river, to wells, and from lateral boundaries of the

model. The sums of discharges to the river and wells, which would align with the predevelopment baseflow value, are 9.57 m3

/s (218.4 MGD), 9.16 m3

/s (209.1 MGD), and

8.97 m3/s (204.7 MGD), respectively. These are approximately within a factor of two of the

earlier estimate (i.e., 5.21 m3

/s [119 MGD]) of baseflow.

2.6.1.3 Hydrological Monitoring

This section describes the hydrological monitoring programs. Thermal and chemical monitoring

programs are discussed in Sections 2.6.3.3 and 2.6.3.4.

As a result of ongoing monitoring associated with the two existing units, Southern was able to

consider this existing monitoring program as part of the pre-application monitoring program for

the VEGP site (Southern 2008a). If the new units were built, many of these same monitoring

activities would likely be continued (Southern 2008a).

August 2008 2-31 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Surface Water

Discharge in the Savannah River is collected by the USGS, in cooperation with Southern, near

the existing barge slip on the VEGP Site. This site, named Savannah River near Waynesboro,

is assigned USGS gage number USGS 021973269, and the accuracy of the USGS reported

daily-discharge data is within about 10 percent of the true value (USGS 2006a).

The USGS reports discharge and reservoir storage upstream of the VEGP Site, including

conditions at Hartwell, Russell, and Thurmond dams. Other USGS stream gages near the

VEGP Site include (1) Savannah River at Augusta, USGS gage 02197000 (USGS 2006b),

located at Savannah RM 187.4 and accurate to within 15 percent of the true discharge;

(2) Savannah River near Jackson (POR October 1971 to September 2002), USGS gage

02197320 (USGS 2002), located at Savannah RM 156.8 and accurate to 10 percent of the true

discharge; and (3) Savannah River at Burton's Ferry Bridge near Millhaven, USGS gage

02197500 (USGS 2006b), located at Savannah RM 118.7 and accurate to within 15 percent of

the true discharge.

Southern (2008a) describes the hydrological (i.e., flow) monitoring that occurs onsite in

accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit GA0026786

and Industrial Stormwater Permit GAROOOOO. Discharge-monitoring locations include the

following: final plant discharge, cooling tower blowdown from VEGP Units 1 and 2, wastewater

retention basins for VEGP Units 1 and 2, sewage treatment plant emergency outflow, liquid

radwaste systems discharge from VEGP Units 1 and 2, and the nuclear service cooling tower

blowdown.

Southern states in the ER that it would prepare an Erosion, Sedimentation and Pollution Control

Plan in support of the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. This permit is required before

site preparation can commence on the new units.

If the new units are built and operated, monitoring of the discharge from the new units would

likely be similar to the monitoring for the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2. Future monitoring of the

Savannah River, intake structure withdrawals, and discharge outfall would be performed in

coordination with required permits to be issued by the State of Georgia and obtained by

Southern prior to operation of the new units.

Groundwater

Southern describes two ongoing monitoring programs measuring the drawdown or the

groundwater level at the VEGP site: (1) a program that meets the GDNR EPD requirements of

the groundwater use permit, and (2) the NRC groundwater monitoring program

(Southern 2008a).

NUREG-1872 2-32 August 2008
Affected Environment

Southern would continue to monitor groundwater levels in support of the existing units during

construction of the proposed units. Southern has committed to developing and deploying

groundwater monitoring programs during construction and operation of the proposed units in

coordination with the State of Georgia and the NRC (Southern 2008a).

2.6.2 Water Use

Consideration of water use requires estimating the magnitude and timing of consumptive and

non-consumptive water uses. Non-consumptive water use does not result in a reduction in the

available water supply. For example, water withdrawn from the river and used to wash fish from

the intake screens would result in no net change in water supply to downstream water users if

the same volume of water pumped from the river would eventually be returned back into the

river. On the other hand, consumptive water-use results in a net reduction of the water supply

available for downstream users. For instance, the circulating water system (CWS) withdraws

water for normal cooling. The majority of that water is evaporated in the cooling towers, and

that evaporated water would be considered a consumptive loss. The following two sections

describe the consumptive and non-consumptive users of surface water and groundwater near

the VEGP site.

2.6.2.1 Surface-Water Use

The existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 at rkm 243 (RM 151) and the Savannah River Site D-Area

Powerhouse at rkm 249 (RM 155) are the largest (consumptive) water users in proximity to the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. Data reported by Southern (2008a) state that average surfacewater use for VEGP Units 1 and 2 was approximately 2.8 m3

/s (98.8 cfs) between January 2003

and December 2004. Between June 2004 and May 2005, the monthly average surface-water

withdrawal for the Savannah River Site was 0.13 m3/s (4.5 cfs)(Southern 2008a). This value

excludes the D-Area Powerhouse, which is located on the Savannah River Site; however, it is

now operated by SCE&G. For the 12-month period beginning in June 2004 and ending in May

2005, the D-Area Powerhouse used 1.94 m3

/s (68.4 cfs) of water on-average per month

(Southern 2008a). The Urquhart Station, which is also operated by SCE&G and is located

upstream of the VEGP site near Augusta at rkm 314 (RM 195), withdrew 3.61 m3

/s (127.5 cfs)

on-average per month during the same period (Southern 2008a).

Southern states that the nearest surface-water users downstream from the VEGP Site are the

Fort James Operating Company and GPC, both of which are located in Effingham County,

Georgia, and lie downstream from the site at approximately 170 km (106 mi)

(Southern 2008a).(")

(a) River miles (RM) are calculated from the mouth of the river or, for upstream tributaries, from the

confluence with the main river. The Savannah River originates at the confluence of the Seneca and

Tugaloo rivers in Hart County, Georgia.

August 2008 2-33 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Water-use data for a period of 20 years ending in the year 2000 suggested that withdrawal rates

for surface water and groundwater remained nearly unchanged (Fanning 2003) in the vicinity of

the VEGP site. However, projected surface-water and groundwater demands in Burke County,

Georgia indicate an increase of 50 percent by 2035 (Rutherford & Associates 2000). In South

Carolina, combined surface-water and groundwater demand is projected to increase by

50 percent between 2000 and 2045 (SCDNR 2004). Near the mouth of the Savannah River and

approximately 241 km (150 mi) downstream of the site, saltwater is intruding into the Floridan

aquifer because of groundwater withdrawals (GDNR 2006a). To preserve the groundwater

resource in the future, existing groundwater users may shift the source of their water supply from

the Floridan aquifer to water originating from the Savannah River, which would also increase

demands for Savannah River water downstream of the VEGP site in the future.

2.6.2.2 Groundwater Use

Aquifers and Their Relationship to the Savannah River

Southern provides a description of groundwater use in the area affected by the proposed VEGP

site in Section 2.3.2.2 of the ER (Southern 2008a). Groundwater is highly related to the geology

of the site, and a description of the geology in the vicinity of the VEGP site is presented in

Section 2.4 of this EIS. The groundwater resource in the vicinity of the VEGP site resides in

three aquifers: the Water Table aquifer, the Tertiary aquifer, and the Cretaceous aquifer. As

implied in its name, the Water Table aquifer is unconfined, relatively shallow, and subject to

seasonal and interannual changes in response to precipitation. Those using this groundwater

resource generally pump at lower rates indicative of domestic household use and are exempt

from the requirement of a groundwater-use permit. Non-agricultural water users requiring in

excess of 379,000 Lid (100,000 gpd) are required to apply for a permit in the State of Georgia

(GDNR 2001). The Tertiary aquifer is the first confined aquifer and includes sands, silts, and

gravels that can yield substantial groundwater. The Cretaceous aquifer is composed of a

sequence of aquifers and aquitards with strata also yielding substantial groundwater to wells.

The production wells for the VEGP site withdraw groundwater from the Cretaceous aquifer as

do most high-production wells in the region. Several lower-yield wells at the VEGP site

withdraw groundwater from the Tertiary aquifer. All existing wells at the VEGP site are under

Georgia Water-Use Permit Number 017-0003 (Georgia EPD 2008), which allows a maximum

monthly average pumping rate of 23,000 m3/d (6.0 MGD) and a yearly average pumping rate of

20,800 m3/d (5.5 MGD).

The VEGP site is located on a bluff above the Savannah River. The Water Table aquifer drains

to surrounding stream channels: the Savannah River to the east, Hancock Landing drainage to

the north, and Beaverdam Creek drainage to the south. This aquifer is replenished locally by

net infiltration from precipitation. The base of the Blue Bluff Marl that isolates the Water Table

aquifer from the Tertiary aquifer appears to be incised by the Savannah River in the immediate

vicinity of the VEGP site, and the USGS notes hydraulic connection between this first confined

NUREG-1872 2-34 August 2008
Affected Environment

aquifer and the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Pen Branch fault adjacent to the VEGP site

and upstream of Flowery Gap Landing, somewhat upstream of the VEGP site (Clarke and West

1997). Figure 2-10 shows the extent of hydrogeologic units underlying the Savannah River. In

this figure, aquifers and confining units are exposed to the Savannah River alluvial material from

downstream to upstream in order of progressively older sediments. The Upper Three Runs (or

Water Table) aquifer is exposed in the lower right, and the Pre-Cretaceous basement rock is

exposed in the upper left (Clarke and West 1997). In the figure, the VEGP site is located

adjacent to the Pen Branch fault on the Georgia shore of the Savannah River; Flowery Gap

Landing is east of TR-92-6 and on the Georgia shore of the Savannah River. The Gordon

aquifer in USGS nomenclature shown in this figure is denoted by the Tertiary aquifer in this EIS.

USGS studies have suggested a potential for transriver flow in the vicinity of the VEGP site;

however, their models suggest that flow crossing the river in either direction upwells into the

alluvial valley near the river (Clarke and West 1998; Cherry 2006). The Tertiary aquifer is

replenished at upgradient outcrop locations exposed to precipitation, and locally flows toward

the Savannah River. Thus, the Savannah River appears to intercept both the Water Table and

Tertiary aquifers.

The confining unit overlying the Cretaceous aquifer is not incised by the Savannah River

adjacent to the VEGP site (Figure 2-10). The USGS maps the incision as occurring nearly

16 km (10 mi) upstream of the site (Clarke and West 1997). Thus, the staff's interpretation of

the hydrogeology is that in the vicinity of the VEGP site, aquifers and aquitards that comprise

the Cretaceous aquifer are hydraulically isolated from the Savannah River and have hydraulic

connection between the States of Georgia and South Carolina. The Cretaceous aquifer is

replenished at upgradient outcrop locations exposed to precipitation. The updated model of

Cherry (2006) was used to simulate potential future pumping at the VEGP site (Cherry and

Clarke 2007). For scenarios examining the anticipated pumping rate for proposed VEGP Units

3 and 4, the groundwater was shown to originate in upland areas of Georgia, with none of the

recharge originating in South Carolina. One scenario involving a long-term increase in pumping

rate of over three times the proposed operational rate did cause a portion of the recharge drawn

to the well to originate in South Carolina, but it did not originate from within the Savannah River

Site operated by DOE. This aquifer system exhibits a groundwater divide downstream of the

VEGP site, and locally, groundwater in the system is moving toward the incised location

upstream of the site, which is a hydraulic sink. Based on USGS studies (Aucott et al. 1987;

Clarke and West 1997, 1998; Cherry 2006) the deep aquifer baseflow has been estimated to be

between 5.21 and 9.57 m3

/s (119 and 218 MGD) (see Section 2.6.1.2). Groundwater in this

system that is sufficiently removed from the Savannah River laterally, flows past the divide

toward the coast and discharges, in general, to downgradient groundwater wells or from

subaqueous exposures of the aquifer along the continental shelf.

August 2008 2-35 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

a2•

MO/on

Snl su4

Girard~

0 -

SUppor Trite Puin apler

Godisrsca" igru

*Godmiluia

Miss& PcfilsWtAirt~

EXPLANATION

HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS

*Ua~ippi2-Ln aq~i.1k

*odn Lov ui~rl

Ml LWar kIsilref sqilte

M Lowme 4d~ * ccntortqiri m

*Prom{AaC*ei bwumaroUa

021973120& STREAMFLOW4AWN STATION AN W IOETCATION n NiUER

G'30d + WELL-CLUBTER OnT AND IOEN'11F4CATION

0 TEST WELL AND IDENTiIRCATION NUMBER

Figure 2-10.

NUREG-1872

Extent of Hydrogeologic Units Underlying the Savannah River; the Upper Three

Runs (a Water Table) Aquifer is Exposed in the Lower Right, and the PreCretaceous Basement Rock is Exposed in the Upper Left (Clark and West 1997)

2-36 August 2008
Affected Environment

Average and Maximum Plant Water Use

The VEGP site maintains three wells completed in the Cretaceous aquifer and six wells

completed in the Tertiary aquifer. The three wells in the Cretaceous are deep production wells

with design yields of 63 to 126 L/s (1000 to 2000 gpm). These wells provide makeup water for

the plant processes (e.g., 1158 million L [306 million gallons] in 2005 for VEGP Units 1 and 2 or

a rate of 3.17 million L/d [0.838 MGD]) (Southern 2008a). The six wells in the Tertiary aquifer

have design yields of 1.3 to 9.5 Us (20 to 150 gpm) and provide irrigation water, potable waterý

for the recreation area and the simulator training building, water supply for the nuclear

operations garage, water supply for the security tactical training area, water supply for fire

protection, and a non-potable water supply for the new plant entrance security building

(e.g., 8 million L [2 million gallons] in 2005 for VEGP Units 1 and 2 or a rate of 0.0212 million i/d

[0.0056 MGD]) (Southern 2008a). Thus, in 2005 the total pumping rate was 3.19 million L/d

(0.843 MGD). Southern has estimated the average pumping rate for normal operation of VEGP

Units 1 and 2 as 46.1 Us (730 gpm, 1.05 MGD). Southern estimates a maximum pumping rate

of 145 Us (2300 gpm, 3.312 MGD) for VEGP Units 1 and 2 (Southern 2008a). Both the normal

and maximum operation levels are for VEGP Units 1 and 2 simultaneously operating in the

same mode.

Southern projects groundwater consumptive use for normal operation of proposed VEGP

Units 3 and 4 at an average rate of 47.4 Us (752 gpm, 1.08 MGD) and a maximum operation

rate of 198.1 Us (3140 gpm, 4.52 MGD) (Southern 2008a). During normal operation

approximately 19.2 Us (305 gpm) of groundwater and during maximum operation approximately

106 L/s (1681 gpm) of groundwater is returned as surface water to the Savannah River

(Southern 2008a). Both the normal and maximum operation water-use rates are for the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 simultaneously operating in the same mode.

Dewatering Experience during Construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2

Southern states that construction of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would employ a similar

dewatering method as was employed for existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 (Southern 2008a).

Construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 required excavation of the sediments comprising the Water

Table aquifer overlying the Blue Bluff Marl. Four pumps, each with a capacity of 32 Us

(500 gpm), were used to remove the water from the excavation site; thus, normal dewatering

had a maximum capacity of 126 Us (2000 gpm). Additional capacity was employed to remove

water during at least one storm event (Southern 2003b). Data from observation wells

monitored during construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 revealed a variable response in the Water

Table aquifer near the excavation site (Southern 2008a). The most distant well in the vicinity of

the excavation for which a record exists, well #804, approximately 300 m (1000 ft) southwest of

the excavation, was not substantially impacted (i.e., 0.6 m (approximately 2 ft) decline and

subsequent recovery). Southern states that water continued to flow through Mallard Pond

August 2008 2-37 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

during the dewatering activity for existing VEGP Units 1 and 2, which lasted for more than

6 years from mid-1976 until early-1983 (Southern 2007c, 2008a).

Water-Use Permit and the Moratorium

Since 1974, the State of Georgia has required a groundwater-use permit for all non-agricultural

groundwater users of more than 379,000 Ud (100,000 gpd). In 1997, the State of Georgia, as

part of an interim strategy to manage salt water intrusion into the Floridan aquifer, instituted a

moratorium on groundwater withdrawal permits for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses in

24 Georgia counties (GDNR 2006a). Burke County was among the 24 counties. The VEGP

site is 100 km (62 mi) or more from regions being impacted by saltwater intrusion. In 2006,

Georgia issued its permitting plan for managing salt water intrusion (GDNR 2006a). That plan

identified Burke County among 19 counties that did not contribute substantially to the

development or extent of salt water intrusion in coastal areas (GDNR 2006a). However, in this

19-county region of Georgia, applications for water-use permits (i.e., industrial, institutional,

commercial, municipal, and residential) continue to be reviewed to ensure a justified need

exists, and that aggressive and practical conservation and reuse principles and wastewater

management are being applied (GDNR 2006a). Southern notes in Section 2.3.2.2.2 of its ER

I (Southern 2008a) that groundwater wells would be completed in the Cretaceous aquifer to

supply water for operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4, and that Southern would

request a modification of its existing water-use permit.

Nearest Neighboring Wells

In the vicinity of the VEGP site, groundwater is used by permit holders for agriculture, industry,

and municipal water supply. There are also domestic wells that withdraw relatively low

quantities and wells that serve the public listed by EPA in the Safe Drinking Water Information

System (SDWIS). The nearest neighboring well is a domestic well located across River Road

from the VEGP site (Southern 2008a). Groundwater wells permitted by the State of Georgia are

relatively distant from the VEGP site. The nearest permitted agricultural well is located 5.5 km

(3.4 mi) northwest, the nearest industrial well is located 13.7 km (8.5 mi) northwest, and the

nearest municipal well is located 23.3 km (14.5 mi) west-southwest. The nearest SDWIS well is

located 7.9 km (4.9 mi) southwest at the DeLaigle Mobile Home Park (Southern 2008a). The

agricultural and SDWIS wells were completed in Tertiary sediments, while the industrial and

municipal wells were completed in Cretaceous sediments. Southern states that "...these wells

are sufficiently distant from (Plant Vogfle) such that pumping these wells would have no effect

on groundwater levels at Plant Vogtle" (Southern 2008a). The Savannah River Site withdraws

groundwater from the deep confined aquifer at several locations (Wells and Hiergesell 2005).

The D-Area, approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) from the VEGP site, withdraws groundwater for

domestic as well as process purposes. This groundwater well into the deep confined aquifer

appears to be the closest potential offsite user to the VEGP site.

NUREG-1872 2-38 August 2008
Affected Environment

Historical and Future Trends in Water Use

Water-use data for a period of 20 years ending in the year 2000 suggest that withdrawal rates

for surface water and groundwater remained nearly unchanged (Fanning 2003) in the vicinity of

the VEGP site. Projected water demand in Burke County, Georgia, indicates an increase of

50 percent by 2035 (Rutherford & Associates 2000). In South Carolina, an increase of

50 percent is projected by 2045 (SCDNR 2004). However, despite these projections, a recent

report by the USGS assigned lower groundwater pumping rates for the region in the future

(i.e., through 2020) than have occurred during the recent drought (Cherry 2006). Thus, there is

reason to believe that stress on the groundwater resource was highest during the recent

drought and could now diminish.

In the Savannah River basin, water users depend primarily on surface water to satisfy current

and future demands (GDNR 2001; SCDHEC 2005). Because of evidence of salt water intrusion

in developed coastal regions, the states of Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida, and others

jointly undertook an effort in the past decade to develop and apply a management plan to

stabilize and halt the intrusion of salt water into the Upper Floridan aquifer (GDNR 2006a).

Under the management plan, the State of Georgia would review applications for new and

renewed water withdrawal permits in Burke County to ensure water quantities are justified and

that permits include requirements for water conservation, water reclamation and reuse, and

wastewater management. It is anticipated that groundwater users in the lower basin (i.e., in the

vicinity of the observed saltwater intrusion) would be required to replace groundwater sources

with surface-water sources in the future (Southern 2008a).

There are no aquifers designated as "sole source" within 320 km (200 mi) of the VEGP site

(EPA 2006).

2.6.3 Water Quality

The following sections describe the water quality of surface water and groundwater resources in

the vicinity of the VEGP site. Monitoring programs for thermal and chemical water quality are

also described.

2.6.3.1 Surface-Water Quality

This section describes the water quality of the Savannah River near the VEGP site, which is

the only offsite surface-water body that would be impacted by either the construction or

operation of the new units. Southern presents a discussion of the water-quality conditions in

Section 2.3.3.1 of the ER (Southern 2008a). The thermal load discharged from the two

operating units results in localized elevated water temperatures in the river. Operational

impacts of the proposed units on Savannah River water quality are discussed in Section 5.3.3.1

of this EIS. Monitoring programs for thermal and chemical water quality are discussed in

Sections 2.6.3.3 and 2.6.3.4, respectively.

August 2008 2-39 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

The State of Georgia has classified the water use in the Savannah River near the VEGP site as

"Fishing: propagation of fish, shellfish, game and other aquatic life" (Georgia EPD 2007a).

Daily average dissolved oxygen levels are required to be a minimum of 6.0 mg/L. Upstream of

the VEGP site and between J. Strom Thurmond Dam (RM 221.6) and Stevens Creek Dam

(RM 208.1 ), the Savannah River is listed as not fully supporting the designated water use for

dissolved oxygen levels on the Georgia 303(d)/305(b) list (Georgia EPD 2007b). However, near

the VEGP site at Savannah RM 150.9, the river is not listed as impaired by the State of Georgia.

This conclusion is supported by data provided by Southern in its ER, which states that during

2003 dissolved oxygen levels near the site ranged between 6.1 mg/L and 11.4 mg/L with a

mean of 8.4 mg/L.

South Carolina monitors water quality in the Savannah River near the VEGP site

(SCDHEC 2003). The nearest water-quality stations upstream (Savannah River Lock and Dam:

Station SV-323 (RM 187) and downstream (Savannah River at U.S. Highway 301, 20 km

[12.5 mi] southwest of Allendale: Station SV-1 18 [RM 119]) of the VEGP site are presented in

SCDHEC (2003). Data presented in the report show recreational and aquatic life uses were

fully supported at both sites between January 1996 and December 2000 (reporting period).

Water-quality parameter trends (1984 to 2000) and the number of samples exceeding the

appropriate standard (1996 to 2000) discussed in the SCDHEC report include dissolved oxygen,

pH, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, turbidity, fecal coliform, ammonia, cadmium, chromium,

copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc. At the downstream station (SV-1 18), an increasing

trend in total phosphorus concentration was noted. There was also a decreasing trend in pH.

A decreasing trend in total nitrogen and fecal coliform bacteria concentrations suggest

improving conditions for these two parameters.

In addition to Georgia and South Carolina, the DOE has monitored the water quality of the

Savannah River for over 50 years. DOE monitors Savannah River water quality at sampling

sites located at RM 160, RM 150.4, RM 141.5, RM 129.1, and RM 118. In 2003, the data

showed no indication of degradation or impairment (Southern 2008a; Mamatey 2004).

Discharges from VEGP Units 1 and 2 are controlled by a GDNR NPDES permit (permit number

GA0026786 [GDNR 2004a]). The most recent permit was issued on June 30, 1999. Before the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 could begin to operate, Southern would be required to obtain a

NPDES permit for discharges from these units. Southern would also be required to demonstrate

to GDNR that the effluent limitations for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 are adequate to

ensure protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of fish and wildlife

through a Clean Water Act Section 316(a) demonstration. If determined to be necessary, GDNR

may require additional monitoring before or after issuance of an NPDES permit.

NUREG-1872 2-40 August 2008
Affected Environment

2.6.3.2 Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality in the vicinity of the proposed VEGP site is described in Section 2.3.3.2 of

the ER (Southern 2008a). The GDNR Environmental Protection Division has the responsibility

for protecting the groundwater resource, and maintains the Georgia Ground-Water Monitoring

Network, which monitors the ambient water quality of nine aquifers (Donahue 2004). Among

these aquifers is the Jacksonian system (Donahue 2004), which is close to the VEGP site and

includes the Water Table aquifer, also known as the Upper Three Runs aquifer (Summerour et

al. 1994). For groundwater in the vicinity of the VEGP site, the State of Georgia (Donahue

2004) reported on water quality of the Jacksonian aquifer from eight wells drawing water from

the Barnwell Group. Samples were analyzed for nitrate/nitrite and volatile organic compounds,

including methyl tert-butyl ether; however, no volatile organic compounds were identified above

the report limit of 0.5 pg/L. The nitrate/nitrite level was detectable in six wells, and elevated in

one of them (i.e., 7.6 ppm) but below the primary maximum contamination level (10 ppm for

nitrate measured as nitrogen). Donahue (2004) describes a regional issue with acidic

groundwater in the outcrop areas of Cretaceous sediments (i.e., downgradient of the Fall Line),

and notes that treatment may be required. The acidity is natural and may result from the

inability of the sediment to neutralize acidic rainwater and from biologically influenced, acidproducing reactions between water and soils or deeper sediments. Groundwater is of the

calcium-sodium bicarbonate type found in the vicinity of the VEGP site. Total dissolved solids

are less than 200 ppm with lower values in the Water Table aquifer and values approaching

200 ppm in the confined aquifers (Southern 2008a). This is below the secondary standard for

total dissolved solids of 500 ppm. Overall, the State of Georgia found the quality of groundwater

water excellent (Donahue 2004).

As a result of saltwater intrusion observed at three locations in the Upper Floridan aquifer (in the

vicinity of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, approximately 140 km southeast, the Savannah/

Chatham County pumping center in Georgia, approximately 140 km southeast, and in

groundwater in the vicinity of Brunswick, Georgia, more than 200 km south-southeast of the

VEGP site), the State of Georgia, in concert with others, established an interim strategy for

protecting the groundwater resource in 1997 (GDNR 2006a). Included in the interim strategy

was a moratorium on water-use permits in Georgia for the Upper Floridan aquifer. At that time,

the State of Georgia and others undertook to complete the Coastal Sound Science Initiative, a

suite of studies to define and understand the saltwater intrusion challenge facing the region. At

the conclusion of the Coastal Sound Science Initiative, a permitting plan (GDNR 2006a) was

issued that would guide Georgia Environmental Protection Division water resource management

decisions and actions. Burke County is included under the plan, and is among 19 counties

identified in Georgia as having minimal impact on coastal regions and the saltwater intrusion

problem (GDNR 2006a). With regard to the 19 counties, the management plan would ensure

water-use permits are issued consistent with a justified need and with requirements of water

conservation, water reclamation and reuse, and wastewater management.

August 2008 2-41 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

In 2006, South Carolina, in cooperation with the USGS, issued Technical Publication

No. 011-06, which is an evaluation of the downward migration of saltwater into the Upper

Floridan Aquifer (Ransom et al. 2006). The South Carolina Water Plan, issued in 2004

(Badr et al. 2004) recommended, in part, that (1) the use of groundwater and surface-water

resources should be optimized to reduce the effects that withdrawal have on either source and

the environment, (2) the withdrawal from an aquifer should not result in salt water intrusion, and

(3) efficient irrigation techniques, recycling of treated municipal wastewater, and desalination

should all be studied and promoted as alternative water sources.

Tritium has been identified as a pollutant in the Water Table aquifer in the vicinity of the VEGP

site (Summerour et al. 1998). First discovered in 1988 in a public water supply well serving the

DeLaigle Mobile Home Park a short distance (i.e., less than 2 miles west) from the VEGP site, it

was initially believed that tritium contaminated the confined aquifer system. However, a

thorough cooperative study of the region conducted by the GDNR and the USGS and described

in Summerour et al. (1994, 1998), Clarke and West (1997, 1998) and Cherry (2006) has

revealed:

* There are elevated levels of tritium in the Water Table aquifer in eastern Burke County, but

the levels measured are well below the drinking water standard for tritium (20,000 pCi/L),

and no public health threat exists.

e There is no evidence of regional tritium contamination of the confined Tertiary

aquifer (i.e., also known as the Gordon aquifer); however, high-resolution tritium analyses

show very low levels of tritium (i.e., less than 25 pCi/L) in all confined aquifers.

* The age of confined aquifer water (i.e., old water), particularly that of the deep

confined system, suggest that very low tritium detection is due to downward leakage from

other aquifers or contamination during drilling or sampling.

" Although assumed to be a secondary pathway for tritium found in the Georgia aquifer

systems (Summerour et al. 1998), transriver flow originating in South Carolina at the

Savannah River Site has been studied by the USGS (Clarke and West 1997,1998; Cherry

2006) and found to be an unlikely source for the broadly based tritium observed in Georgia

groundwater wells in the Water Table and Tertiary aquifers. The Savannah River incises the

Water Table aquifer and acts as a discharge boundary for the aquifer in both Georgia and

South Carolina. With regard to the Tertiary aquifer, groundwater flow is either toward the

river from both states, or toward an upriver location where the river incises the Tertiary

aquifer (Clarke and West 1997).

" The evidence indicates the primary pathway for tritium pollution of the Water Table aquifer is

through recharge of the aquifer by atmospheric deposition of tritium released from the

Savannah River Site, which is located in South Carolina and upwind of the VEGP site.

NUREG-1872 2-42 August 2008
Affected Environment

An indication of the groundwater quality of the Cretaceous aquifer underlying the Savannah

River Site operated by DOE is that groundwater recovered from the deep confined Cretaceous

aquifer supplies drinking water for the DOE site (Wells 1999): To sustain this water quality,

DOE has required, since the 1980s, that any substantial quantity of groundwater be recovered

from the lowermost aquifer and at rates that preserve the natural head difference between

aquifers (Wells 1999). This ensures the continued existence of an upward hydraulic head

gradient over most of the DOE site between the deep aquifer and overlying aquifers that may be

contaminated. This DOE management practice in South Carolina preserves the natural

hydraulic barrier to downward migration of contaminants into the deep aquifer, and maintains its

water quality.

2.6.3.3 Thermal Monitoring

This section describes thermal monitoring programs. Southern is able to consider ongoing

monitoring programs associated with the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 operation to provide

some pre-application and pre-operational monitoring data for the VEGP site. Many of the same

monitoring activities would be continued if the proposed units were completed and would

become part of the operational monitoring for the proposed units. In Section 6.1 of the ER,

Southern describes the existing river temperature measurements directly associated with the

current site operation that were required under terms of its existing NPDES permit (Southern

2008a).

The GDNR has classified the Savannah River near the VEGP sites as "fishing" water use

(GDNR 2004b). The water-quality standards for temperature are not to exceed 320C (90°F),

and at no time is the temperature of the receiving waters to be increased more than 2.80C (50F)

above intake temperature. A provision is included that allows for use of a reasonable and

limited mixing zone; however, evidence must be provided that such a zone would not create an

objectionable or damaging pollution condition.

The current temperature monitoring requirements do not require routine thermal monitoring

(Southern 2008a). Thermal monitoring of the intake and final plant discharge is performed once

every 5 years to support renewal of the NPDES permit. If determined to be necessary, GDNR

may require additional monitoring before issuance of any new NPDES permits. GDNR may

also require ongoing monitoring as a condition of any new NPDES permits.

2.6.3.4 Chemical Monitoring

This section describes the pre-application and operational chemical monitoring programs. As a

result of ongoing monitoring associated with the existing two units, Southern considered the

operational monitoring program as part of the pre-application and pre-operational monitoring

program for the VEGP site. Many of these same monitoring activities would be continued if the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 were completed, and would likely become part of the operational

August 2008 2-43 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

monitoring program. In its ER, Southern describes the chemical monitoring that is required

under terms of Southern's existing NPDES permit (Southern 2008a). The surface-water-quality

parameters currently monitored under the NPDES permit at various locations, (i.e, not all are

monitored at each location), are hydrazine, pH, free available chlorine, total residual chlorine,

total chromium, total zinc, total suspended solids, oil and grease, and biological oxygen demand

I (Southern 2008a, GDNR 2004a). The NPDES permit obtained for the existing units specifies

chemical monitoring at a variety of locations internal to the VEGP site and at the final plant

discharge location.

2.7 Ecology

This section describes the terrestrial and aquatic ecology of the site and vicinity that might be

affected by the design, siting, construction, operation, and maintenance of two additional units at

the VEGP site. Sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 provide general descriptions of terrestrial and aquatic

environments on and in the vicinity of the VEGP site and in the vicinity of one additional 500-kV

transmission line right-of-way that would be required to distribute the additional generation from

the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2008a). The proposed new transmission line rightof-way would likely connect the VEGP site with the Thomson substation 32 km (20 mi) west of

Augusta. The transmission line right-of-way may cross Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie, and Warren

Counties. It is anticipated it would be a 46-m (1 50-ft)-wide right-of-way approximately 97 km

(60 mi) long (see Figure 4-1) (Southern 2008a; NRC 2007c).

Detailed descriptions are provided where needed to support the analysis of potential

environmental impacts from construction, operation, and maintenance of new nuclear power

generating facilities and the new transmission line right-of-way. The descriptions are provided

to support mitigation activities identified during the assessment to avoid, reduce, minimize,

rectify, or compensate for potential impacts. Descriptions are also provided to help compare the

alternative sites to the VEGP site. Also included are descriptions of monitoring programs for

terrestrial and aquatic environments.

2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology

This section identifies terrestrial ecological resources and describes species composition and

other structural and functional attributes of biotic assemblages that could be affected by the

construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. It also identifies

"important" terrestrial resources, as defined in NUREG 1555, such as wildlife sanctuaries and

natural areas that might be impacted by the proposed action.

The VEGP site is approximately 1282.5 ha (3169 ac) in size and is in the sandhills of the Upper

Coastal Plain Physiographic Province approximately 48 km (30 mi) southeast of the Fall Line

(Southern 2007d; Southern 2008a). The site has 12 soil types (Figure 2-11) and several

NUREG-1872 2-44 August 2008
Affected Environment

71$>ý,'

~Vogtie ESP GOILHAME. SLOPE

Site SI"

S 5wt uuffwm Compaiwy NRCS R mE

0 0.25 0,5 F 2-11. VE. -- P S So Map . 2003a) .... 

Figure 2-11. VEGP Site Soil Map (NRCS 2003a)

August 2008 2-45 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

major habitat types, including man-made or beaver-created ponds, pine plantations, native

upland pines, and the bottomland hardwoods along stream drainages and adjacent to the

Savannah River (NRCS 2003a; TRC 2006). Approximately 320 ha (800 ac) of the VEGP site

consists of the existing Units 1 and 2 and associated auxiliary facilities, Plant Wilson (a

554-MW(e) peaking power generating facility), the training center, and transmission line rightsof-way. Previously disturbed areas onsite, including areas within the footprint for the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4, are vegetated with a mix of planted pines and old field vegetation

I (Southern 2008a). Approximately 247.7 ha (612 ac) of hardwoods, 661.3 ha (1634 ac) of pine

forests, and 38.8 ha (96 ac) of open areas such as mowed grass and old fields are on the

VEGP site (Southern 2008a).

The land surrounding the VEGP site consists mostly of both agricultural and naturally vegetated

parcels. Pasture or farmland, pine plantations, and abandoned (old) fields predominate the

agricultural portions, while much of the naturally vegetated land is composed of oak-hickory

hardwoods and sand hill-upland pine communities (Southern 2007e, 2008a).

The Savannah River floodplain ranges from approximately 30 to 240 m (100 to 800 ft) wide at

the VEGP site. However, most of the VEGP site is situated atop steep river bluffs along the

Savannah River shoreline and is separated from the floodplain (Southern 2008a). The top of

the bluff is about 11.9 m (125 ft) above the high water mark.

Directly across the Savannah River from the VEGP site is the Savannah River Site,.a DOE

facility with restricted access (Southern 2008a). River swamp, bottomland hardwood, and

upland pine-hardwood communities occur on the Savannah River Site within 10 km (6 mi) of the

VEGP site (Southern 2008a). The Savannah River Swamp comprises about 3800 ha (9400 ac)

and borders the Savannah River on the southwestern edge of Savannah River Site, across the

river from the VEGP site (Wike et al. 2006).

The Yuchi WMA is immediately south of the VEGP site and is managed by GDNR for public deer

and turkey hunting and primitive camping (Southern 2008a; GDNR 2006b). This WMA

encompasses 3160 ha (7800 ac) and is composed of 101 ha (250 ac) of Savannah River bottom;

121 ha (300 ac) of creek bottom; 283 ha (700 ac) of mesic ravine; 2400 ha (6000 ac) of planted

loblolly (Pinus taeda), slash (P. elliotti) or longleaf pine (P. palustris) of various ages; and 223 ha

(550 ac) of native pine and mixed pine-hardwood (GDNR 2006b). Southern also maintains a

public boat landing immediately downstream of the VEGP site that provides both employees and

the general public access to the Savannah River for recreational purposes (Southern 2008a). In

early 2003, Southern's Land Department began restoration of a forested area near the boat

ramp, which included planting 26,000 longleaf pine trees and 15,000 wiregrass (Aristida stricta)

plugs. VEGP partnered with National Wild Turkey Federation-Energy for Wildlife, GPC, and the

Forestry for Wildlife Partnership on this restoration project (Southern 2007e). No other

recreation areas occur within 10 km (6 mi) of the VEGP site (Southern 2008a).

NUREG-1872 2-46 August 2008
Affected Environment

The VEGP site has been designated as a Certified Wildlife Habitat since 1993. This designation

is through the Wildlife Habitat Council, a non-profit, Washington D.C.-based wildlife organization

(Southern 2008a). In July 2006, Southern submitted an application to the Wildlife Habitat

Council for re-certification as a Certified Wildlife Habitat and was awarded this re-certification

November 14, 2006 (Southern 2007c). GPC also manages wildlife habitat within some of the

transmission line rights-of-way by employing a GDNR program called Wildlife Incentive for NonGame and Game Species (WINGS). This program aims to assist land owners in the conversion

of transmission rights-of-way into wildlife habitat areas (NRC 2008).

Although the VEGP site hosts ticks and mosquitoes, no vector-borne diseases have been

reported at the site. In addition, there are no other pre-existing stresses or stressors to wildlife

known to occur on the VEGP site (Southern 2006c, 2008a).

2.7.1.1 Terrestrial Communities of the VEGP Site*

Wildlife Habitats on the VEGP site

The VEGP site is characterized by low, gently rolling sandy hills. Scrub oaks, including turkey

oak (Quercus laevis), and post oak (Q. stellata); willow oak (Q. phellos); and longleaf pine occur

in the upland wooded areas that were not previously cultivated. Red oak (Q. rubra), water oak

(Q. nigra), and maple (Acer sp.) dominate the lowland hardwood areas. Bald cypress

(Taxodium distichum) and water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) characterize the Savannah River

floodplain. To prevent erosion, grasses and the leguminous forb sericea lespedeza

(Lespedeza cuneata) were planted in several open areas created during construction of VEGP

Units 1 and 2 (Southern 2007e).

Longleaf Pine-Scrub Oak and Oak-Hickory Upland Communities

The longleaf pine-scrub oak community is found on ridge tops as well as south and west slopes

in undisturbed upland areas on the VEGP site. Common canopy species in this habitat include

longleaf pine, turkey oak, and bluejack oak (Q. incana). The shrub layer is composed of

sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia dumosa), and yellow

jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens). The density and diversity of the herbaceous ground

cover varies with the degree of canopy closure. Under dense shade, only clumps of slender

woodoats (Chasmanthium laxum) are found. In more open areas, gopher weed

(Baptisia perfoliata), jointweed (Polygonella americana), tread-softly (Cnidoscolus stimulosus),

and reindeer lichen (Cladina rangiferina) are common (TRC 2006).

The north and east slopes in the undisturbed uplands support the more mesic oak-hickory

community. The canopy in this community is mainly composed of white oak (Q. alba), white ash

(Fraxinus americana), mockernut hickory (Carya alba), and flowering dogwood (Comus florida)."

A few turkey oaks and a scattering of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) are also present

(TRC 2006).

August 2008 2-47 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

A steep bluff separates the dry upland forest from the intermittently flooded bottomland along

the Savannah River. The bluff is completely wooded and in places still supports some very

large trees, several in excess of 0.9 m (3 ft) in diameter. Common canopy species include oak,

mockernut hickory, tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),

American elm (Ulmus americana), basswood (Tilia americana), and Florida maple

(Acer barbatum). The understory is composed of smaller trees, shrubs, and vines. Common

understory species include pawpaw (Asimina triloba), hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana),

muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), crossvine

(Bignonia capreolata), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The herbaceous ground cover

varies with soil moisture. On the upper slope, where the soil is drier, Christmas fern

(Polystichum acrostichoides), white snakeroot (Ageratina altissima), and several species of

aster are common. On the lower slopes and around seeps, dominant plant species include

mottled trillium (Trillium maculatum), wild ginger (Asarum canadense), false nettle (Boehmeria

cylindrica), and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) (TRC 2006).

Planted Pine

The planted pine plantations on the VEGP site are of various ages and differ in the stocking

rates. The plantations vary from a nearly closed canopy with very little understory to areas that

resemble old fields with only scattered pine. The sparse herbaceous ground cover in areas with

a closed canopy consists mostly of bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). In the more open areas,

dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), and blackberry

(Rubus sp.) are common. Loblolly and longleaf pines are the primary overstory species

(TRC 2006). Pine plantations are managed through prescribed burning every 3 to 5 years,

timber thinning after 20 years, and aesthetic cuts after thinning. Burning is limited to 25 to

30 percent of the upland and planted pine acreage each year (Southern 2007e). Planted

loblolly plantations cover approximately 142 ha (350 ac) of lands that have been reclaimed from

original plant construction (Southern 2007e).

Native longleaf pines are being reestablished by Southern on or near the VEGP site. These

pines are managed on a long rotation basis, allowing the trees to live from 60 to 100 years

(Southern 2007e).

Streams and Wetlands

The wetlands associated with the VEGP site include those near the Savannah River, as well as

those near ponds and streams located onsite. Eco-Sciences was contracted by Southern to

survey the VEGP site in December 2006 to determine where wetlands and other potentially

jurisdictional waters of the United States (as defined in 33 CFR 328) occur. They followed the

three-parameter approach outlined in the USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual for the

delineation of wetlands (USACE 1987). The USACE manual provides a system for identifying

NUREG-1872 2-48 August 2008
Affected Environment

wetlands based on satisfying three criteria: the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils,

and wetland hydrology (Southern 2007d).

Approximately 69 ha (170 ac) of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the

United States were identified on the site during the Eco-Sciences survey (Southern 2007c).

These include 48 wetlands, 6 perennial streams, 13 intermittent streams, and 3 ephemeral

streams: In early 2007, Southern submitted the Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form

to the USACE to initiate the Section 404 permitting process (Southern 2007c).

Principal waterbodies onsite include Mallard Pond and two streams in the southern portion of

the VEGP site (see Figure 2-1). Mallard Pond is a man-made, 2-ha (5-ac) pond that was

already present on the VEGP site prior to construction of Units 1 and 2. It is in a hardwood cove

just north of the footprint for the proposed new VEGP Units 3 and 4 powerblock-(Southern

2007e). A small unnamed stream flows out from Mallard Pond. It enters the Savannah River at

Hancock Landing, approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) upstream of the intake structure for Units 1 and

2 (NRC 2008). The stream is approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) to 1.2 m (4 ft) wide and less than 0.3 m

(1 ft) deep, except where beavers (Castor canadensis) have created dams and ponds (Southern

2008a). Another stream flowing out of the northwest corner of the site joins the unnamed

stream flowing from Mallard Pond approximately one-third of the way to the Savannah River.

Two streams are located in the southern portion of the VEGP site (see Figure 2-1). One of

these streams is located in the southwestern portion of the VEGP site and drains south through

Debris Basin #2, into Daniels Branch and then into Telfair Pond. Telfair Pond drains to the east

via Beaverdam Creek, which enters the Savannah River approximately 3.2 km (2 mi)

downstream of the existing intake structure. The other small stream is in the southeastern

portion of the site and flows south through the Debris Basin #1 (Southern 2008a). This

unnamed tributary flows directly into Beaverdam Creek. Although Beaverdam Creek is outside

the VEGP site boundary, the two small streams mentioned above are within the site. EcoSciences identified several wetland areas within each of these stream drainages during a

jurisdictional water survey conducted in December 2006 (Southern 2007d), including wetlands

associated with the two debris basins. Debris Basins #1 and #2 were originally built as

stormwater retention basins during construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 (See Figure 2-1).

Debris Basin #1 is about 2.4 ha (6 ac) in size, and Debris Basin #2 is about 2 ha (5 ac)

(Southern 2007e). Eco-Sciences found the dominant vegetation in wetlands associated with

Debris Basin #1 included black willow (Salix nigra), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea),

sweetgum, giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Dominant

vegetation associated with wetlands around Debris Basin #2 includes black willow, sedges

(Carex spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), sweetgum, and giant cane (Southern 2007d).

August 2008 2-49 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

There is also a runoff catch pond between the two basins that was formed from a depression

left after construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2. The runoff pond is about 1.2 ha (3 ac) in size and

retains water throughout the year (Southeirn 2007e).

The natural or beaver enhanced wetlands associated with these drainages have open to closed

canopies depending on water depth. In those areas with a tree canopy, the dominant species

are water oak, red maple, and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica). There is also a relatively dense

understory of vines and shrubs composed of giant cane, trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans),

muscadine grape, and American holly (Ilex opaca). The herbaceous ground cover is dominated

by cinnamon fern and royal fern (Osmunda regalis) (TRC 2006).

The general habitat along the Savannah River at VEGP is a mix of hardwood forest and bald

cypress-water tupelo forest. Bald cypress and water tupelo are the dominant canopy species in

the wetter sites along the river. American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), boxelder

(A. negundo), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxil)

occupy the slightly higher drier ground. The understory is composed of American holly,

ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), water locust (Gleditsia aquatica), giant cane, and buttonbush

(Cephalanthus occidentalis). Ground cover is sparse and limited to those species that can

survive both inundation and dense shade. Dominant groundcover species include richweed

(Pilea pumila), lizard's tail (Saururus cemuus), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and Virginia

dayflower (Commelina virginica) (TRC 2006).

Southern has estimated that 8.5 ha (21.0 ac) of wetlands along the Savannah River would be

affected during construction of the cooling water intake structure, the barge facility, and the

discharge structure for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2008b). Southern (2007d)

identified three potential jurisdictional wetlands in the vicinity of these proposed structures

(Figure 2-12). The-soil in these wetlands is classified as loamy sand that is more than 91 cm

(36 in.) deep. The dominant species present in two of the wetlands are bald cypress, American

sycamore, and red maple. A smaller wetland (0.006 ha [0.015 ac]) is also located near the

proposed water intake. The dominant species in this wetland include ironwood and giant cane.

A rare-plant survey was conducted by GDNR biologists on April 13, 2007, along the river bluffs

at the proposed new water intake structure and the adjacent upland sandhill habitat. During this

survey, GDNR did not observe any Federally or State-listed species (Patrick 2007).

Wildlife Habitats in the Vicinity of the Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line

In 2007, GPC completed a macro-corridor study to evaluate route alternatives for the proposed

new 500-kV transmission line routing. The transmission line right-of-way is within the Piedmont

and Coastal Plain Physiographic Regions of Georgia. The Piedmont is characterized by rolling

NUREG-1872 2-50 August 2008
Affected Environment

Figure 2-12. VEGP Site Wetlands Map

August 2008 2-51 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

hills and irregular plains. The soils are finely textured and can be highly erodable. The Coastal

Plain is composed of mostly flat areas with some rolling hills with well-drained soils (GPC 2007).

The modeled right-of-way was less than 1.6 km (1 mi) to a little over 5 km (3 mi) in width and

over 80 km (50 mi) in length (Southern 2008a). Using the EPRI-GTC (Electric Power Research

Institute-Georgia Transmission Corporation) Transmission Line Siting Methodology, Southern

and GPC identified a narrower corridor (termed the Representative Delineated Corridor [RDC])

that would be used as the basis for identifying actual routing of rights-of-way alternatives within

it (see Figure 4-1). The RDC represents a narrowing of the modeled right-of-way to avoid

wetlands and stream crossings and reduce the overall length and land potentially affected

(GPC 2007).

There are no U.S. Forest Service Wilderness Areas, Wild/Scenic Rivers, Wildlife Refuges, State

parks or national parks within the RDC (GPC 2007). The Savannah River and Brier Creek, a

tributary of the Savannah River, are the primary waterways that occur in the corridor. The

general wildlife habitats within the RDC include forested land, planted pine stands, open land,

and open water. The exact habitat types within the new 500-kV transmission line right-of-way

are not known at this time, but it is assumed they comprise similar habitats to those on the

VEGP site. GPC has estimated the total acreage for a 46-m (150-ft)-wide hypothetical

representative right-of-way within the RDC to be 416 ha (1029 ac) of land. GPC estimates that

a right-of-way could contain about 23 percent forest, 32 percent planted pine, and 15 percent

open land (see Table 4-1) (Southern 2007a).

Wildlife Species on the VEGP Site

Wildlife species found on the VEGP site are representative of those commonly found in

eastern Georgia (Southern 2008a). There have been 19 mammal species identified on the

site (Southern 2007e). Common mammals onsite include the white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel

(Sciurus carolinensis), Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), coyote (Canis latrans), and

gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Small mammals such as moles, shrews, and a variety of

mice and voles also occur onsite (Southern 2008a). Sixty species of reptiles and amphibians

have been identified onsite including the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), green

anole (Anolis carolinensis), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and many other snakes, turtles,

salamanders, lizards, and toads (Southern 2007e). Habitats located in the vicinity of the VEGP

site are suitable for a variety of migratory songbirds, upland game birds, waterfowl, and raptors.

One hundred forty-three bird species have been identified onsite (Southern 2007e). Common

bird species at the VEGP site include the American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Northern

bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina chickadee

(Poecile carolinensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), black vulture (Coragyps atratus),

turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), white-throated sparrow

(Zonotrichia albicollis), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), Northern cardinal

NUREG-1 872 2-52 August 2008
Affected Environment

(Cardinalis cardinalis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), red-bellied woodpecker

(Melanerpes carolinus), and Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) (Southern 2008a).

Southern started bluebird (Sialia sialis) and wood duck (Aix sponsa) nest monitoring programs

in March 1993 by placing bluebird and wood duck nest boxes in suitable nesting habitats at the

VEGP site. Wood duck boxes are located on Mallard Pond, Debris Basins #1 and #2, the runoff catch pond, and the river boat ramp. In the last 3 years, Southern has recorded up to

50 fledglings from these locations each year (Southern 2007e).

The primary game species at the VEGP site are Eastern cottontail, white-tailed deer, gray

squirrel, Northern bobwhite quail, mourning dove, and American woodcock (Scolopax minor).

Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) are also commonly found on the VEGP site. Land management

practices to benefit turkey and Northern bobwhite quail have been in place since 1983.

Southern plants browntop millet, rye, and chufa to benefit the turkey, quail, and other birds on

the VEGP site, and food plots are provided for quail (Southern 2007e). The reestablishment of

longleaf pine onsite also provides cover for quail and turkey (Southern 2007e). There are no

significant "travel corridors" for game species on the VEGP site (Southern 2008a).

Southern has partnered with the non-game management branch of GDNR, the Southeast

region of the National Fish and Wildlife Federation, National Wild Turkey Federation, and the

Migratory Bird Division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on wildlife enhancements

programs and habitat management projects on the VEGP site (Southern 2007e).

Wildlife Species in the Vicinity of the Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line

Common Georgia wildlife species occurring along the transmission line right-of-way are

expected to be similar to those found on the VEGP site.

State-Listed Species in the Vicinity of the VEGP site

This section describes Georgia and South Carolina State-listed and proposed threatened and

endangered terrestrial species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may occur in

the vicinity of the site. State-listed endangered, threatened, and other special-status species

that may occur in the vicinity of the VEGP site are listed in Table 2-3. This list is composed of

Georgia State-listed species with recorded occurrences in Burke County (GDNR 2007a),

species listed on the FWS website as having the potential to occur in Burke County (FWS

2004), or species within 16 km (10 mi) of the site in Aiken and Barnwell Counties in South

Carolina (SCDNR 2007a). A rare plant survey was conducted by GDNR biologists on April 13,

2007, along the river bluffs at the proposed new water intake structure and adjacent upland

sandhill habitat. No State-listed species were observed during this survey (Patrick 2007).

During the spring (April 12 to 21), summer (August 22 to 31), and fall (October 2 to November 2)

of 2005, Third Rock Consultants, LLC (TRC) conducted three surveys at the VEGP site for

State-listed species classified as threatened and endangered (TRC 2006).

August 2008 2-53 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Table 2-3. South Carolina and Georgia State-Listed Terrestrial Species with Known

Occurrence within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP Site(a)(b)(c)

Georgia South

State Carolina County of

Scientific Name Common Name Status State Status Occurrence

Plants

Agalinis linifolia flaxleaf false-foxglove

Allium cuthbertii striped garlic

Astragalus michauxil sandhills milkvetch

Astragalus villosus bearded milkvetch

Baptisia lanceolata lance-leaf wild-indigo

Carex cherokeensis Cherokee sedge

Carex decomposita cypress-knee sedge

Carex socialis social sedge

Coreopsis rosea rose coreopsis

Croton elliottii Elliott's croton

Echinacea laevigata smooth coneflower

Echinodorus parvulus dwarf burhead

Elliottia racemosa Georgia plume

Epidendrum conopseum green-fly orchid

Gaura biennis biennial gaura

Hex amelanchier sarvis holly

Lindera subcoriacea bog spicebush

Ludwigia spathulata spatulate seedbox

Macbridea caroliniana Carolina bird-in-a-nest

Monarda didyma Oswego tea

Nestronia umbellula Indian olive

Nolina georgiana Georgia beargrass

Paronychia americana American nailwort

Platanthera lacera green-fringed orchid

Quercus sinuata Durand's white oak

Rhododendron flammeum Piedmont azalea

Rhynchospora inundata drowned hornedrush

Rorippa sessiliflora stalkless yellowcress

Sagittaria isoetiformis slender arrow-head

Sarracenia rubra sweet pitcherplant

Schisandra glabra Bay star-vine

Scutellaria ocmulgee Ocmulgee skullcap

Trepocarpus aethusae Aethusa-like trepocarpus

Utricularia floridana Florida bladderwort

SE

ST

SR

ST

ST

ST

SC Aiken

SC Barnwell/Aiken

SC Barnwell

SC Barnwell

SC Bamwell

SC Barnwell

SC Bamwell

SC Barnwell

RC Barnwell/Aiken

SC Barnwell/Aiken

SE Barnwell/Aiken

SC Barnwell/Aiken

Burke

SC Barnwell

SC Barnwell/Aiken

SC Barnwell/Aiken

RC Barnwell/Aiken

SC Barnwell/Aiken

SC Barnwell

SC Barnwell

SC Barnwell/Aiken, Burke

SC Barnwell/Aiken

SC Barnwell

SC Bamwell/Aiken

SC Barnwell

SC Barnwell/Aiken

SC Bamwell/Aiken

SC Bamwell

SC Barnwell

Burke

Burke, found on the

VEGP site(d)

Burke

SC Barnwell

SC Barnwell

NUREG-1872 2-54 August 2008
Affected Environment

Table 2-3. (contd)

Georgia South

State Carolina County of

Scientific Name Common Name Status State Status Occurrence

Mammals

Condylura cnstata star-nosed mole SC Bamwell/Aiken

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat SR SE Barnwell/Aiken

Geomys pinetis southeastern pocket ST mounds in Burke

gopher County(d)

Neotoma floridana eastern woodrat SC Barnwell, Aiken

Spilogale putorius eastern spotted skunk SC Aiken

Birds(e)

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle ST SE Barnwell

Mycteria americana wood stork SE SE Bamwell

Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker SE SE Barnwell/Aiken

Amphibians and Reptiles

Ambystoma tigrinum eastern tiger salamander SC Barnwell

tigrinum

Heterodon simus southern hognose snake ST SC Barnwell/Aiken

Hyla avivoca bird-voiced treefrog SC Barnwell/Aiken

Micrurus fulvius eastern coral snake SC Bamwell/Aiken

Pituophis melanoleucus pine snake SC Barnwell/Aiken

Rana capito gopher frog SR SE Barnwell/Aiken

Seminatrix pygaea black swamp snake SC Barnwell

(a) 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 2007a;

SCDNR 2007a).

(b) All State occurrence data and distances are provided by GDNR (2007a) and SCDNR (2007a).

(c) All species listed have known occurrences between 2 and 10 mi from the VEGP site.

(d) The only State-listed species known to occur within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the site is the bay star-vine. Mounds

suggestive of the southeastern pocket gopher have been found on the property just north of the VEGP site

(Southern 2008a).

(e) The bald eagle, wood stork and red-cockaded woodpecker are listed as potentially occurring in Burke County

(FWS 2004). However, there are no records of these species in Burke Country within 16 km (10 mi) of the

VEGP site. The wood stork has been recorded within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the VEGP site on the Savannah River

Site in South Carolina.

Bay star-vine (Schisandra glabra), State-listed as threatened in Georgia, was the only Statelisted species found at the site. Bay star-vine is found twining over understory trees in rich

forested areas, especially bottomlands and slopes. Older vines may occur on overstory tree

trunks or rooted while sprawling along the ground, especially near mountain laurel

(Kalmia latifolia) thickets (Patrick et al. 1995). The bay star-vine was found at several locations

along the wooded bluff bordering the Savannah River, including in the area of the proposed

cooling water intake structure, and in a wooded wetland in the southern portion of the VEGP site

(Southern 2007c).

August 2008 2-55 ANUREG-1872
Affected Environment

With the exception of bay star-vine described above, there are no known State-listed plant

species occurrences within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the VEGP site (GDNR 2007a; SCDNR 2007a).

Four Georgia State-listed plant species have been recorded in Burke County within 16 km

(10 mi) of the VEGP site: Ocmulgee skullcap (Scutellaria ocmulgee), Georgia plume

(Elliottia racemosa), sweet pitcherplant (Sarracenia rubra), and Indian olive

(Nestronia umbellula). All are listed as State threatened except for the Indian olive, which is

listed as rare in Georgia. The smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) is listed in both Georgia

and South Carolina as State-endangered, and 29 additional plant species are of concern both

locally and regionally in South Carolina within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP site.

Three Georgia State-listed bird species, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), wood stork

(Mycteria americana), and red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), have the potential to

occur in suitable habitats within Burke County (FWS 2004). The wood stork and red-cockaded

woodpecker are also Federally endangered. These species are discussed in Section 2.7.1.2.

Red-cockaded woodpeckers and wood storks have been observed on the Savannah River Site,

which is in South Carolina adjacent to the VEGP site (Wike et al. 2006).

The bald eagle is currently listed as State-threatened in Georgia and South Carolina. It was

Federally delisted on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37346). Bald eagles are found throughout the

United States, are permanent Georgia residents, and are most abundant in the coastal region

(GDNR 2007b). In 2005, there were 82 known occupied nests in Georgia. Although the

coastal region has the greatest density of nesting eagles, territories are found throughout

much of the state where there is sufficient open water habitat and large trees for nesting

(GDNR 2007b). Records of bald eagle sightings in the Savannah River area date back to 1904

(Wike et al. 2006).

Bald eagle nests are large, measuring up to 1.8 m (6 ft) across. Nest sites typically include at

least one perch with a clear view of the water where the eagles usually forage (FWS 2006).

Nests in the region around the VEGP site are typically found in large pine trees (Wike et al.

2006). However, eagles are also known to occasionally nest in cypress trees. Fish are the

major component of the diet, which results in the majority of nest sites being built near a body of

water such as coastal shorelines, bays, rivers, lakes, farm ponds, and reservoirs. Winter

foraging areas are usually located near open water on rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and bays where

fish and waterfowl are abundant. Bald eagles also feed on other prey species such as

waterfowl, gulls, rabbits, rodents, deer, and carrion (FWS 2003a, 2006).

The bald eagle is listed as having the potential to occur in the vicinity of the VEGP site, in Burke

County, Georgia (FWS 2004) as well as Aiken and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina

(FWS 1999). There are no known historical occurrences of bald eagles on the site, and bald

eagles were not identified in the 2005 threatened and endangered species survey (Southern

2006c; TRC 2006). Bald eagles have been recorded within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the VEGP site in

NUREG-1872 2-56 August 2008
Affected Environment

the Savannah River Swamp on the Savannah River Site, but known nest locations on the

Savannah River Site are more than 8 km (5 mi) away (Wike et al. 2006). The majority of bald

eagles seen on Savannah River Site have been reported in the Par Pond system more than

16 km (10 mi) from the VEGP site. The last successful nesting attempt on the Savannah River

Site was in 1998 (Wike et al. 2006). Bald eagles are observed during all months of the year on

the Savannah River Site, but most eagles are seen during the fall and winter when this species

is nesting and wintering in the region. Birds seen during the summer are most likely migratory

transients (Wike et al. 2006).

It is unlikely that bald eagles nest onsite. However, bald eagles may occasionally use large

trees along the Savannah River or in wetland areas for roosting or perching.

Although no State-listed herpetofauna have been reported in Georgia within 16 km (10 mi) of

the VEGP site, seven species have been observed within this distance in South Carolina

(SCDNR 2007a), including the gopher frog (Rana capito), which is South Carolina endangered

and Georgia rare, and six species of various levels of concern inone or both states: (1) eastern

tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum), (2) southern hognose snake

(Heterodon simus), (3) bird-voiced treefrog (Hyla avivoca), (4) eastern coral snake

(Micrurus fulvius), (5) pine or gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), and (6) black swamp

snake (Seminatrix pygaea).

Listed mammals within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP site have only been recorded in South

Carolina (SCDNR 2007a). Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquil), a South

Carolina endangered species, has been observed in Barnwell and Aiken Counties. The starnosed mole (Condylura cristata), eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), and eastern spotted

skunk (Spilogale putorius), are State species of concern in Aiken and/or Barnwell Counties in

South Carolina.

In October 2006, the GDNR updated its list of protected species, including the addition of the

threatened southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis). This species was not targeted in the

2005 threatened and endangered species surveys of the site (NRC 2007c). The southeastern

pocket gopher is found in upland areas of dry, sandy soil or well-drained, fine-grained gravelly

soil (GDNR 2000). There are no known records of the pocket gopher in Burke County (GDNR

2007a). However, surface mounds suggestive of the pocket gopher have been observed in

property adjoining the northern boundary of the VEGP site (Southern 2008a). No mounds similar

to those made by the southeastern pocket gopher have been reported from the VEGP site,

although suitable habitat appears to be available. The habitat type used by the pocket gopher

was not observed in any of the areas that will be disturbed by construction (Southern 2008b).

August 2008 2-57 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

State-Listed Species in the Vicinity of the Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line

Fourteen State-listed plant species have been recorded within the counties where the proposed

500-kV transmission line may cross (Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie, Warren) (Table 2-4). Canby's

dropwort is Federally endangered and is discussed in Section 2.7.1.2. In addition to the

Table 2-4. State-Listed Terrestrial Species in Georgia Counties Crossed by the Proposed

Thomson-Vogtle Transmission Line Right-of-Way (Warren, McDuffie, Burke,

Jefferson Counties)

Georgia

State

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a) Counties of Occurrence

Plants

Ceratiola ericoides sandhill rosemary ST Burke

Cypripedium acaule pink ladyslipper SU McDuffie

Elliottia racemosa Georgia plume ST Burke

Macbnidea caroliniana Carolina bogmint SR McDuffle

Nestronia umbellula Indian olive SR Burke, Jefferson

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort SE Burke

Penstemon dissectus cutleaf beardtongue SR Jefferson

Quercus oglethorpensis Oglethorpe oak ST McDuffie

Sarracenia minor hooded pitcherplant SU Burke

Sarracenia rubra sweet pitcherplant ST Burke, Jefferson

Scutellaria ocmulgee Ocmulgee skullcap ST Burke

Sedum pusillum granite stonecrop ST Warren

Stewartia malacodendron silky camellia SR Burke

Symphyotrichum georgianum Georgia aster ST McDuffie

Birds(b)

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle ST Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie,

Warren

Mycteria americana wood stork SE Burke, Jefferson

Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker SE Burke, Jefferson

Amphibians and Reptiles

Ambystoma cingulatum flatwoods salamander ST Burke, Jefferson

Clemmys guttata spotted turtle SU Burke, Jefferson, Warren

Heterodon simus southern hognose snake ST Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie

Rana capito gopher frog SR Burke

(a) State status determined by the GDNR: SE = State Endangered, ST = State Threatened, SR = State Rare,

SU = State Unusual (GDNR 2007c).

(b) Countiesfor the listed bird species based on GDNR (2007c) and FWS (2004).

NUREG-1 872 2-58 August 2008
Affected Environment

State-threatened sandhill rosemary (Ceratiola ericoides), Ocmulgee skullcap, Georgia plume,

and sweet pitcherplant already discussed in the VEGP site vicinity, Georgia aster

(Symphyotrichum georgianum), Oglethorpe oak (Quercus oglethorpensis), and granite

stonecrop (Sedum pusillum) also occur in the right-of-way counties. Georgia aster is a

Federal candidate and is discussed in Section 2.7.1.2. Indian olive, silky camellia

(Stewartia malacodendron), cutleaf beardtongue (Penstemon dissectus), and Carolina bogmint

(Macbridea caroliniana) are State-listed rare species within the corridor counties. State-listed

species classified as unusual in these counties include the hooded pitcherplant

(Sarracenia minor) and pink ladyslipper (Cypripedium acaule).

The State-listed animal species with potential to reside in these counties are the same species

that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the VEGP site: bald eagle, wood stork, redcockaded woodpecker, gopher frog, southern hognose snake, spotted turtle, and flatwoods

salamander.

Three State-listed species have been documented by the GDNR as occurring within the RDC:

the silky camellia, sandhill rosemary, and bald eagle. The silky camellia (Georgia rare) typically

occurs within the rich understory along streams and open edges of lower slopes with beech

(Fagus sp.), magnolia (Magnolia sp.), and Florida maple (Acer barbatum) (Patrick et al. 1995).

Sandhill rosemary is an evergreen shrub, and consistent with its namesake, it is found in deep

sand ridges typical of the Ohoopee Dunes of Georgia (Patrick et al. 1995).

The bald eagle is listed as potentially occurring within Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie, and Warren

Counties (FWS 2004). There is one known location of an active nest in the McDuffie County

portion of the RDC. GPC stated that they would ensure the right-of-way would not come within

180 m (600 ft) of this known bald eagle nesting site (GPC 2007). In addition, there are several

bald eagle nests within 16 km (10 mi) of the RDC in Jefferson County (GDNR 2007b). In the

absence of a ground or aerial survey for bald eagles in suitable foraging, roosting, and nesting

habitat in areas that would be affected by construction of the proposed 500-kV transmission

line, it is unknown if this species occurs at additional locations within the RDC.

2.7.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species

This section describes Federally listed and proposed threatened and endangered terrestrial

species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may occur in the vicinity of the site

and in the vicinity of the proposed 500-kV transmission line. Endangered, threatened, and other

special-status species that may occur in the vicinity of the VEGP site are listed in Table 2-5.

This list is composed of Federally listed species with recorded occurrences in Burke County

(GDNR 2007c), species listed on the FWS website as having the potential to occur in Burke

County (FWS 2004), or species within 16 km (10 mi) of the site in Aiken and Barnwell Counties

in South Carolina (SCDNR 2007a).

August 2008 2-59 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Table 2-5. Federally Listed Terrestrial Species Occurring in the Vicinity of the VEGP Site

Federal County of Distance from the

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a) Occurrence VEGP Site(b)

Plants

Echinacea laevigata smooth coneflower E Aiken, < 16 km (10 mi)

Bamwell

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort E Burke > 16 km (10 mi)

Trillium reliquum relict trillium E Aiken > 16 km (10 mi)(c)

Birds

Mycteria americana wood stork E Barnwell, < 3.2 km (2 mi)

Aiken, Burke

Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E Barnwell, 16 km (10 mi)

Aiken, Burke

Amphibians and Reptiles

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A) Barnwell, Occurs onsite(d)

Aiken, Burke

Ambystoma cingulatum flatwoods salamander T Burke > 16 km (10 mi)

(a) Federal status rankings determined by the FWS under the Endangered Species Act, E = Endangered,

T = Threatened, T(S/A) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance (FWS 2004).

(b) GDNR 2007c; SCDNR 2007a; Wike et al. 2006

(c) Suitable habitat exists for the relict trillium onsite (PNNL 2006

(d) TRC (2006)

Species included in this table meet at least one of the following criteria: - species have been recorded to occur on the VEGP site

- species have been recorded to occur within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP site in Aiken and Barnwell Counties,

South Carolina - species are listed by FWS (2004) as occurring or having the potential to occur in Burke County, Georgia - species were known to have suitable habitat on the VEGP site

A list of Federally listed species occuring in counties that may be crossed by the proposed new

500-kV transmission line (Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie, Warren) was obtained from FWS county

listings for the State of Georgia, and location information was obtained from the GDNR element

occurrence database (Table 2-6) (FWS 2004; GDNR 2007c).,

Surveys were conducted by TRC in the spring, summer, and fall of 2005 on 675.4 ha (1669 ac)

of the 1282.5 ha (3169 ac) that comprise the VEGP site (Figure 2-13). TRC first gathered

information on the distribution, habitat requirements, and seasonal preferences of each

Federally listed species that might occur at the site. This information was then used to generate

a species list by season, and surveys were conducted in those habitats that most likely

contained the target species (Southern 2008b). A majority of the areas surveyed were places

that had not been previously disturbed during original construction (TRC 2006). No Federally

listed plant species were found. The American alligator was the only Federally listed animal

species observed. One adult alligator was observed in Mallard Pond during the summer survey.

It is Federally listed as "threatened due to similarity of appearance" to the endangered American

crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) (TRC 2006).

NUREG-1872 2-60 August 2008
Affected Environment

Table 2-6. Federally Listed Terrestrial Species in Counties that are Proposed to Contain the

Proposed Thomson-Vogtle Transmission Line Right-of-Way (Burke, McDuffie,

Jefferson and Warren Counties in Georgia)

Federal

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a) Counties of Occurrence

Plants

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort E Burke

Symphyotrichum georgianum Georgia aster C McDuffie

Birds

Mycteria americana wood stork E Burke, Jefferson

Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E Burke, Jefferson

Amphibians and Reptiles

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A) Burke

Ambystoma cingulatum flatwoods salamander T Burke

(a) Federal status rankings determined by the FWS under the Endangered Species Act, C = Candidate

E = Endangered, T.= Threatened, T(S/A) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance (FWS 2004).

The paragraphs below summarize natural history data and potential occurrence information for

each Federally listed species occurring in the vicinity of the VEGP site and proposed

transmission line corridor. Three Federally listed terrestrial plant and four animal species have

the potential to occur in the vicinity of the VEGP site. One Federally listed terrestrial plant and

four animal species and one Federal candidate species have the potential to occur in the vicinity

of the proposed transmission line right-of-way. There is no designated or proposed critical

habitat for terrestrial species known to occur on or in the general area of the site or in the

general vicinity of the proposed transmission line right-of-way.

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker - Endangered

The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) was listed by the FWS as endangered in

1970 (35 FR 16047). Historically, the red-cockaded woodpecker's range extended from north

Florida to New Jersey and Maryland, as far west as Texas and Oklahoma, and inland to

Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee. This species has been extirpated in New Jersey,

Maryland, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky (FWS 2007a), and currently it is estimated that

about 6000 family groups of red-cockaded woodpeckers, or 15,000 birds, from Florida to

Virginia and west to southeast Oklahoma and eastern Texas represent about 1 percent of the

woodpecker's original range (FWS 2007a). Critical habitat has not been established for redcockaded woodpeckers (FWS 2007b). In 1998, there were 665 family groups of red-cockaded

woodpeckers in Georgia (GDNR 1999).

The red-cockaded woodpecker is endemic to open, mature, old growth pine ecosystems in the

southeastern United States. Red-cockaded woodpeckers require open pine woodlands and

August 2008 2-61 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Figure 2-13. 2005 Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Locations at the VEGP Site

(Southern 2007c).

NUREG-1872 2-62 August 2008
Affected Environment

savannahs with large old pines for nesting and roosting habitat for family groups (clusters).

Large old pines are required as cavity trees because the cavities are excavated completely

within inactive heartwood, and the higher incidence of heartwood decay in older trees greatly

facilitates excavation. Cavity trees must be in open stands with little or no hardwood midstory

and few or no overstory hardwoods. Suitable foraging habitat consists of mature pines with an

open canopy, low densities of small pines, little or no hardwood or pine midstory, few or no

overstory hardwoods, and abundant native bunchgrass and forb groundcovers (FWS 2003b).

Red-cockaded woodpeckers are a cooperatively breeding species, living in family groups that

typically consist of a breeding pair with or without one or two male helpers. In red-cockaded

woodpeckers (and other cooperative breeders), a large pool of helpers is available to replace

breeders when they die. Helpers do not disperse very far and typically occupy vacancies on

their natal territory or a neighboring one (FWS 2003b). A typical territory for an active group

ranges from approximately 51 to 80 ha (125 to 200 ac), but can be as large as 240 ha (600 ac).

The size of the particular territory is related to both habitat and population density (FWS 2007a).

Dispersal is undertaken primarily by young birds. Mate loss and an apparent avoidance of

inbreeding sometimes causes adults to disperse, and adults may also occasionally move to

neighboring territories for unknown reasons (Walters et al. 1988). In a North Carolina study,

females dispersed a maximum of 31.4 km (19.5 mi) and males a maximum of 21.1 km (13.1 mi)

(Walters et al. 1988).

GPC and Southern signed a Safe Harbor Management Agreement with the Georgia Department

of Natural Resources (GDNR) in June 2007. Under the agreement, two large tracts surrounding

the VEGP site will be managed to benefit red-cockaded woodpeckers (The Outdoor Wire 2007).

Safe Harbor Agreements are arrangements that encourage voluntary management for redcockaded woodpeckers while protecting the participating landowners and their rights for

development in the event these woodpeckers become established on the private property.

Landowners entering into safe harbor agreements must establish a baseline number of

individuals that would be maintained in the event that they are observed. Surveys at the VEGP

site conducted in February 2006 found no occurrence of red-cockaded woodpeckers onsite

(Southern 2007e).

There are no recorded occurrences of the red-cockaded woodpecker in Burke County, Georgia

(GDNR 2007a) and no active colonies within 16 km (10 mi) of the site in South Carolina

(SCDNR 2007a); however, red-cockaded woodpeckers are listed as having the potential to occur

in Burke County in Georgia (FWS 2004) and Aiken and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina

(FWS 1999). There are no known historical occurrences of the red-cockaded woodpecker on the

VEGP site and they were not identified in the 2005 threatened and endangered species survey

or the 2006 Safe Harbor Program baseline survey (Southern 2006d, 2007e, 2008a; TRC 2006).

In 2003, a total of 177 red-cockaded woodpeckers in 45 family groups were recorded on the

Savannah River Site, with the closest active colony being approximately 16 km (10 mi) from the

August 2008 2-63 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

VEGP site (Wike et al. 2006). Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker exists on the

VEGP site, but this habitat is not in the vicinity of the construction area footprint.

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line

The red-cockaded woodpecker has the potential to occur in Burke and Jefferson Counties

(FWS 2004). In addition, the red-cockaded woodpecker has been recorded on Fort Gordon

(Mitchell1999). In 1998, there were two active groups on Fort Gordon, representing less than

1 percent of the total number of groups in Georgia. There are no known occurrences of the redcockaded woodpecker in the general vicinity of the proposed RDC (GDNR 2007a). At this time,

it is not known if suitable nesting or foraging habitat exists in the vicinity of the proposed 500-kV

transmission line right-of-way.

Wood Stork - Endangered

Breeding populations of the wood stork (Mycteria americana) are Federally listed as

endangered and currently occur or have recently occurred only in Alabama, Florida, Georgia,

and South Carolina (49 FR 7332; FWS 1997). There were 13 active colonies of wood storks in

Georgia during the 2002 breeding season with an estimated 1227 nesting pairs (FWS 2003c).

No critical habitat has been designated for this species (FWS 2007c).

The wood stork is a highly colonial species, usually nesting and feeding in flocks. The wood

stork inhabits freshwater and brackish wetlands, and normally nests in bald cypress or red

mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) swamps. At freshwater sites, nests are often constructed in

bald cypress and swamp-tupelo (Nyssa bifora). Wood storks in Georgia and South Carolina lay

eggs from March to late May, with fledging occurring in July and August (FWS 1997).

Wood storks have a unique feeding technique (tacto-location) and typically require higher prey

concentrations than other birds. They tend to rely on depressions in marshes or swamps where

prey can become concentrated during low-water periods (FWS 1997). A study from a wood

stork colony in east-central Georgia found the diet was mostly composed of fish, including

sunfishes (Lepomis spp.), bowfin (Amia calva), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus americanus),

and lake chubsuckers (Erimyzon spp.) (FWS 1997).

Wood storks in east-central Georgia forage in a wide variety of habitats including hardwood and

cypress swamps, ponds, marshes, drainage ditches, and flooded logging roads. Typical wood

stork foraging sites have reduced quantities of both submerged and emergent macrophytes.

The water in the foraging areas is either still or very slowly moving, and the depth is normally

between 5 and 41 cm (2 and 16 in.). It has been suggested storks may have difficultly feeding

in water more than 50 cm (20 in.) deep (Coulter and Bryan 1993).

Differences among seasonal rainfall and surface-water patterns often cause storks to change

where and when certain habitats are used for nesting, feeding, or roosting. These hydrological

NUREG-1 872 2-64 August 2008
Affected Environment

changes may cause storks to shift the timing or intensity of feeding at a local wetland, or cause

entire regional populations of birds to make large geographic shifts between one year and the

next. Because nesting storks generally use foraging sites that are located within about 50 km

(31 mi) of the colony, most successful colonies are in regions where birds have options to feed

under a variety of rainfall and surface-water conditions. Maintaining a wide range of feeding site

options requires that many different types of wetlands, both large and small and with relatively

long and short annual hydroperiods, be available for foraging (FWS 1997).

The closest known wood stork colonies to the VEGP site are located in Jenkins and Screven

Counties, Georgia. The Birdsville colony is located at Big Dukes Pond, a 570-ha (1400-ac)

cypress swamp, 12.6 km (7.8 mi) northwest of Millen, in Jenkins County, Georgia. The VEGP

site is approximately 45 km (28 mi) from the Birdsville colony. The Chew Mill Pond colony in

Jenkins County is approximately 6 km (3.7 mi) southwest of the Birdsville colony. Chew Mill

Pond has a history of being a wood stork foraging site and a wading bird rookery. Researchers

consider it to be an overflow or satellite colony of the Birdsville colony (Wike et al. 2006). The

Jacobsons Landing colony in Screven County is approximately 43 km (27 mi) southeast of the

VEGP site. In 1996, it contained an estimated 40 wood stork nests. These colonies are all

within 60 to 70 km (37 to 43 mi) of the VEGP site, the maximum radius that wood storks can

travel during daily feeding flights (Coulter and Bryan 1993). Wood storks have been recorded

foraging throughout Burke County (Coulter and Bryan 1993; Wike et al; 2006), and within 3.2 km

(2 mi) of the site in the Savannah River Swamp on the Savannah River Site in South Carolina

(Wike et al. 2006).

Wood storks were reported in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site before the site was

established in 1952, and before the discovery of the Birdsville colony. Storks have been

followed from the Birdsville colony to the Savannah River Site. Data from the aerial wood stork

surveys of the Savannah River Swamp and the studies at the Birdsville colony suggest that the

Savannah River Swamp probably is not used extensively during the breeding or prefledging

phases of the Birdsville colony. Most of the observations of storks on the Savannah River Site

occur during the late-nestling or the post-fledging period, which occurs between June and

September. Some of the birds observed foraging in the Savannah River Swamp may be storks

from farther south, either non-breeders or birds that have already finished breeding for the year

(Wike et al. 2006).

No wood storks were identified in the threatened and endangered species surveys completed

onsite in 2005, and there are no known historical records of wood storks occurring on the VEGP

site (Southern 2006c; TRC 2006). The closest known colony is more than 40 km (25 mi) from

the VEGP site. Although forage areas may be 60 to 70 km (37 to 43 mi) from the colony,

85 percent are within 19 km (12 mi) (Coulter and Bryan 1993). Suitable foraging habitat

includes wetlands and open waters with low flow rates, depths less than 50 cm (20 in:), and

reduced quantities of both submerged and emergent macrophytes. These habitats exist on the

VEGP site, and wood storks have been seen within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the site in the Savannah

August 2008 2-65 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

River Swamp. Foraging on the VEGP site appears possible from June to September in wetland

areas along stream drainages, man-made ponds, drainage ditches, and the wetlands along the

Savannah River.

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line

Wood storks have the potential to occur in Burke and Jefferson Counties (FWS 2004). There

are no known nesting colonies in these counties and there are no documented occurrences of

wood storks in the vicinity of the proposed RDC (GDNR 2007a). Wood storks have been seen

foraging on Fort Gordon in Richmond County (Mitchell 1999). However, it is unknown how

close this foraging activity is to the RDC. Wood storks have the potential to forage within the

RDC.

Flatwoods Salamander - Threatened

The flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) was listed by FWS as threatened in 1999

(64 FR 15691). The historical range of the flatwoods salamander included parts of the states of

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina that are in the lower Coastal Plain of the

southeastern United States. Survey work completed since 1990 indicates that 51 populations of

flatwoods salamanders are known from across the historical range. Most of these occur in

Florida (36 populations or 71 percent). Eleven populations have been found in Georgia, four in

South Carolina, and none have been found in Alabama. The last breeding record for Burke

County was in the 1940s (FWS 2004). Critical habitat was proposed in February 2007 in Miller

and Baker Counties, Georgia (72 FR 5856). These counties are over 290 km (180 mi)

southeast of the VEGP site.

Adults and sub-adults are fossorial (dig and live underground), occur in open mesic pine forests,

and are closely associated with pine/wiregrass habitats dominated by longleaf or slash pine

maintained by frequent fire (Petranka 1998). During the breeding period, which coincides with

heavy rains from October to December, these salamanders move to isolated, shallow, small,

acidic, tannin-stained depressions (forested with emergent vegetation) that dry completely on a

cyclic basis (ephemeral ponds) (72 FR 5856).

There are no recorded occurrences within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP site, no known historical

occurrences on the site, and they were not identified in the 2005 threatened and endangered

species survey (Southern 2006c, 2008a; TRC 2006; GDNR 2007a). Suitable habitat for the

flatwoods salamander may occur onsite, but suitable habitat is not found within the construction

area footprint for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4.

NUREG-1872 2-66 August 2008
Affected Environment

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line

Flatwoods salamanders have the potential to occur in Burke County (FWS 2004). There are no

documented occurrences of flatwoods salamander in the vicinity of the RDC (GDNR 2007a).

American Alligator- Threatened Based on Similarity of Appearance

In 1967, the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) was classified by FWS as

endangered throughout its range, including Georgia. By 1987, following several reclassification

actions in other states, it was reclassified to "threatened based on similarity of appearance" to

the American crocodile in the remainder of its range, including Georgia (52 FR 21059). The

alligator is no longer biologically imperiled in Georgia. Its populations are considered disjunct,

limited to suitable habitat, and stable. The reclassification helps prevent excessive take of the

alligator and protects the American crocodile (52 FR 21059).

During surveys of the VEGP site made by TRC in the summer of 2005, an alligator was

observed in Mallard Pond (TRC 2006). Alligator habitat consists of swamps, marshes, ponds,

lakes, and slow-moving streams and rivers. Alligators appear to be relatively common in the

general vicinity of the site (Wike et al. 2006).

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line

The American alligator has the potential to occur in suitable habitat within the RDC.

Canby's Dropwort - Endangered

Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyl) was listed as endangered by FWS in 1986 (51 FR 6690).

This species is native to the Coastal Plain from Delaware (historicalonly), Maryland, North

Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Historically, this plant was found in Burke, Dooly, Lee,

and Sumter Counties in Georgia. There is no critical habitat designated for this species

(FWS 1990a).

Canby's dropwort has been found in a variety of habitats, including ponds dominated by pond

cypress (Taxodium nutans), grass-sedge-dominated Carolina bays, wet pine savannahs,

shallow pineland ponds, and cypress-pine swamps or sloughs. The largest and most vigorous

populations occur in open bays or ponds, which are wet throughout most of the year and have

little or no canopy cover. Sites occupied by this species generally have infrequent and shallow

inundations (5 to 30 cm [2 to 12 in.]). The species' water requirements are narrow, with too little

or too much water being detrimental (FWS 1990a). Suitable habitat is normally on a sandy

loam or loam soil underlain by a clay layer, which along with the slight gradient of the areas,

results in the retention of water. Known soil types that support populations of Canby's dropwort

are Rembert loam, Portsmouth loam, McColl loam, Grady loam, Coxville fine sandy loam, and

August 2008 2-67 NUREG-1872
Affected. Environment

Rains sandy loam. These soil types are similar in that they have a medium-to-high organic

content, high water table, and are deep, poorly drained, and acidic (FWS 1990a). These soil

types do not occur on the VEGP site. Soil types found on the VEGP site include soils in the

Chastain-Tawcaw association; Lucy, Osier, and Bibb soils; Tawcaw-Shellbluff association; and

Fuquay, Bonifay, and Troup series soils (NRCS 2003a). The soil types that would be impacted

during construction include Lucy, Troup, and Tawcaw-Shellbluff (Figure 2-11). Lucy and Troup

soils are deep, well-drained soils occurring in the upland (NRCS 1997, 2003b). The TawcawShellbluff soils occur in the Savannah River floodplain and are acidic, poorly drained, and deep

(NRCS 2002, 2003c). Though the Savannah River Tawcaw-Shellbluff soils found on the VEGP

site have characteristics similar to the soil types associated with Canby's dropwort, these areas

are likely not suitable habitat because of the frequency and depth of inundations along the

Savannah River.

Canby's dropwort has not been recorded within 16 km (10 mi) of the site. There are no known

historical occurrences on the site, and it was not identified in the 2005 threatened and

endangered species survey (Southern 2006c, 2008a; TRC 2006; GDNR 2007a). There are two

historical records in Burke County around Waynesboro (51 FR 6690); these populations are

currently thought to be extirpated (FWS 1990a). It is unlikely that suitable habitat for the

Canby's dropwort is found in areas that would be disturbed by the construction of VEGP Units 3

and 4.

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line

Canby's dropwort is listed as potentially occurring in Burke County (FWS 2004). However,

there are no known populations within the RDC. The closest known population is approximately

5.6 km (3.5 mi) from the RDC in Burke County (GDNR 2007a).

Smooth Coneflower- Endangered

The smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) was listed by FWS as endangered in 1992

(57 FR 46340). There are no known occurrences of smooth coneflower in Burke County

(FWS 2004), no historical occurrences on the VEGP site, and it was not recorded in the 2005

threatened and endangered species survey (TRC 2006; Southern 2006c). It is known to occur

in Stephens County, Georgia (Patrick et al. 1995), and is also found in Aiken and Barnwell

Counties, South Carolina, more than 8 km (5 mi) from the VEGP site (SCDNR 2007a).

The smooth coneflower occurs in meadows and open woodlands on basic or near-neutral soils.

These types of soils do not occur on the VEGP site. It is often found with eastern redcedar

(Juniperus virginiana) or button snakeroot (Eryngium yuccifolium) (Patrick et al. 1995). Neither

species is known to occur on the VEGP site (Southern 2007e), and it is unlikely that suitable

habitat occurs onsite.

NUREG-1872 2-68 August 2008
Affected Environment

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line

Smooth coneflower is not known to occur in any of the counties that may be crossed by the

proposed 500-kV transmission line.

Relict Trillium - Endangered

The relict trillium (Trillium reliquum) was listed as endangered by FWS in 1988 (53 FR 10879).

Populations of relict trillium are limited to -portions of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama

(FWS 1990b). In 1990, 14 known populations of this species occurred in Clay, Lee, Early,

Talbot, Columbia, and Macon Counties, Georgia. Relict trillium is also known to occur in Aiken

County, South Carolina, more than 16 km (10 mi) from the VEGP site (SCDNR 2007a).

There are no known occurrences of relict trillium in Burke County (FWS 2004), no historical

occurrences on the VEGP site, and the relict trillium was not recorded in the 2005 threatened

and endangered species survey (TRC 2006; Southern 2006c). Relict trillium is found primarily

in moist hardwood forests that have had little or no disturbance in the recent past. The soils on

which it grows vary from rocky clays to alluvial sands, but all exhibit high levels of organic matter

in the upper soil layer. Most sites appear to be free from the influence of fire, both in the recent

and distant past. Timber harvesting at the known sites has been limited to selective cutting.

Relict trillium does, however, occur on less than optimum sites, such as power and sewer line

rights-of-way, and can apparently become reestablished after intense disturbance to the habitat,

such as agricultural activity (FWS 1990b).

The staff met with biologists from the GDNR in October 2006. Relict trillium GDNR staff told

NRC staff that relict trillium had the potential to occur on the VEGP site in suitable habitat along

the Savannah River (PNNL 2006). The forested bluff at the VEGP site provides suitable habitat.

This bluff was surveyed during the seasonal field surveys conducted in 2005 and in 2007 (TRC

2006; Patrick 2007). The spring 2005 and 2007 surveys were conducted during the flowering

period for relict trillium, which is best for positive identification of this species (Patrick et al.

1995) was a targeted species that received special attention during the surveys (Southern

2007c, Patrick 2007). Although suitable habitat for the relict trillium appears to exist within the

construction footprint, this species was not been identified by the surveys, and it is unlikely that

it would occur in the future.

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line

Relict trillium is not known to occur in any of the counties that may be crossed by the proposed

500-kV transmission line.

August 2008 2-69 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Georgia Aster - Candidate

Georgia aster is a candidate for Federal listing (70 FR 24870). It is not known to occur in Burke

County in the vicinity of the VEGP site.

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line

Georgia aster is known to occur about 9.0 km (5.5 mi) from the RDC in McDuffie County,

Georgia (GDNR 2007a). There are no known populations within the RDC (FWS 2004;

GDNR 2007a). Historically, 97 populations of Georgia aster were known to exist; 34 of these

have apparently been lost. The species appears to have been eliminated from Florida, one of

the five states in which it originally occurred. It remains in 31 counties in North Carolina, South

Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia (70 FR 24870).

Georgia aster is a relict species of post oak savannah/prairie communities that existed in the

southeast before widespread fire suppression and the extirpation of large native grazing

animals. Most populations are small, and since the species' main mode of reproduction is

vegetative, each isolated population probably represents just a few genotypes (70 FR 24870).

Most remaining populations of this species survive adjacent to roads, railroads, utility rights-ofway, and other openings where land management mimics natural disturbance regimes.

However, plants in such settings are inherently vulnerable to accidental destruction from

herbicide application, road shoulder grading, and other maintenance activities. Many

populations are threatened also by development (several are within planned residential

subdivisions), highway expansion/improvement, and woody succession resulting from fire

suppression (70 FR 24870).

2.7.1.3 Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring

The VEGP Units 1 and 2 Environmental Protection Plan, Appendix B to VEGP operating license

nuclear power facility (NPF) 68 and NPF 81, Section 4.1, entitled "Unusual or Important

Environmental Events" requires NRC notification of any unusual environmental events, including

excessive bird mortality, on site plant or animal disease outbreaks and the mortality or unusual

occurrence of any species protected by the Endangered Species'Act (ESA) (NRC 1989). To

date no reports to the NRC have been made.

Formal terrestrial ecological monitoring for threatened and endangered species was conducted

on 675.4 ha (1669 ac) of the VEGP site in the spring, summer, and fall of 2005 by TRC

(TRC 2006). These surveys were conducted to document the presence of Federal and State

species of concern. Red-cockaded woodpeckers surveys were also conducted by GPC

biologists in February 2006 (Southern 2007e).

NUREG-1872 2-70 August 2008
Affected Environment

Threatened and endangered species surveys are conducted prior to timber harvests or thinning.

These surveys are conducted by GPC biologists using available county records maintained by

the FWS and the GDNR, with field surveys used for verification. No threatened and endangered

species were identified in any of these surveys from 2002 to 2005 (Southern 2007c).

Eco-Sciences made visits to the site in December 2006. The purpose of these visits was to

delineate and describe the jurisdictional wetlands on the VEGP site (Southern 2007d).

Descriptions of the various types of wetlands found on the VEGP site based on these visits are

provided in Section 2.7.1.1.

Wetlands are considered an important habitat as defined in NUREG 1555 (NRC 2000). Besides

wetlands, no other important habitats are known to occur on the VEGP site. Approximately 8.5

ha (21 ac) of wetlands would be disturbed by the construction of the proposed VEGP Units 3

and 4 and the associated facilities (Southern 2008b). If necessary, Southern would mitigate the

disturbance or loss of wetlands based on USACE recommendations through the Clean Water

Act 404 permitting process (Southern 2008a).

The wood stork is known to occur within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the VEGP site in the Savannah River

Swamp on the Savannah River Site. Surveys were conducted for the wood stork in 2005 on

675.4 ha (1669 ac) of the VEGP site (TRC 2006). This species was not documented on the

VEGP site during the surveys (TRC 2006). The wood stork may also occasionally use wetlands

associated with stream drainages, man-made ponds, and areas along the Savannah River for

foraging.

The VEGP site is approximately 16 km (10 mi) from the closest known active group of redcockaded woodpeckers on the Savannah River Site (Wike et al. 2006). Surveys were

conducted on the site for red-cockaded woodpeckers in February 2006 in support of a Safe

Harbor Agreement, and in 2005 on 675.4 ha (1669 ac) of the site in support of this ESP

application. However, the red-cockaded woodpecker has never been documented onsite

(TRC 2006; Southern 2006c, 2007e). The types of habitat that would be disturbed during

construction mainly consist of previously disturbed areas, planted pines, hardwoods, wetlands

along the Savannah River, and open fields. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are found mainly in

large stands of old longleaf pine. These habitats would not be impacted during construction,

and the red-cockaded woodpecker is not likely to be found in the areas impacted by

construction.

Relict trillium, smooth coneflower, Canby's dropwort, and the flatwoods salamander are not

known to occur in the vicinity of the VEGP site. Surveys were conducted for these species in

2005 on 675.4 ha (1669 ac) of the site in support of this ESP application. However, they have

not been documented onsite (TRC 2006). It is unlikely these species occur in the vicinity of the

proposed construction footprint.

August 2008 2-71 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology

This section describes the aquatic environment and biota in the vicinity of the VEGP site and

other areas likely to be impacted by the construction, operation, or maintenance of the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4. It describes the spatial and temporal distribution, abundance, and other

structural and functional attributes of biotic assemblages on which the proposed action could

have an impact, and it identifies "important" or irreplaceable aquatic natural resources and the

location of sanctuaries and preserves that might be impacted by the proposed action.

The aquatic communities associated with the VEGP site include those of the Savannah River,

as well as small streams and ponds located onsite. The VEGP site is bordered on the northeast

by the Savannah River (Southern 2008a), which is the largest and most important aquatic

resource in the vicinity of the plant. Other aquatic communities in the vicinity of the VEGP site

include Beaverdam Creek, which drains Telfair Pond and is characterized as an impounded

blackwater creek (Southern 2008a). Beaverdam Creek is located just south of the plant site.

Two stormwater retention basins were built in the early stages of construction of VEGP Units 1

and 2 (Southern 2007c). Debris Basin #1, on the southeast side of the plant drains to

Beaverdam Creek halfway between Telfair Pond and the Savannah River. Debris Basin #2 is

located in the southwest corner of the site and drains via a small creek into Daniels Branch and

then into Telfair Pond (Southern 2008a).

Mallard Pond, a man-made pond that was on the site before construction, is also characterized

as an impounded blackwater creek; it is located just north of the new plant footprint. Mallard

Pond is drained by a small, unnamed stream that flows into the Savannah River floodplain

upstream of the proposed river intake structure. At least two beaver ponds are located on the

stream below Mallard Pond (Southern 2007c). Another stream flowing out of the northwest

corner of the site joins the unnamed stream flowing from Mallard Pond approximately one-third

of the way to the Savannah River.

There are no sanctuaries or preserves that could be affected by the proposed action. The

nearest managed area is the 3160-ha (7800-ac) Yuchi WMA, which is managed by GDNR for

public hunting. The Yuchi WMA is located adjacent to the VEGP site (Southern 2008a). The

northern edge of the Yuchi WMA lies on the southern shore of Beaverdam Creek (Figure 2-3)

(Southern 2008a).

2.7.2.1 Aquatic Communities of the VEGP Site

Onsite Ponds and Streams

The stormwater retention ponds were created in the early stages of the construction of VEGP

Units 1 and 2. The ponds were built to provide sediment retention for stormwater before

discharge to Beaverdam Creek. Over the years both ponds have developed distinct wetland

NUREG-1872 2-72 August 2008
Affected Environment

characteristics. No analyses have been performed of the aquatic biota of these ponds or

various small drainages on the property (Southern 2007c)

No analyses of the aquatic communities of Mallard Pond or of its drainage have been performed

(Southern 2008a).

Three studies were conducted on the aquatic ecology of Beaverdam Creek to look at the effects

of construction of the site. From March 1977 to May 1978, a study was conducted to determine

the extent of use of Beaverdam Creek by anadromous fishes for spawning and the effects of

construction on spawning (Wiltz 1982a). Eggs and adults were collected in gill net, hoop net,

and larval drift surveys. A total of 674 individual fish (including eggs and larvae) from

29 species were collected. The study concluded that Beaverdam Creek was a minor contributor

with respect to spawning of blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis). Although the habitat was

suitable for hickory shad (A. mediocris), only 17 individuals were found, and none were

observed spawning (Wiltz 1982a).

A second study by Wiltz on Beaver Creek conducted from 1977 to 1978 evaluated the potential

effects of siltation and sedimentation on resident fish populations during construction of VEGP

Units 1 and 2. A total of 2435 fish representing 39 species were collected in the study.

Collections were dominated by minnows, sunfish, and darters. Dusky shiners (Notropis

cummingsae), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), and

blackbanded darter (Percina nigrofasciata) were the species most often collected. Collectively

these four species made up 68 percent of all fish collected duringthe study. The Savannah

darter (Etheostoma fricksium) was also observed in smaller numbers (31 individuals, collected

over a 2-year period). This species has since been listed as a "species of concern" by the State

of Georgia. The study concluded that siltation was not a factor influencing the resident fish

population in Beaverdam Creek. Turbidity and runoff decreased quickly after heavy rainfall.

The only increase in turbidity was caused by transmission line right-of-way construction and

logging operations adjacent to the VEGP site property (Wiltz 1982b).

A third study (Staats 1983) looked at the macroinvertebrate populations of Beaverdam Creek

between 1973 and 1978. The purpose of the study was to determine the possible

environmental effects of plant construction (erosion and siltation) on the aquatic

macroinvertebrate community inhabiting Beaverdam Creek. It was concluded that species

composition at the altered stations (those affected by access road construction) were similar to

the control stations throughout the study indicating that plant construction had little or no effect

on the macroinvertebrate fauna of Beaverdam Creek. Species compositions at the altered

stations recovered from the construction and there was no long-term impact to the

macroinvertebrate population.

No further analyses of biotic communities have been conducted on Beaverdam Creek since the

late 1970s.

August 2008 2-73 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Savannah River

The VEGP site is located on the Savannah River from rkm 241 to 244 (RM 150 to 152). This

area is within the middle Savannah River (defined as occurring from the Fall Line, which is at

rkm 355 (RM 220) downstream to the mouth of the Brier Creek, (rkm 156 [RM 97])(Marcy et al.

2005). The middle reach of the Savannah River is typical of other southeastern river basins. It

is home to a diverse fish fauna, and like other southeastern rivers, its watershed is increasingly

affected by the region's growing human population. The Savannah River has several habitat

types that are used by the fish populations, including the main river channel, cutoff bends or

"dead rivers," swampy habitats (such as habitats located in Phinezy Swamp, adjacent to

I Augusta, or on the Savannah River Site), floodplains (such as in the area of the proposed intake

structure), and streams or tributaries that empty into the river (Marcy et al. 2005).

The potential for impacts from operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 to aquatic biota

would be primarily to organisms inhabiting the Savannah River. The aquatic species include

attached algae and aquatic macrophytes, diatoms, benthic macroinvertebrates (including

mussels, clams, aquatic insects), and fish. The aquatic communities of the Savannah River

adjacent to the VEGP site has been well studied because of the location of the Savannah River

Site immediately across the river.

The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) has conducted biological and waterquality studies of this area of the Savannah River since 1951 for the purpose of assessing

potential effects of the Savannah River Site on the aquatic communities in the Savannah River.

Within this study area, the ANSP has also conducted studies starting in 1985 in the vicinity of

the VEGP site at rkm 243.3 (RM 151.2) the approximate location of the proposed intake

structure for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4, and rkm 241.1 (RM 149.8) approximately

1.6 km (1 mi) downstream from the VEGP site (ANSP 2003). The surveys at the VEGP site

sampling stations were conducted to assess potential impacts of the VEGP site so that these

impacts could be separated from potential impacts from the Savannah River Site (ANSP 2003).

Since 1985, studies occurred approximately every 2 years through 1996. Aquatic organisms

studied by the ANSP included diatoms, attached algae, and aquatic plants, non-insect

macroinvertebrates (sponges, worms, molluscs, snails, crustaceans, mites, and leeches),

aquatic insects and fish. Starting in 1997, sampling at the station located adjacent to the VEGP

site, rkm 243.3 (RM 151.2) was limited to diatom surveys only (ANSP 2003), although a mussel

survey also occurred at the VEGP sites in 1998 (ANSP 2003). The sampling was also scaled

back for the station at rkm 241 (RM 149.8), downstream from the VEGP site at rkm 241

(RM 149.8). Diatometer sampling and analysis was included for this station through 2003

(ANSP 2003, 2005). Non-insect macro-invertebrate, insect macroinvertebrates, and fish

surveys were conducted into 2001; however, with the exception of the mussel survey that was

reported, the results of the other surveys were archived for future reference without being

analyzed and reported. Starting in 2003, only diatom sampling results were reported by the

ANSP.

NUREG-1872 2-74 August 2008
Affected Environment

Attached Algae and Aquatic Macrophytes

The ANSP qualitatively sampled attached algae and aquatic macrophytes. The algal flora was

found to be similar at all four stations (the reference station upstream of the Savannah River

Site and three stations downstream of the VEGP site and potentially impacted by the Savannah

River Site). There was evidence of nutrient enrichment at all stations, apparently attributable to

sources upstream from the study site. No significant beds of submerged aquatic vegetation

were observed in this reach of the river (ANSP 2003).

Diatoms

Studies by the ANSP since 1951 included an investigation of diatom diversity, richness and

evenness as a measure of water quality in the river. The studies involved comparing diatom

assemblages grown on artificial substrates at a reference station with those found at the

Savannah River Site stations below the VEGP site and farther down river below the

Savannah River Site. Historically, the most abundant species of diatoms (especially

Gomphonema parvulum and Melosira varians) have wide ecological tolerances and adjust to a

range of conditions. However, these species are not usually indicative of severe conditions.

The composition and tolerances of diatom species in the Savannah River above and below the

Savannah River Site were similar during the 2001 study (ANSP 2003). Most of the dominant

species observed in the 2001 study were similar to those found in previous studies and are

characteristic of alkaline, nutrient-enriched waters. The differences in distribution patterns that

were observed for the relative abundance of dominant species were seasonal rather than

spatial and, thus, were not related to the operation of the Savannah River Site or the existing

VEGP Units 1 and 2. However, the reference station located above the Savannah River Site,

showed higher species-richness rank, lower dominance rank and higher diversity rank than the

other stations, although there was no corresponding pattern in ecological or pollution tolerances

of the dominant species, which made the evidence unclear regarding a potential Savannah

River Site impact on water-quality parameters to which the diatoms would be most sensitive

(ANSP 2003).

Aquatic Insects

The ANSP studied the species composition of insect fauna. The most species-rich group was

the dipterans (47 taxa, mainly from the family Chironomidae), beetles (28 taxa), dragonflies and

damselflies (15 taxa), mayflies (17 taxa) and caddisflies (14 taxa). Species richness in 2001 was

similar to that from the studies of previous years. Overall, the results of the 2001 aquatic insect

study (ANSP 2003) suggest that the differences detected among sites reflects the natural spatial

variation found in all rivers and streams. The results of the statistical analysis between stations

indicate that the condition of the aquatic insect assemblages at the stations exposed to the

Savannah River Site tend to be as good as, or superior to, the condition at the reference sites

(located upstream of the Savannah River Site and VEGP site). The same conclusion was

demonstrated by the results of the 1999 study and the 2000 study (ANSP 2003).

August 2008 2-75 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Molluscs

Molluscs found in the vicinity of the VEGP site include snails and bivalves such as Asiatic

clams, fingernail clams, pea clams, and mussels (ANSP 2003). Sixteen species of mussels

have been identified from the surveys conducted by the ANSP between 1951 and 2001. The

introduced Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) was abundant in a variety of substrates at all

collection stations (silts and mud to fine- through coarse-grained sands) and numerically

dominated the benthic habitat of the Savannah River, composing between 96 to 98 percent of

the bivalves taken in sieve studies (ANSP 2001). ANSP 2001 reported that the mussel fauna

has changed since the early 1951 to 1968 studies when the yellow lamp mussel

(Lampsilis cariosa), eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata), Carolina slabshell (E. congarea),

Atlantic spike (E. producta), variable spike (E. icterina), and rayed pink fatmucket (L. splendida)

were all listed as the most abundant species. In 1961, an "almost uniform distribution" of

mussels "...from juveniles through old adults (over 8 years of age)" was reported. Reduced

numbers of juvenile mussels have commonly been reported since the early 1960s. Slightly

lower numbers of species were identified in the 2001 studies (ANSP 2003), which appears to be

a continuation of the trend that began in 1999 and is thought to reflect drought conditions in the

basin and lower flows in the Savannah River during the years since June 1998. Although the

results produced fewer taxa than other recent studies (1993 to 1999), the numbers fell within the

long-term trends of 1972 to 2000. The 2001 study results did not indicate an impact from the

Savannah River Site (ANSP 2003).

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

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 eight mussels

that are considered state-endangered, state-threatened, or state species of concern. The

Asiatic clam was found at all the sites and was the most abundant species.

Fish

Numerous studies have been performed on the fish located in the middle Savannah River. The

most comprehensive studies include Bennett and McFarlane (1983) (written to provide

background information for biologists initiating ichthyofaunal studies on the Savannah River

Site), Specht (1987) (the Comprehensive Cooling Water Study initiated in 1983 to evaluate the

environmental effects of the intake and release of cooling water on the structure and function of

aquatic ecosystems at the Savannah River Plant); Marcy et al. (2005); and the series of studies

performed by the ANSP, including the two most recent studies (ANSP 2001, 2003).

NUREG-1872 2-76 August 2008
Affected Environment

Marcy et al. (2005) indicates that 95 species of fish are found in the middle Savannah River,

including 82 native species and 13 introduced species. The fishes of the middle Savannah

River can be grouped into four groups: (1) resident freshwater fish (found in the area yeararound), (2) diadromous species (present during seasonal migrations), (3) marine/estuarine

species (sometimes found in the river upstream of the saltwater-freshwater interface) and

(4) upland species (typically found above the fall line). A listing of the native resident

diadromous, marine and upland fish species of the middle Savannah River (as taken from

Marcy et al. 2005) is given in Table 2-7. Table 2-8 contains a list of the introduced species in

the middle Savannah River.

The ANSP conducted assessments of the fish assemblages in the vicinity of the Savannah

River Site since 1951, between rkm 259 and rkm 196 (RM 161 and RM 122). Until 1997, these

assessments also included comprehensive studies at sampling sites in the Savannah River

between along the Savannah River Site, cursory studies in the Savannah River in the vicinity of

the Savannah River Site, and independent monitoring of locations near the VEGP site.

Comprehensive studies included a twice-per-year assessment every 4 to 5 years at four

stations. The cursory studies were annual assessments at three of four stations. 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 to assess the potential impacts from

VEGP Units 1 and 2, so they could be separated from potential Savannah River Site impacts.

Table 2-7. Native, Resident, Diadromous, Marine, and Upland Fish Species of the Middle

Savannah River (as taken from Marcy et al. 2005 and presented in phylogenetic

order)

Scientific Family

Resident Species

Lepisosteidae (gars)

Amiidae (bowfins)

Clupeidae (herring & shad)

Cyprinidae (minnows)

Common Name Scientific Name

longnose gar

Florida gar

bowfin

gizzard shad

bannerfin shiner

whitefin shiner

eastern silvery minnow

rosyface chub

bluehead chub

golden shiner

ironcolor shiner

dusky shiner

spottail shiner

yellowfin shiner

taillight shiner

Lepisosteus osseus

Lepisosteus platyrhincus

Amia calva

Dorosoma cepedianum

Cyprinella leedsi

Cyprinella nivea

Hybognathus regius

Hybopsis rubrifrons

Nocomis leptocephalus

Notemigonus crysoleucas

Notropis chalybaeus

Notropis cummingsae

Notropis hudsonius

Notropis lutipinnis

Notropis maculatus

August 2008 2-77 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Table 2-7. (contd)

Scientific Family Common Name

Catostomidae (suckers)

Ictaluridae (bullheads & catfish)

Esocidae (pikes & pickerels)

Umbridae (mudminnows)

Aphredoderidae (pirate perch)

Amblyopsidae (cave fish)

Fundulidae (top minnows)

Poeciliidae (live bearers)

Atherinopsidae (new world silversides)

Centrarchidae (sunfish)

coastal shiner

pugnose shiner

lowland shiner

creek chub

quillback

highfin carpsucker

creek chubsucker

lake chubsucker

northern hogsucker

spotted sucker

notchlip redhorse

robust redhorse

brassy jumprock

snail bullhead

white catfish

yellow bullhead

brown bullhead

flat bullhead

tadpole madtom

margined madtom

speckled madtom

redfin pickerel

chain pickerel

eastern mudminnow

pirate perch

swampfish

golden topminnow

lined topminnow

eastern mosquitofish

brook silverside

mud sunfish

flier

blackbanded sunfish

bluespotted sunfish

banded sunfish

redbreast sunfish

pumpkinseed

warmouth

bluegill

Scientific Name

Notropis petersoni

Opsopoeodus emiliae

Pteronotropis stonei

Semotilus atromaculatus

Carpiodes cyprinus

Carpiodes velifer

Erimyzon oblongus

Erimyzon sucetta

Hypentelium nigricans

Minytrema melanops

Moxostoma collapsum

Moxostoma robustum

Scartomyzon sp. cf. lachneri

Ameiurus brunneus

Ameiurus catus

Ameiurus natalis

Ameiurus nebulosus

Ameiurus platycephalus

Noturus gyrinus

Noturus insignis

Natures leptacanthus

Esox americanus

Esox niger

Umbra pygmaea

Aphredoderus sayanus

Chologaster cornuta

Fundulus .chrysotus

Fundulus lineolatus

Gambusia holbrooki

Labidesthes sicculus

Acantharchus pomotis

Centrarchus macropterus

Enneacanthus chaetodon

Enneacanthus gloriosus

Enneacanthus obesus

Lepomis auritus

Lepomis gibbosus

Lepomis gulosus

Lepomis macrochirus

NUREG-1872 2-78 August 2008
Affected Environment

Table 2-7. (contd)

Scientific Family

Elassomatidae (pygmy sunfish)

Percidae (darters & perch)

Diadromous species

Acipenseridae (sturgeon)

Anguillidae (eels)

Clupeidae (herrings & shads)

Moronidae (temperate bass)

Marine/Estuarine Species

Megalopidae (tarpons)

Belonidae (needle fish)

Mugilidae (mullets)

Achiridae (new world soles)

Common Name

dollar sunfish

redear sunfish

spotted sunfish

largemouth bass

black crappie

everglades pygmy sunfish

bluebarred pygmy sunfish

banded pigmy sunfish

Savannah darter

swamp darter

christmas darter

turquoise darter

tessellated darter

sawcheek darter

blackbanded darter

shortnose sturgeon

Atlantic sturgeon

American eel

blueback herring

hickory shad

American shad

striped bass

tarpon

Atlantic needlefish

mountain mullet

striped mullet

hogchoker

Scientific Name

Lepomis marginatus

Lepomis microlophus

Lepomis punctatus

Micropterus salmoides

Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Elassoma evergiadei

Elassoma okatie

Elassoma zonatum

Etheostoma fncksium

Etheostoma fusiforme

Etheostoma hopkinsi

Etheostoma inscriptum

Etheostoma olmstedi

Etheostoma serrifer

Percina nigrofasciata

Acipenser brevirostrum

Acipenser oxyrinchus

Anguilla rostrata

Alosa aestivalis

Alosa mediocris

Alosa sapidissima

Morone saxati/is

Megalops atlanticus

Strongylura marina

Agonostomus monticola

Mugil cephalus

Trinectes maculatus

Upland Species

redeye bass(a) Micropterus coosae

(a) The Savannah River is the only area of the redeye bass's range where it occurs below the Fall Line

August 2008 2-79 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Table 2-8. Introduced Fish Species in the Middle Savannah River Basin and their Status (as

taken from Marcy et al. 2005)

Scientific Family

Clearly established

Clupeidae (herrings & shads)

Cyprinidae (carps & minnows)

Ictaluridae (bullhead & catfish)

Percidae (perch and darters)

Rare and possibly not established

Cyprinidae (carps & minnows)

Moronidae (temperate bass)

Centrarchidae (sunfish)

Clearly not established

Cyprinidae (carps & minnows)

Salmonidae (salmon)

Too little information

Ictaluridae (bullhead & catfish)

Common Name Scientific Name

threadfin shad

common carp

channel catfish

yellow perch

goldfish

white perch

white bass

green sunfish

white crappie

grass carp

rainbow trout

blue catfish

flathead catfish

Dorosoma petenense

Cyprinus carpio

Ictalurus punctatus

Perca flavescens

Carassius auratus

Morone americana

Morone chrysops

Lepomis cyanellus

Pomoxis annularis

Ctenopharyngodon idella

Oncorhynchus mykiss

Ictalurus furcatus

Pylodictis olivaris

The location of the sampling sites were rkm 243 (RM 151.2) and a downstream station, located

approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi) below the VEGP cooling water discharge at rkm 241 (RM 149.8).

The last post-larval studies of fish in the vicinity of the VEGP site were conducted in 1996.

However, sampling at a location immediately downstream from the VEGP site, rkm 241

(RM 149.8) continued up to 2001, although the data for the 2001 study were collected but not

analyzed. Data collected up to 2001 from study sites at 257 rkm (RM 160) and rkm 196 to 198

(RM 122 to 123) were-analyzed and reported (ANSP 2003).

The latest fish survey performed by ANSP at rkm 196 to 198 (RM 122 to 123) and rkm 267

(RM 166) was in the fall of 2001. In total, 3951 specimens of 48 species of fish were collected in

2001, including a single southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma) (ANSP 2003). The most

common species were the spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) (24.4 percent of the total fish),

followed by the taillight shiner (N. maculatus) (19.5 percent of the total number of fish). The

bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), bannerfin shiner (Cyprinella leeds,), and whitefin shiner

(C. nivea) were also common. Together 75 percent of the total catch was composed of these

five taxa (assuming that the unidentified minnows were from the genus Cyprinella) (ANSP 2003).

The 2000 ANSP Savannah River survey, which included a site at rkm 241 (RM 149.8), captured

a total of 4599 individuals of 50 species of fish. Again the spottail shiner was the most abundant

(36.5 percent of the total number of fish), followed by the bannerfin shiner (11.7 percent of the

total number of fish). The bluegill, whitefin shiner, and brook silverside (Labidesthes sicculus)

were also common. Together 74 percent of the total catch was composed of these five species

(plus the unidentified minnows of the genus Cyprinella) (ANSP 2001).

NUREG-1872 2-80 August 2008
Affected Environment

Results from the 2001 ANSP study indicated that species richness was significantly higher at

the sampling location farther downstream than at the sampling location upstream. However,

neither species diversity nor the densities of common species differed significantly between

stations (ANSP 2003). In general, the studies performed by the ANSP showed greater temporal

variation in fish assemblages than spatial variation within the study sites (ANSP 2003).

Ichthyoplankton studies from the Savannah River Site in 1984-1985 showed that larval densities

in the oxbows (all of which were connected to the river at both ends but with current velocities

usually too low to measure) were significantly greater than in the river, suggesting that oxbows

may be important spawning areas. Species composition in the oxbows were dominated by

gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and threadfin shad (D. petenense). The dominant

ichthyoplankton in the river was the American shad (Alosa sapidissima) although gizzard shad,

threadfin shad and crappie were also abundant (Specht 1987). Studies of the vertical

distribution of larvae in the river showed an absence of significant differences between top and

bottom samples at all but one transect site. Egg densities, however, exhibited significant

differences between top* and bottom at over half the transect sites. In all cases the bottom

densities were higher than the top densities (Paller et al. 1986).

Important Species

A number of important species of fish occur within the Savannah River. The NRC(NRC 2000)

defines "important" aquatic species as "rare" species that are Federally listed as threatened or

endangered, proposed for Federal listing or a candidate for Federal listing; listed as threatened,

endangered or other species of concern by the State or States in which the proposed facilities

are located; commercially or recreationally valuable; and species that are either essential to the

maintenance and survival of species that are rare, commercially or recreationally valuable;

critical to the structure and function of the aquatic ecosystem; or could serve as biological

indicators of the aquatic environment.

Commercially Important Fisheries

Commercial fisheries allowed on the middle Savannah River include American shad

(Alosa sapidissima), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) (Halverson et al. 1997), white catfish

(Ameiurus catus) (Marcy et al. 2005), and American eels (Anguilla rostrata) (GDNR 2007d).

These species are fished commercially primarily by non-professional, local fishermen.

Previously, a fishery existed for Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus); however, all Atlantic

coastal states have enacted a closure or moratorium on the harvest of Atlantic sturgeon. There

is a commercial blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) fishery on the South Carolina portions of the

Savannah River (SCDNR 2007b), but no herring are taken in Georgia because of netting

restrictions (Marcy et al. 2005; Halverson et al. 1997). Historically, the commercial landing data

indicated that the commercial fishery for catfish was significantly smaller than the fishery for

American shad. For this reason, the catfish fishery is not discussed further.

August 2008 2-81 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

American Shad (Alosa sapidissima)

American shad are anadromous; the adults are marine fish and come into the Savannah River to

spawn. They rarely appear in brackish estuaries and freshwater outside of the spawning

season. Spawning usually occurs at night and may occur anywhere in a river, but the most

frequented sites have flats or shallow water. Eggs hatch in 71 to 86 hours and are demersal

(they sink) or pelagic (they stay in the water column). Eggs may travel 1.6 to 6.4 km (1 to 4 mi)

from the point where they are broadcast. Larvae are carried downstream to the estuary

(Meyer et al. 2003) and juveniles remain in the freshwater until temperatures decline in late fall

(Marcy et al. 2005). Specht (1987) reported that American shad were the dominant taxa in the

ichthyoplankton assemblage (primarily as eggs) in the river. They were not as abundant in the

oxbows, creeks or intake canals on the Savannah River Site indicating that the primary location

for spawning was the river. Bailey et al. (2004) estimated the population size of American shad

that reached the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam (located approximately 56 km [35 mi]

upstream of the VEGP site) at 158,000 in 2001 and 217,000 in 2002. These numbers suggest a

substantial numbers of American shad pass by the VEGP site during their annual spawning runs.

The Savannah River has supported the third largest commercial river-specific shad fishery in

South Carolina since 1979. Fishermen from both Georgia and South Carolina catch shad in the

Savannah River. Commercial landings of American shad from the Savannah River between

2000 and 2005 ranged between 2882 kg (6353 Ibs) for 2002 and 9787 kg (21,576 Ibs) for 2005,

for both South Carolina and Georgia. This has dropped significantly from the early 1980s when

estimates of between 39,000 kg (86,000 Ibs) and 139,000 kg (306,000 Ibs) were recorded

(ASMFC 2007). The total monetary value for the years 2000 to 2003 ranged from $21,000 to

$32,000 (NMFS 2007).

American Eel (Anguilla rostrata)

In 2004, a petition was filed with FWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) to list the American eel as an endangered species (McCord 2004). The

FWS initiated a status review in 2005, and in 2007, determined that listing the American eel as

threatened and endangered is not warranted (72 FR 4967). Although the American eel has not

been listed at either the State or Federal level, there is widespread concern about the declines

in its numbers across the eastern seaboard. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

(ASMFC) instigated the development of an American Eel Interstate Fishery Management Plan,

which was published in 2000. Eels have been captured upstream and downstream of the

VEGP site in the Savannah River and its tributaries (Marcy et al. 2005). It is legal to fish

commercially for eels in Georgia and in South Carolina. However, in 2006, the ASMFC

approved a mandatory catch and effort monitoring program for the American eel, which would

help determine whether the population is declining (ASMFC 2006).

NUREG-1872 2-82 August 2008
Affected Environment

American eels are catadromous, living for several years in freshwater until it is time to spawn.

All American eels from North America form a single spawning population, with all sexually

mature eels moving to the Sargasso Sea in the Atlantic Ocean during the fall and winter to

spawn before they die. Newly hatched eels (leptocephali) drift in ocean currents toward the

Atlantic coast where they begin to metamorphose into'glass eels (McCord 2004). Glass eels

actively move toward freshwater sources and may actually move into rivers (ASMFC 2000)

during winter and spring while they are still age 0. After they reach freshwater, the glass eels

become pigmented and metamorphose into elvers. At this point in their lives, they are generally

about 10 cm (4 in.) long. Some elvers continue to migrate upstream, burrowing in soft river

bottoms or deep water during the day and moving about at night (ASMFC 2000). Elvers mature

into yellow eels around age 2. Female yellow eels may continue to migrate upstream or

establish home ranges for several years, while males generally remain in brackish water and

estuaries (McCord 2004). They are bottom dwellers and opportunistic feeders of both live and

dead organisms, and inhabit a variety of habitats (ASMFC 2000). In the middle Savannah

River, yellow eels prefer relatively shallow reaches with riffles, pools, and rocks (McCord 2004),

but can survive drought and low-oxygen conditions for short periods of time.

Historically, the American eel constituted up to 25 percent of the fish biomass in eastern rivers

(ASMFC 2000). Data on the number of eels caught per unit of effort indicate large localized

declines in rivers across the Atlanticcoast. Decline in population numbers may be occurring if

the stock are overfished at various life stages anywhere in their range of occurrence, because

eels are commercially caught as juveniles for fish farming and bait and as adults for human

consumption or bait (ASMFC 2000; Haro et al. 2000). Other factors in their decline may be loss

of spawning habitat or eggs because of seaweed harvesting in the Sargasso Sea, or loss of

adult habitat in rivers and estuaries from dams, dredging, and wetland destruction

(McCord 2004). Another possible factor in their decline is impingement and entrainment as they

migrate past dams and water intakes (Haro et al. 2000). However, McFarlane et al. (1978)

found only one eel impinged on water intake screens at the Savannah River Site in biweekly

samples over a 10-month period in 1977.

Recreationally Important Fish

Sports fishermen are the principal consumers of river fishes in the middle Savannah River. The

harvest includes mostly sunfish (Lepomis spp.) and crappie (Pomoxis spp.) (Halverson et al.

1997). Striped bass (Morone saxatilis), which is classified as a game fish in South Carolina and

Georgia, is considered a favorite of fishermen in the region around Augusta. The staff

recognizes -that there are other species that are popular game fish (Halverson et al. 1997).

Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis)

The striped bass is considered anadromous (Meyer et al. 2003) and ascends rivers to spawn in

fresh or brackish water in February through June and then seeks out cooler water for the

August 2008 2-83 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

summer months. However, some reproducing landlocked and largely riverine populations exist

(Marcy et al. 2005). Striped bass migrate upriver and into tributaries for spring spawning in

March, April, and May (Marcy et al. 2005). Spawning occurs in strong currents of large rivers

when the temperature is above 14.4°C (57.90F) and in areas above the salt wedge of the

estuary (Marcy et al. 2005). The eggs are semipelagic, and sufficient current is required to

keep the eggs in the water column to allow them to hatch before sinking to the bottom

(Marcy et al. 2005). Specific areas of the estuary near the mouth of the Savannah River

(specifically the Back and Middle Rivers of the estuary and possibly the Front River) are

considered the nursery areas (Meyer et al. 2003).

Before 1982, the major known spawning area for striped bass in the Savannah River was in the

tidally influenced area 30 to 40 km (19 to 25 mi) upstream from the river mouth (Dudley et al.

1977). Data collected between 1983 and 1985 as part of an ichthyoplankton study for the

Savannah River Site (Specht 1987) indicated a possible occurrence of an important spawning

area in the region of rkm 228 (RM 141.7), downstream from the VEGP site (rkm 242.8

[RM 150.9]). Peaks in striped bass eggs and larvae also occurred at rkms 207, 249, and 267

(RMs 129, 155, and 166), both above and below the VEGP site, as reported by Paller et al. 1986.

The population of striped bass drastically declined in the 1980s throughout the species' range

on the Atlantic coast. It is also thought that the Savannah River harbor modifications resulted in

habitat alterations in the estuarine spawning grounds and contributed to the decline of the

fishery in the Savannah River (GDNR 2007e; 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 (GDNR 2007e). Because of the dramatic decreases 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, subsequently, by the State of South Carolina in 1991. The

moratorium affected the entire free-flowing portion of the river up to the New Savannah Bluff.

Lock and Dam near Augusta, Georgia (approximately rkm 312 [RM 194]) (Reinert et al. 2005).

Restoration activities that began in the 1990s included environmental remediation that

attempted to restore salinity and flow patterns, including cessation of the tide gate operation and

closure of the diversion canal. Stock enhancement programs were also evaluated and

optimized in the early 1990s (Reinert et al. 2005). The dramatic increase in the catch-per-unit

effort of adult striped bass since 1990 is primarily the result of fish stocking, which made up at

least 70 percent of the catch annually (Reinert et al. 2005). The increased numbers of striped

bass were the result, in part, of a management program in the 1990s that included a mix of

monitoring and intensive stocking efforts. The number of naturally reproducing striped bass

remains low (GDNR 2007e). On October 1, 2005, the regulations were changed in both

Georgia and South Carolina to allow limited harvest of striped bass and striped white bass

hybrids (GDNR 2007e).

NUREG-1 872 2-84 August 2008
Affected Environment

Testing of striped bass in the Savannah River has shown significant amounts of mercury in the

fish. As a result, the GDNR has issued advice regarding the amount of fish that should be

eaten by the general public (no more than one meal per month of striped bass that are 69 cm

[27 in.] or greater in length) (GDNR 2007e).

Non-Native and Nuisance Species

According to the 1985 Final Environmental Impact Statement for VEGP Units 1 and 2,

populations of the Asiatic clam were first discovered at or near the VEGP site in 1972

(NRC 1985). The Asiatic clam is an introduced species that was found in surveys by the ANSP

to be abundant in a variety of substrates at all sampling stations both above and below the

VEGP site, during sampling in the years 1997 to 2001 (ANSP 2003). The ANSP reported that

the substrates where the Asiatic clam occurred ranged from silts and muds to fine- through

coarse-grained sands, often containing leaf litter, leaf fragments, and sticks (ANSP 2003).

According to the ANSP, the Asiatic clam first appeared in collections in 1972, and by 1976 it

was present at all stations and appeared to be affecting the native mussel fauna. The survey at

four stations in 2001 (40 quadrants) produced 1877 molluscs, 85.1 percent of which were

Asiatic clams. Based on this data, the ANSP states that it is apparent that the introduced

Asiatic clam numerically dominates the macrobenthic habitat of the Savannah River and

because of its great numbers competes with the mussels for space and food resources

(ANSP 2003).

Other introduced or non-native species occurring in the Savannah River include the following

species that are clearly established: threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense), common carp

(Cyprinus carpio), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens).

Table 2-8 lists nine other introduced species that are not established or that are rare. None of

the fish species are considered nuisance species (Marcy et al. 2005).

No invasive aquatic plant species have been noted in the aquatic environments at the VEGP

site (Southern 2006d).

Critical Habitats

No critical habitat has been designated by the FWS or Essential Fish Habitat by the NMFS in

the vicinity of the VEGP site (Southern 2008a; NMFS 2008).

State-Listed Species

This section describes Georgia and South Carolina State-listed and proposed threatened and

endangered aquatic species in the vicinity of the site and along the transmission line rights-ofway. Federally and State-listed aquatic species that occur near the VEGP site are listed in

Table 2-9. The State of Georgia lists the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and the

robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) as State-endangered. The shortnose sturgeon also is

August 2008 2-85 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Federally listed and is discussed, in Section 2.7.2.2. The robust redhorse is not listed as

occurring within Burke County; however, data show that it is present in the Savannah River near

the VEGP site (Grabowski and Isely 2006).

The Atlantic pigtoe mussel, (Fusconaia masoni) is listed by the State of Georgia as state

endangered and occurring within Burke County in the vicinity of the VEGP site. The Savannah

lilliput (Toxolasma pullus) is considered threatened in Georgia but is not listed as occurring in

Burke County. It is a species of concern in South Carolina and is one of the nine species of

concern for the South Carolina county closest to the VEGP site.

Table 2-9. Federally and State-Listed (Georgia and South Carolina) Aquatic Species in the

vicinity of the VEGP Site that are Endangered, Threatened, and Species of Concern

I

Federal Georgia State S. Carolina State

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a) Status(b) Status(c)

Fish

Acipenser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon FE SE

Etheostoma fricksium Savannah darter(d) SC

Moxostoma robustum robust redhorse SE

Mussels 1

Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe SE

Anodonta couperiana barrel floater SC

Elliptio congaraea Carolina slabshell SC

Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel SC

Lampsilis splendida rayed pink fatmucket SC

Pyganodon cataracta eastern floater SC

Toxolasma pullus Savannah lilliput(e) ST SC

Utterbackia imbecillis paper pondshell SC

Villosa delumbis eastern creekshell SC

Villosa vibex southern rainbow SC

(a) Federal status rankings determined by the FWS under the Endangered Species Act, FE = Endangered.

(b) State status determined by the GDNR: SE = State Endangered, ST = State Threatened, SC = state species of

concern (GDNR 2008).

(c) Species information provided by the SCDNR Natural Heritage Program SC = State Species of Concern (SCDNR

2008).

(e) Price 2007

Federally and State-listed species that occur in counties that are traversed by the proposed

Thomson-Vogtle transmission line right-of-way are listed in Table 2-10. The shortnose sturgeon

and the Atlantic pigtoe mussel are reported from counties crossed by the proposed transmission

line. In addition the sandbar shiner, Notoropis scepticus, a Georgia State listed rare species is

found in McDuffie county. Four species, the Savannah darter (Etheostoma fricksium), the

ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus), the lowland shiner (Pteronotropis stoner), and the yellow

lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) are considered species of special concern in the state of

Georgia, are also included in Table 2-10, however, none of them have legal protected status.

NUREG-1872 2-86 August 2008
Affected Environment

Mussels Family Unionidae

The Atlantic pigtoe is Georgia State-listed as endangered for Burke County. It is found in

unpolluted, fast-flowing water in coarse sand-gravel substrate (USACE 2006b). Surveys

performed for the USFWS (The Catena Group 2007) identified four specimens that were

tentatively identified as the Atlantic pigtoe. These specimens were located at rkm 326.4 and

326.7 (RM 202.8 and 203) (within the Augusta Shoals area), approximately 84 km (52 mi)

upstream of the VEGP site. No sampling was conducted in the vicinity of the VEGP site. The

ANSP monitored freshwater

Table 2-10. Listed Terrestrial and Aquatic Species in Georgia Counties Crossed by the

Proposed New 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way

Federal Georgia State

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a) Status(b) Counties of Occurrence

Fish

Acipenser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon FE SE Burke

Etheostoma fricksium Savannah darter(c) SC Burke

Notropis chalybaeus ironcolor shiner(c) SC Jefferson

Notropis scepticus sandbar shiner SR McDuffie

Pteronotropis stonei lowland shiner(c) SC Jefferson

Mussels

Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe SE Burke, Jefferson, Warren

Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel(c) SC Jefferson

(a) Federal status rankings determined by the FWS under the Endangered Species Act, FE = Endangered,

(FWS 2004).

(b) State status determined by the GDNR: SE = State Endangered, SR = State Rare, SC = State Species of

Concern (GDNR 2008a, b, c, and d).

(c) The Savannah darter, ironcolor shiner, lowland shiner, and yellow lampmussel are Georgia State species of

concern. They do not have legal protected status,

mussels in the vicinity of the VEGP site. from 1951 to 2001. A total of 16 species of mussels

were identified during comprehensive surveys (ANSP 2003). However, the Atlantic pigtoe was

not identified during any of the ANSP studies as being found in the vicinity of the VEGP site.

South Carolina lists nine species of mussels as being species of concern in Barnwell County,

South Carolina, which is directly across the river from the VEGP site. Eight of the nine species

have been collected in the comprehensive surveys conducted by the ANSP of the Savannah

River from 1951 to 2001 at multiple sampling locations. The barrel floater

(Anodonta couperiana) was found as recently as the 1998 survey. The yellow lampmussel

(Lampsilis cariosa), and the Eastern floater (Pyganodon cataracta) were found as recently as

the 1999 sampling season. The Carolina slabshell (Elliptio congaraea), the rayed pink

fatmucket (L. splendida), the paper pondshell (Utterbackia imbecillis), and the southern rainbow

(Villosa delumbis) were found as recently as the 2001 sampling season. The ANSP reported in

its 2001 study that the Carolina slabshell constituted 28.7 percent (35 individuals) of the

mussels collected in 2001 (ANSP 2003). Yearly ranking of abundance from 1993 to 1999

collected by hand showed the Carolina slabshell to be one of the five most abundant mussel

August 2008 2-87 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

species. The eastern floater, yellow lamp mussel, and barrel floater were the least abundant.

The paper pondshell and rayed pink fatmucket were considered to be moderately abundant

(ANSP 2003). Communications with the State of South Carolina identified a ninth mussel

species of concern, the Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus) (Price 2007). The Savannah lilliput

was found in the vicinity of the VEGP site as recently as 2001 sampling season (ANSP 2003).

The surveys for the USFWS (The Catena Group 2007) also identified one individual Savannah

lilliput at rkm 273 (RM 169.6), which is 32 km (20 mi) upstream of the VEGP site). They also

identified the barrel floater from four sites in fairly low numbers, the Carolina slabshell at

33 sites, the yellow lampmussel at 12 sites, the rayed pink fatmucket at 17 sites, the eastern

floater at six sites in low numbers, and the paper pondshell at two sites (the closest

approximately 37 km [23 mi] from the VEGP site, also in low numbers (2 and 1 individuals,

respectively) and the eastern creekshell at 18 sites, the closest at approximately 43 km (27 mi)

from the VEGP site.

Robust Redhorse (Moxostoma robustum)

The robust redhorse is State-listed as endangered in Georgia, and although it is known to occur

in the Savannah River, it is not listed as occurring in Burke County. Adult fish are approximately

63 cm (25 in) long and 4.1 kg (9 Ibs) in weight, although some exceed 70 cm (27.5 in.) and

weigh up to 8 kg (17.6 Ibs) The size of the population in the Savannah River is unknown

(Nichols 2003). The robust redhorse is a large riverine catostomid (sucker) whose taxonomy

was in dispute until 1991 when it was collected from the Oconee River. The first documentation

of a robust redhorse from the Savannah River occurred in 1997 when an adult specimen was

collected near the VEGP site. Portions of the Savannah River were later surveyed for the

robust redhorse. A population was found near Augusta and other surveys have discovered the

robust redhorse from numerous locations between Augusta and U.S. Hwy 301 (rkm 191

[RM 119]) (Hendricks 2002). A radio-tagging study involving 17 wild adult robust redhorses

from below the Lower Savannah Lock and Dam at rkm 301 (RM 187) demonstrated that some

individuals moved as much as 195 km (121 mi) in the river away from their release sites.

Overwintering fish dispersed along the length of the river down to rkm 90 (RM 56). Fish

returned in the spring to spawn either at a mid-channel gravel bar at rkm 283.7 (RM 176.3),

about 40 river kilometers (25 river miles) or to staging and holding areas immediately upstream

or downstream of it. The eggs developed within the gravel and the larval fish remained there for

approximately 7 days after hatching. Adult fish spent the remainder of the spring and early

summer in the vicinity of their spawning grounds before dispersing downstream in late June and

early July to their overwintering areas (Grabowski and Isely 2006). For the most part, the robust

redhorse appeared to stay within the main channel. High-water events were the only times that

radio-tagged fish were located outside the main river channel. In most cases they relocated to

the floodplain immediately adjacent to the river channel (Grabowski and Isely 2006).

NUREG-1872 2-88 August 2008
Affected Environment

Robust redhorse larvae (13 to 20 mm [0.5 to 0.8 in.] in length) are capable of swimming speeds

that range from 7 to 12 cm/s (0.25 to 0.4 ft per second) (Nichols 2003). Spawning occurs during

late April through late May at temperatures ranging from 17 to 26.70C (Marcy 2005. They

exhibit avoidance behavior of high flow rates in laboratory systems (Nichols 2003).

The multi-agency Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee was formed in 1995 to investigate

the decline of the species and to restore the species to a sustainable level without the need to

be listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (RRCC 2008).

2.7.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species

This section describes Federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed aquatic species

and designated and proposed critical habitats known to occur on or in the vicinity of the VEGP

site. The only Federally listed aquatic species known to occur in the Savannah River in the

vicinity of the VEGP site is the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) (NMFS 2006).

There are no candidate species present or designated critical habitat. However, the Atlantic

sturgeon (A. oxyrinchus) is considered a species of concern by NOAA. Species of concern are

not protected under the Endangered Species Act, but concerns about their status indicate that

they may warrant listing in the future. Both the Atlantic sturgeon and the shortnose sturgeon are

anadromous; that is, they ascend coastal rivers to spawn. More is known about the life history

of the shortnose sturgeon than that of the Atlantic sturgeon in the southeastern United States

(Collins and Smith 1997).

Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)

The shortnose sturgeon is a member of the Family Acipenseridae, a long-lived group of ancient

anadromous and freshwater fishes. The species is currently known by at least 19 distinct

populations inhabiting 25 river systems ranging from New Brunswick, Canada, to northern

Florida (NMFS 1998). The shortnose sturgeon was originally listed as an endangered species

by the FWS on March 11, 1967, under the Endangered Species Preservation Act (32 FR 4001).

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) assumed jurisdiction for the shortnose sturgeon

in 1974.

Dadswell et al. (1984) provided a synopsis of biological data for the shortnose sturgeon.

Juvenile shortnose sturgeon eat available benthic crustaceans or insects. Adult shortnose

sturgeon, from freshwater portions of the Winyah Bay estuary in South Carolina, eat largely

molluscs; however, crustaceans and aquatic insects were also observed as a food source.

The age at sexual maturity for shortnose sturgeon varies from the north to the south

(Dadswell et al. 1984). Age of first maturation of males possibly occurs at 2 to 3 years old in

Georgia. Females mature at age 6 or younger in Georgia. Temperature is probably the major

factor governing spawning. All sources referenced by Dadswell et al. (1984) reported shortnose

August 2008 2-89 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

sturgeon spawning to occur between 90 and 120C (50°F and 540F). Other factors influencing

spawning are the occurrence of freshets (i.e., increased freshwater flow resulting from sudden

rain or melting snow) and substrate characteristics. Spawning grounds were described as being

in regions of fast flow (40 to 60 cm/s [1.3 to 2.0 ft/sec]) with gravel or rubble bottoms. The

locations are generally well upriver of the summer foraging and nursery grounds (rkm 100 to 200

[RM 62 to 124]). Although inconsistent with oberservations from other spawning studies,.

Dadswell et al. (1984) cited unpublished data that reported that in South Carolina, spawning

occurred in flooded, hardwood swamps along inland portions of the rivers (including the

Savannah River) (Dadswell et al. 1984).

Shortnose sturgeon eggs are demersal and adhesive after fertilization, sinking quickly and

adhering to sticks, stones, gravel and rubble on the stream bottom. Hatchlings (less than a day

old) were rheotactic, photonegative, benthic, and vigorously sought cover. If they were denied

cover, they exhibited vertical swim-up and drift behavior until cover was found. Older embryos

(1 to 8 days old) exhibited the same behaviors as hatchlings, and when denied cover would

search along the bottom until cover was found. Between 9 and 16 days old, the larvae left

cover and were positively rheotactic and photopositive. Three-quarters of the larvae left the

bottom cover and swam in the water column (Richmond and Kynard 1995).

A recent investigation was conducted to determine any differences in larval behavior resulting

from latitudinal variation from shortnose sturgeon populations in the Connecticut River in

Massachusetts and the populations in the Savannah River. Specific parameters investigated

included habitat preference and dispersal and diel activity and timing for early life stages of

shortnose sturgeon. Yolk sac larvae from both rivers preferred dark habitat and used rock

cover. The use of cover decreased with age until Day 13, when all fish were foraging in the

open, although they generally stayed near the bottom. The shortnose sturgeon larvae showed

an ontogenic behavioral shift to preferring bright, open habitat. Both groups showed some

downstream movement as yolk-sac larvae. The Savannah River shortnose sturgeon used rock

cover less in the first few days after hatching. Fish continued a low-level of downstream

movement for the whole larval period and as early juveniles. Laboratory studies by Parker

(2007) showed that during the first 30 days, larvae consistently swam to a mean height of 67 to

117 cm (26.4 to 46.0 in.).

Shortnose sturgeon were discovered in the lower Savannah River in the late 1970s (Dadswell

et al. 1984). From 1984 to 1992 more than 100,000 sturgeon (18percent of which were tagged)

were stocked in the Savannah River (Smith et al. 2001) by the Marine Resources Research

Institute of South Carolina's Department of Natural Resources. Information collected during the

stocking efforts in the Savannah River and shortly thereafter indicated that stocked juveniles

comprised a minimum of 35.4 percent of the juvenile population in the lower river nursery area.

Based on records of marked fish and results from double tagging studies, it was estimated that

at least 37.7 percent of the adult population in the Savannah River during the 1997 to 2000 time

frame was comprised of stocked fish. Population estimates indicate that the adult population is

NUREG-1872 2-90 August 2008
Affected Environment

increasing, but juveniles are still rare. Smith et al. (2001) attributed this to a recruitment

bottleneck in the early life stages and in part because of water-quality degradation in the nursery

habitat in the lower Savannah River (Smith et al. 2001). Collins et al. (2002) indicates the

nursery habitat for juvenile shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River is in the lower river

approximately from rkm 31.5 (RM 19.6) to rkm 47.5 (RM 29.5), which is well distant from the

VEGP site.

Shortnose sturgeon larvae were collected in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site during

ichthyoplankton surveys conducted from 1982 to 1985. Differentiating shortnose sturgeon

larvae from Atlantic sturgeon larvae can be difficult based on their similar appearance.

However, a total of 12 of the 43 sturgeon larvae collected were identified as shortnose sturgeon.

Four of the shortnose sturgeon larvae were taken from the river downstream from the VEGP

site between rkm 128 and 193 (RM 79.9 and 120). The remaining eight shortnose sturgeon

larvae were taken above the VEGP site between rkm 250 and rkm 269 (RM 155.4 and

RM 166.6). The shortnose sturgeon larvae were taken during March and the Atlantic sturgeon

larvae during April (Paller et al. 1986). Wike (1998) investigated the potential effect of increased

Savannah River Site river water withdrawal (an additional 694 Us [11,000 gpm] from the river)

on the shortnose sturgeon population and concluded that the existing and proposed operations

at Savannah River Site would not jeopardize the continued existence of the shortnose sturgeon

in the Savannah River.

Collins and Smith (1993) captured 626 adult shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River from

1984 to 1992. They found significantly more fish in the lower river between rkm 42 (RM 26) and

rkm 75 (RM 47) than in the upper river between rkm 160 (RM 99) to rkm 299 (RM 186).

Twenty-four adults shortnose sturgeon were implanted with radio transmitters. Telemetry data

indicated that only a portion of the population participated in the upriver spawning migration.

Migrating sturgeon began moving upriver in late January to mid-March traveling at speeds of up

to 50 km (31 mi) per day. Hall et al. (-1991) also performed telemetry studies to determine

seasonal movements and habitat areas of adult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon. They reported

upriver spawning migrations from mid-February to mid-March when temperatures ranged from

9 to 120C (50 to 54 0F). Migration rates were as high as 33 km (21 mi) per day.

The area near the VEGP site located at rkm 241 to 244 (RM 150 to 152), has not been identified

as a known or suspected spawning site. Probable spawning sites were identified by monitoring

the movement of adult shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River. Hall et al. (1991) reported

two areas, one downstream of the VEGP site (rkm 179 to 190 [RM 111 to 118]) and one

upstream (rkm 275 to 278 [RM 171 to 172]) had repeatedly served as the destinations of

migrating adult fish and were occupied for several days during the spawning season. Thus they

were identified as probable spawning sites. Collins and Smith (1993) reported a probable

spawning location between rkm 179 and 228 (RM 111 and 142). Figure 2-14 illustrates the

location of the probable spawning sites for the shortnose sturgeon in relation to the VEGP site.

August 2008 2-91 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Figure 2-14. Shortnose Sturgeon Probable Spawning Within an 80 km (50 mi) Radius of the

VEGP Site (based on data from Hall et al. 1991; Collins and Smith 1993)

NUREG-1872 2-92 August 2008
Affected Environment

Hall et al. (1991) described the environment at these two locations. They indicated that the

substrate in the river bend portions of these locations was distinctly different from the other

sections of the river. The sharp river bends were characterized by "...submerged timber, with

scoured sand, clay, and gravel assubstrate." The outside banks were hardpacked clay, which

was scoured by the swift currents, preventing any sediment accumulation. Fish located in the

spawning areas were always situated in the main channel. Hall reported that the maximum

depths in the river bends of these two areas were 6 to 9 m (20 to 30 feet) and current velocities

ranged from 52 to 104 cm/s (1.7 to 3.4 ft/s) at the surface. Bottom velocities during the

spawning season averaged 82 cm/s (2.7 ft/s). Hall theorized that the sharp bends in certain

sections of the Savannah River create the necessary velocity and turbulence for spawning.

Substrate in the area provided suitable attachment for the highly adhesive eggs. Dadswell et al.

(1984) and Buckley and Kynard (1985) had reported that spawning is usually associated with

areas where the predominant substrate is composed of gravel, rubble, and cobble. Hall et al.

(1991) indicated that their visual observations of the bend areas in the suspected spawning

grounds in the Savannah River confirmed the presence of such materials. Collins and Smith

(1993) also reported that the probable spawning areas contain sharp bends with strong

currents, submerged timber, and a substrate of gravel, clay, and sand.

It is unlikely that spawning activity occurs in the vicinity of the VEGP site because the substrate,

the depth and the sinuosity of the river is unlike the characteristics observed in the identified

spawning areas.

2.7.2.3 Aquatic Ecology Monitoring

This section describes the analysis and evaluation of Southern's preapplication monitoring

programs.

The NRC does not impose conditions of operation, including monitoring requirements, in the

area of water quality. Regulation of water quality is implemented by an NPDES permit issued

by the EPA or the states (in this case, Georgia). The NRC's role in water quality is limited to

assessing aquatic impacts as part of its National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

evaluation.

The current NPDES permit does not require monitoring of aquatic ecological resources. There

are no requirements in the license for the current VEGP Units 1 and 2 to do any monitoring of

aquatic resources including specific aquatic ecological monitoring of the algal community,

benthic invertebrates or fish. However, the VEGP Units 1 and 2 Environmental Protection Plan,

Appendix B to VEGP operating licenses nuclear power facility (NPF) 68 and NPF 81,

Section 4.1, entitled "Unusual or Important Environmental Events" requires NRC notification of

any unusual environmental events, citing specific fish kills or impingement events at the plant.

To date, no such report has been submitted for VEGP Units 1 and 2.

August 2008 2-93 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Monitoring of the aquatic ecology in the Savannah River near the VEGP site was part of

preconstruction monitoring for VEGP Units 1 and 2. Preconstruction monitoring of the fish

population occurred in May and September of 1972 (AEC 1974). Sampling of benthic

invertebrates occurred on October 1971, January 1972, and February 1972. Aquatic

macrophytes were also surveyed in October 1972 (AEC 1974). Preoperational monitoring was

conducted from October 1971 to November 1981. During this time GPC conducted various

studies in the Savannah River in the vicinity of the VEGP site to obtain information on the

species composition, trophic relationships, relative abundance, and the reproductive cycle of the

aquatic community (NRC 1985). GPC conducted larval fish studies from January through

August 1974 (Wiltz 1983), studies of adult fish from September 1977 through December 1978,

feeding habit studies from October 1980 through September 1981 (Wiltz and Miracle 1982),

macroinvertebrate drift studies in the Savannah River from September 1980 through

August 1981 (Nichols 1983), and surveys of plankton from January 1981 through

September 1981 (NRC 1985).

Southern initiated impingement monitoring at VEGP Units 1 and 2 in March 2008. The applicant

is conducting 24-hour, bi-weekly (once every two weeks) impingement sampling at the VEGP

Units 1 and 2 cooling water intake structure to identify and enumerate fish impingement rates

(Southern 2008e). The impingement monitoring will be performed every 2 weeks for

approximately one year. The sampling consists of two 12-hour sampling periods. As of

May 23, 2008, 6 of the 24 impingement monitoring events had been completed. All fish and

shellfish collected on the screens have been or will be identified and enumerated.

Entrainment monitoring of the VEGP Units 1 and 2 is also currently being conducted to estimate

the species composition and density of ichthyoplankton entrained by the Units 1 and 2 cooling

water withdrawals (Southern 2008e). The study began in spring 2008 and will be performed

once every 2 weeks through June 2008 or longer if the water temperatures continue to be

optimal for spawning. Sampling in the Savannah River upstream of the Units 1 and 2 intake

canal is being conducted to provide site-specific background ichthyoplankton values.

Ichthyoplankton samples are collected every 6 hours and composited into one 12-hour "day"

and one 12-hour "night" sample.

The GPC also conducted studies to assess the effect of plant construction activities on the

resident aquatic fauna of Beaverdam Creek. These studies began in July 1973 and continued

during construction at approximately 6-week intervals from July 1973 to February 1975 and from

May 1976 to June 1978. The purpose of the study was to determine the environmental effects

of plant construction (erosion and siltation) on the aquatic macro-invertebrate community in

Beaverdam Creek. The effects of siltation from access road construction and other land grading

activities were also examined. The results of the study showed that plant construction had little

or no impact on the aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna of Beaverdam Creek (Staats 1983).

Species composition at stations that were affected by access road construction became

NUREG-1872 2-94 August 2008
Affected Environment

increasingly similar to those of control stations within approximately a year and a half after the

construction.

Two other studies evaluated the fish located in Beaverdam Creek. The first study investigated

the potential for anadromous fish to spawn in Beaverdam Creek (Wiltz 1982a). The only

anadromous species they found was the blueback herring, although the creek is also suitable for

hickory shad. The second study examined the potential effects of siltation and sedimentation on

resident fish populations over a two-year period (1977 and 1978) (Wiltz 1982b).

Southern did not conduct surveys for Federally listed aquatic threatened and endangered or

proposed species or of designated or proposed critical habitats, because other than the

shortnose sturgeon, which has been well studied in the portion of the Savannah River in the

vicinity of the site, there are no Federally listed species and no designated or proposed critical

habitats.

2.8 Socioeconomics

This section describes the socioeconomic baseline of the proposed site. It describes the

characteristics of the region surrounding the VEGP site, including population demographics,

regional economic characteristics, and community infrastructure that form the basis for

assessing the potential social and economic impacts from the construction and operation of the

proposed two new nuclear units on the VEGP site.

These impacts are for the region(a) surrounding the proposed site. This discussion focuses on

the socioeconomic characteristics of Burke, Richmond, and Columbia Counties, although it

considers the entire region within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the proposed site. The scope of the

review of community characteristics is guided by the magnitude and nature of the expected

impacts of construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed project and by those

site-specific community characteristics that can be expected to be affected by these impacts.(b)

The population data for the analytical area are based on the 2000 U.S. Census data and

estimated with SECPOP 2000, a computer program that calculates population by emergency

planning zone sectors (Southern 2008a). In addition, the NRC staff analyzed the economic,

employment, and population trends for the region using additional U.S. Census data sets and

population projections from the Georgia Office of Planning and Budget Policy.

(a) For the purposes of the EIS, the relevant region is limited to that area necessary to include social

and economic baseline data for (1) the county in which the proposed plant would be located and

(2) those specific portions of surrounding counties and urbanized areas (generally, up to 80 km

[50 mi] from the station site) from which the construction/operations workforce would be principally

drawn, or that would receive stresses to community services from in-migrating

construction/operations workers.

(b) Table G-3 in Appendix G provides summary statistics for all counties within an 80-km (50-mi) radius

of the VEGP site that were used to assist in narrowing the scope to assess socioeconomic impacts.

August 2008 2-95 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

The analytical area is an 80-km (50-mi) circle centered on the proposed powerblock and

includes all or a portion of 28 counties in Georgia and South Carolina. Table 2-1 1 identifies the

counties and some summary geographic and demographic information for each county.

Figure 2-2 shows a map of the analytical area.

Table 2-11. Counties within 80 km (50 mi) of the Proposed VEGP Site

Number of Largest Town/City within County

Current Population

County

Bulloch

Burke

Candler

Columbia

Effingham

Emanuel

Glascock

Jefferson

Jenkins

Johnson

Lincoln

McDuffie

Richmond

State

GA

GA

GA

GA

GA

GA

GA

GA

GA

GA

GA

GA

GA

VEGP

Employees

(2005)

10

170

2

289

0

12

2

13

16

2

3

3

224

Density

per mi2

(2000)

82.1

26.8

38.8

307.9

78.3

31.8

17.7

32.7

24.5

28.1

39.5

81.7

616.5

Name

Statesboro

Waynesboro

Metter

Martinez

Rincon

Swainsboro

Gibson

Louisville

Millen

Wrightsville

Lincolnton

Thomson

Augusta-Richmond

County

Sylvania

Warrenton

Sandersville

Aiken

Allendale

Bamberg

Barnwell

Walterboro

Edgefield

Hampton

Ridgeland

West Columbia

McCormick

Orangeburg

Saluda

Population

22,698

5813

3879

27,749

4376

6943

694

2712

3492

2223

1595

6828

195,182

2675

2013

6144

25,337

4052

3733

5035

5153

4449

2837

2518

13,064

1489

12,765

3066

Driving

Distance

to VEGP

58.8

16.8

64

37

75.6

57.6

60.2

41.2

32.9

70.9

85

61.1

32.5

35.3

72.3

66.9

47.9

39.9

66.6

57.1

91.7

64.1

55.1

85.6

106.9

71.1

84.6

78.6

Median

income

(1999)

$29,499

$27,877

$25,022

$55,682

$46,505

$24,383

$29,743

$26,120

$24,025

$23,848

$31,952

$31,920

$33,086

Screven GA

Warren GA

Washington GA

Aiken SC

Allendale SC

Bamberg SC

Barnwell SC

Colleton SC

Edgefield SC

Hampton SC

Jasper SC

Lexington SC

McCormick SC

Orangeburg SC

Saluda SC

Source: Southern 2007c

58

0

1

37

1

2

4

0

1

0

0

0

4

0

0

23.7

22.2

31.1

132.9-

27.5

42.4

42.8

36.2

49

38.2

31.5

308.9

27.7

82.8

42.4

$29,312

$27,366

$29,910

$37,889

$20,898

$24,007

$28,591

$29,733

$35,146

$28,771

$30,727

$44,659

$31,577

$29,567

$35,774

2.8.1 Demographics

For the purposes of this analysis, the staff divided the total population within the analytical area

into three major groups: residents who live permanently in the area; transients who may

temporarily live in the area but have a permanent residence elsewhere, and migrant workers

who travel into the area to work for some period of time and then leave after their job is done.

NUREG-1872 2-96 August 2008
Affected Environment

Transients and migrant workers are not fully characterized by the U.S. Census, which generally

captures only resident populations.

2.8.1.1 Resident Population

Figure 2-15 shows the estimated population in 2000 within 80 km (50 mi) of the center of the

proposed VEGP site. The location of the powerblock represents the center of the 80-km radius

circle mapped on Figure 2-15, with concentric circles in 16-km (10-mi) increments up to 80 km

(50 mi) from the proposed location. Population data for the area surrounding the VEGP site

indicate low-population densities and a rural setting. Contributing to the population sparseness

near the plant is the Savannah River Site, a secured U.S. Government facility with no

permanent residents across the Savannah River and adjacent to the plant in neighboring South

Carolina. The Savannah River Site occupies approximately 803 km2 (310 mi 2

), approximately

20 percent of which lies within a 32-km (20-mi) radius of the VEGP site, principally in Aiken and

Barnwell Counties. The only population center within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP site is Girard,

Georgia, approximately 13 km (8 mi) to the southeast with a population of 227 (USCB 2007a).

Three larger towns are within 32 km (20 mi) of the VEGP site, including Waynesboro

(population 5813) and Sardis (population 1171) to the west and south of the plant in Georgia,

and Jackson (population 1625) to the north of the plant in South Carolina. As shown in

Figure 2-15, the more densely populated areas in the region are more than 32 km (20 mi) from

the proposed site along the Interstate-20 (1-20) corridor. Augusta, located in Georgia to the

northwest of the plant, and North Augusta and Aiken, both located to the north of the plant in

South Carolina, have the largest populations with 195,102 people, 17,574 people, and

25,337 people, respectively.

Augusta, Georgia, is the largest metropolitan area within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the VEGP

site, and most of the current 862 VEGP employees live in Augusta, its suburban communities,

or in unincorporated sections of Columbia and Richmond Counties. The towns neighboring

Augusta, such as Evans (population 17,727), and Hephzibah (population 3880) in Georgia; and

North Augusta (population 17,574) and Aiken (population 25,337) in South Carolina have also

experienced a high rate of suburban growth in recent years. Outside the Augusta area, there

are a few small towns, such as Waynesboro (population 5813), which have town centers,

shopping, and several services. There are also several rural communities, similar to Girard

(population 227), that provide limited services (Southern 2006d; USCB 2007a).

Table 2-12 provides population totals for Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties and the

State of Georgia from 1970 through 2000 and estimated population projections for these areas

through 2015, based on estimates developed by the State of Georgia's Office of Planning and

Budget. Additional population estimates and projections for counties throughout the analytical

area are found in Appendix G (includes projected populations by sector through 2090). The

August 2008 2-97 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

\ S 0 U T H

CAROLINA

G E 0 R G I A

Vogiue 1FSP ~

- "Irl.k~

Figure 2-15.

NUREG-1872

Estimated Population in 2000 within 80

(USCB 2000)

km (50 mi) of the VEGP Site

2-98 August 2008
Affected Environment

population projection methodology used for the sector population analysis is provided in

Section 2.5 of Southern's ER (Southern 2008a).

Table 2-12. Population Growth in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties (1970 to 2015)(a)

Burke County Richmond County Columbia County Georgia

Annual Annual Annual Annual

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Year Pop Growth Pop Growth Pop Growth Pop Growth

1970 18,255 - 162,437 - 22,327 -- 4,589,575 N/A

1980 19,349 0.6 181,629 1.1 40,118 6.0 5,463,105 1.8

1990 20,579 0.6 189,719 0.4 66,031 5.1 6,478,216 1.7

2000 22,243 0.8 199,775 0.5 89,288 3.1 8,186,453 2.4

2010 (est.) 24,561 1.0 193,914 -0.3 116,642 2.7 9,864,970 1.9

2015 (est.) 25,765 1.0 191,563 -0.2 132,303 2.6 10,813,573 1.9

Source: Southern 2008a

Historic population numbers come from U.S. Census data and future population projections were developed by

Georgia Office of Planning and Budget Policy (GOPBP 2005).

2.8.1.2 Transient Population

Transients include people who work in or visit large workplaces, schools, hospitals and nursing

homes, correctional facilities, hotels and motels, and at recreational areas or special events

where there may be seasonal and workday variations in population. With the exception of the

Savannah River Site, no significant industrial or commercial facilities are located within a 16-km

(10-mi) radius of the VEGP site. Transient population estimates up to a 16-km (10-mi) radius

around the VEGP site are included in Table G-3, of Appendix G. The Savannah River Site

employs approximately 11,000 people and maintains its own emergency plan; thus, Savannah

River Site employees are excluded from VEGP's analysis of transient populations for

emergency planning (Southern 2008a).

Workplace transients within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the plant are found primarily in Fort

Gordon, several industries along the Savannah River, hospitals and nursing homes in the

region, schools and colleges, correctional facilities, and numerous hotels. In addition,

recreational parks in the area attract thousands of visitors each year. Magnolia Springs, the

state park nearest the VEGP site, had 120,500 visitors in 2004. Redcliffe Plantation, the next

closest state park, had 2500 visitors in 2004. During the 2004 hunting season, 3100 hunters

visited Crackerneck Wildlife Management Area on the Savannah River Site (see Figure 2-16,

Recreational Areas within 80 km [50 mi] of the VEGP site) (Southern 2008a).

August 2008 2-99 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Voganaenl AeS ;

Rut ý, s oo m i i 

I Figure 2-16. Recreational Areas within 80 km (50 mi) of the VEGP Site (Southern 2008a)

NUREG-1872 2-100 August 2008
Affected Environment

2.8.1.3 Migrant Labor

The U.S. Census Bureau defines a migrant laborer as someone who is working seasonally or

temporarily and moves one or more times from one place to another to perform seasonal or

temporary employment. During the VEGP scheduled refueling outages, there is an influx of

construction migrant labor to the area who are hired by VEGP to carry out fuel reloading

activities, equipment maintenance, and other projects associated with the outage. VEGP

employs approximately 800 workers for one month during every refueling outage, which occurs

every 18 months for each unit. Southern considers this migrant population as part of its VEGP

emergency planning.

Because of the seasonal fluctuation of labor, the agricultural sector can be another source of

migrant laborers- The 2002 Census of Agriculture indicates the migrant population related to

agricultural work is low within 80 km (50 mi) of the proposed site, and only McDuffie County has

.a substantial number of farms that raise relatively labor-intensive crops that employ migrant

labor (Southern 2008a).

2.8.2 Community Characteristics

The VEGP site sits in a quiet, rural area with several small towns located within 32 km (20 mi) of

the plant. With the exception of Aiken County, about half of the population in any county around

the VEGP site is minority (primarily African American). Between one-fifth and one-third of the

households in these counties have median incomes below the poverty level. Burke County and

the five counties closest to the site are described in terms of racial characteristics and income

level in Table 2-13.

Table 2-13. Minority and Low-Income Populations (2000 U.S. Census)

Percentage Percentage Below

Minority Poverty

United States 30.9 12.4

Georgia 34.9 12.6

Burke 53.5 28.7

Richmond 55.6 19.6

Screven 46.8 20.1

South Carolina 32.8 14.1

Aiken 29.6 13.8

Allendale 73.0 34.5

Barnwell 45.2 20.9

Source: USCB 2007a

August 2008 2-101 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Further discussion of the demographic composition of the analytical area can be found under

"Environmental Justice" in Section 2.10. The remainder of this section addresses community

characteristics including the regional economy, transportation networks and infrastructure,

taxes, aesthetics and recreation, housing, community infrastructure and public services, and

education.

2.8.2.1 Economy

The principal economic centers in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties include Augusta

(Richmond County), Martinez (Columbia County), Evans (Columbia County), and Waynesboro

(Burke County). The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reports service industries in Augusta,

Martinez, Evans, and Waynesboro (Burke County) employ the most workers (28.5 percent of

employment) of any sector in the region. Other important sectors of employment include

government (24.4 percent); retail trade (18 percent); manufacturing (10.3 percent), and

construction (5.9 percent). In the last decade, the transportation and utilities sectors and

service industries had the largest growth rates, while mining, wholesale trade, farming, and

construction declined during these same years (Southern 2008a).

Although no single employer dominates the region, two of the largest employers in the area are

the U.S. Army's Fort Gordon, employing 12,000 military and 5000 civilian workers, and DOE's

Savannah River Site, which employs 11,000 workers. Augusta is home to a large medical

school and medical complex that is a major source of employment and also fosters affiliated

industries such as pharmaceuticals, diagnostic equipment, and medical supplies (Southern

2008a).

Approximately 860 full-time employees currently are employed on the VEGP site, with an

additional 1000 contract workers onsite during maintenance outages. Southern is the largest

employer in Burke County. Approximately 80 percent of the employees live in three counties:

Burke (20 percent), Richmond (26 percent), and Columbia (34 percent). The staff used the

distribution of VEGP's employees as the basis for several demographic assumptions in its

economic impact assessment discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this EIS. Table 2-14 shows

where the VEGP site's employees lived in 2006.

Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties have a diversified, expanding industry base.

Manufacturing firms in the three counties produce a variety of products from disposable diapers

to golf carts. The area has two natural resource assets: wood and kaolin. Forestry companies

manufacture wood products including paper products, pulpwood, furniture, and flooring. There

are several textile firms in the area that manufacture fabrics and apparel. Although

manufacturing is a large employment sector, no single manufacturing firm ranks among the top

10 employers in the region (Southern 2008a).

NUREG-1872 2-102 August 2008
Affected Environment

Table 2-14. Residence Locations of the Workforce at the VEGP Site (June 2006)

County Workforce Number Percent of Workforce

Columbia 289 34

Richmond 224 26

Burke 170 20

Screven 58 7

Aiken 37 4

Jenkins 16 2

Jefferson 13 2

Emanuel 12 1

Bulloch 10 1

Other Counties 33 3

Total 862 100.0

Source: Southern 2006d

Table 2-15 shows the number of workers employed and the unemployment rates for Burke,

Columbia, and Richmond Counties and the State of Georgia for 1995 and 2005. These data

show the number of employed workers in Burke County increased between 1995 and 2005 by

more than 24 percent. The number of employed workers has also increased significantly in

Columbia County in approximately the same proportion as the county's population growth.

During the same time period, the unemployment rate in Burke County decreased from

13.7 percent to 7.7 percent while the unemployment rate in Richmond and Columbia Counties

remained relatively unchanged (USBLS 2007).

Table 2-15. Employment Changes in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties (1995 to 2005)

Workers Workers Percentage Change Percentage Percentage

Employed(a) Employed(b) in Workers Unemployment Unemployment

Region 1995 2005 Employed 1995-2005 Rate 1995 Rate 2005

Burke County 7516 9374 24.7 13.7 7.7 -

Columbia .County 38,567 53,098 37.7 4.1 4.4

Richmond County 75,814 84,793 5.0 7.1 7.1

County Totals 121,897 147,265 20.8

Georgia 3,522,905 4,384,030 24.4 4.8 5.2

Source: USBLS 2007 (available at http://data.bls.govIPDQIservlet/SurveyOutputServIet)

(a) Employed workers includes both part-time and full-time employment

(b) Unemployed workers includes all workers without employment who are available for, and seeking employment

2.8.2.2 Taxes

Counties, municipalities, and boards of education may impose sales taxes in addition to the

state sales tax. Burke County has its own 2 percent sales tax in addition to the Georgia state

sales tax of 4 percent. Richmond and Columbia Counties assess an additional 3 percent sales

and use tax (Southern 2008a). Counties and municipalities are authorized by the state

constitution to levy and collect a general ad valorem ("according to value") property tax.

August 2008 2-103 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Georgia law generally requires tangible real and personal property be assessed at 40 percent of

its fair market value.(a) The tax rate is stated in terms of "mills," with 10 mills equal to 1 percent

of a property's assessed value. County and city governing authorities set the property tax

(millage) rate (Southern 2008a).

Southern and the VEGP site's co-owners pay annual property taxes to Burke County.

Table 2-16 presents information on the total property taxes the VEGP site pays to Burke County,

the total property taxes collected by the county, and the percentage of the total property taxes

that are paid by the VEGP site, and the portion of Burke County's tax revenues that is disbursed

to the Burke County School District. For the 5 years between 2000 and 2004, the VEGP site

paid about 80 percent of the property tax collected in Burke County (Southern 2008a).

Table 2-16. Property Tax Information for Burke County (2000-2004)

Burke County Tax

Total Burke Revenue Disbursed to

County Property the Burke County Property Tax Paid Percent of Total

Year Tax Revenue School District by Southern ($) Property Taxes

2000 30,329,024 19,119,331 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

Source: Southern 2008a

Tax bases differ between counties in Georgia because of differences in taxable properties.

Counties that have power plants or large manufacturing plants have much greater revenueraising potential than purely agricultural counties. In terms of revenue-generating capacity per

capita (including all forms of local tax revenues), Burke County has one of the highest revenues

per capita in the state. Columbia County revenues per capita are close to the state average,

and Richmond County is somewhat below the average relative to all other counties in the state

(Matthews 2005).

2.8.2.3 Transportation

The VEGP site's transportation network includes an interstate and state highway system, two

primary freight rail carriers (CSX in South Carolina and Georgia and Norfolk Southern in

Georgia), and 16 regional airports. Augusta Bush Field Airport is the only airport that supports

commercial carrier service. Interstate 20 runs east-west through Augusta, connecting

Columbia, South Carolina, with Atlanta, Georgia. 1-520 serves as a beltway around Augusta,

connecting 1-20 with several north-south highways throughout the region, including U.S.

(a) Exceptions apply to special types of property such as historic property, conservation use property,

some agricultural use property, and standing timber.

NUREG-1872 2-104 August 2008
Affected Environment

Route 25, connecting Augusta with Waynesboro, and State Routes 56 and 23, which also

connect Augusta with rural towns to the south (Southern 2008a).

Figure 2-17 presents the major road networks throughout the region, and highlights the most

likely employee commuter routes to and from the VEGP site (as reflected by residential and

commuter patterns of current VEGP employees). Most of the roads in Columbia and Richmond

Counties are designated "urban," and all of the roads in Burke County are "rural." The level of

use and congestion on roadways is the highest in and around Augusta where annual average

daily traffic counts exceed 25,000 in certain sections of 1-20 and 1-520. In Burke County annual

average daily traffic counts are highest around Waynesboro where traffic can range from 5000

to 15,000. Outside of Waynesboro annual average daily traffic counts in Burke County are less

than 5000 (GDOT 2007).

Rail

There is no passenger rail service in Burke, Columbia, or Richmond Counties. Two primary

freight rail carriers service the three counties, CSX and Norfolk Southern. From Augusta, CSX

has three lines leading to Atlanta, Georgia; Greenwood, South Carolina, and Savannah,

Georgia (through South Carolina). From Augusta, Norfolk Southern has a rail line that goes

through Waynesboro to points south and west. Both rail lines have the capacity to run

additional trains. A 32-km (20-mi) rail spur line runs from the VEGP site to the Norfolk and

Southern line, connecting north of Waynesboro. Southern recently upgraded the spur to

support the transfer of heavy equipment to the VEGP site (Southern 2008a).

Waterway

The VEGP site is located at rkm 243 (RM 151) of the Savannah River. The Savannah River is

part of the U.S. Inland Waterway System and an authorized navigation channel exists from the

mouth of the Savannah River in Savannah, Georgia, to Augusta, Georgia. All of the major

components for VEGP Units 1 and 2 were delivered to the site by barge using the Savannah

River navigation channel.

2.8.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation

State parks and wildlife management areas (WMA) within 80 km (50 mi) of the VEGP site and

are listed in Table 2-17 and are shown in Figure 2-16. The Yuchi WMA, a 3160-ha (7800-ac)

site adjacent to the VEGP site, and the Crackerneck WMA, a 4237-ha (10,470-ac) site on the

South Carolina side of the Savannah River adjacent to the west boundary of the Savannah

River Site, are closest to the VEGP site. Both WMAs are within a 10-km (6-mi) radius of the

VEGP site, although Crackerneck is approximately 80 km (50 mi) from the site by road. Mead

Farm WMA is about 13 km (8 mi) from the VEGP site, and Alexander WMA is about 20 km

(12 mi) from the VEGP site. The closest State parks are Magnolia Springs, in Jenkins County,

August 2008 2-105 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Figure 2-17. Major Commuter Routes in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond

Counties (GDOT 2007)

NUREG-1872 2-106 August 2008
Affected Environment

Georgia (approximately 32 km (20 mi) from the VEGP site), and Redcliffe Plantation State Park

in Aiken County, South Carolina (approximately 32 km [20 mil by air from VEGP). J. Strom

Thurmond Dam and reservoir, formerly named Clarks Hill Lake, are within 80 km (50 mi) of the

VEGP site. The lake is a major recreation area for the Central Savannah River Area

(Southern 2008a). There are numerous locations and opportunities to hunt and fish in the area

on public and private land.

Festivals and sporting events throughout the region bring in tourists for several days to a week.

Major sporting events in the Augusta area are the Masters Golf Tournament, the Cutting Horse

Futurity, the Invitational Rowing Regatta, the Southern National Boat Races, and the Aiken

Triple Crown. Redcliffe Plantation hosts annual Heritage Days. Burke County hosts the

Redbreast Festival and the Georgia Bird Dog Field Trials (Southern 2008a).

VEGP Units I and 2 have natural draft cooling towers, which stand approximately 168 m (550 ft)

high and are the tallest structures at the site. On the Georgia side of the Savannah River, trees

and terrain provide barriers to viewing the containment, turbine buildings, and support structures

from the road or river, but the towers can be seen from Highways 1-520 and 56, River Road, and

parts of the Savannah River. The only structures fully visible from the river are the intake canal,

intake structure, and pumphouse (Southern 2008a).

The terrain along the Savannah River allows the plumes and, in a few cases, the towers to be

visible from the vicinity of Highway 125 in Allendale and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina; the

southern outskirts of Aiken County, and parts of 1-520 in South Carolina. Across the river from

the VEGP site's intake are three intake canals and a barge facility for the Savannah River Site

(Southern 2008a).

2.8.2.5 Housing

.Approximately 80 percent of the current VEGP site employees reside in three counties in

Georgia: Burke (20 percent), Richmond (26 percent), and Columbia (34 percent). An additional

11 percent live in either Screven or Aiken County (South Carolina) and the remaining 9 percent

are distributed across 22 other counties (see Table 2-18). Within 80 km (50 mi) of the proposed

site there are residential areas in and near cities and towns, smaller communities, and farms.

Rental property is scarce in the rural areas,but is available in the larger municipalities such as

Waynesboro, Augusta, Martinez, and Evans. In the vicinity of the VEGP site, housing units are

generally isolated, older single-family homes, manufactured homes, or mobile homes. New

residential developments are primarily located in the cities and suburbs around Augusta

(Southern 2008a)

August 2008 2-107 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Table 2-17. Recreation Areas Within 80 km (50 mi) of the VEGP Site

Overnight.

Annual Facilities?

Name Acreage Location Visitors (Yes/No)

Wildlife Management Areas (WMA)(a)

Georgia

Phinizy Swamp 1500 Richmond County NA No

Alexander 1300 Burke County NA No

DiLane 8100 Burke County NA No

Yuchi 7800 Burke County; less than 16 km from the NA No

VEGP site

Mead Farm 200 Burke County; less than 16 km from the NA No

VEGP site

Hiltonia Tract 500 Hiltonia, Screven County NA No

Tuckahoe 15,100 Sylvania, Screven County NA No

South Carolina

Crackerneck 10,470 Aiken County; less than 10 air miles 3100 No

from the VEGP site

Gopher Tortoise 1395 Aiken County NA No

Heritage Preserve

State Parks

Georgia

Magnolia Springs 1071 Millen, Jenkins County 120,500 Yes

George L. Smith 1634 Twin City, Emanuel County 44,136 Yes

Mistletoe State Park 1920 Appling, Columbia County 132,314 Yes

Wildwood Park 975 Columbia County 132,314 Yes

South Carolina

Hamilton Branch 731 Plum Branch, McCormick County 117,200 Yes

Aiken Natural Area 1067 Windsor, Aiken County 42,645 Yes

Redcliffe Plantation 369 Beech Island, Aiken County 2400 Yes

Bamwell 300 Blackville, Barnwell County 76,845 Yes

Rivers Bridge 390 Ehrhardt, Bamberg County 6027 Yes

Lake Warren 440 Hampton, Hampton County 49,962 Yes

Sources: Southern (2008a)

NA: Not Available

(a) Visitor records for WMAs not kept except for Crackerneck WMA, which is part of Savannah River Site land area.

Table 2-18. Regional Housing Information by County for the Year 2000

County

Burke

Columbia

Richmond

Screven

Aiken (SC)

Total

Total

Housing Unit

8842

33,321

82,312

6853

61,987

193,315

Occupied

7934

31,120

73,920

5797

55,587

174,355

Owner.

Occupied

6030

25,557

42,840

4513

42,036

120,976

Renter

Occupied

1904

5563

31,080

1284

13,551

53,382

Vacant

Housing

908

2201

8392

1056

6400

18,957

Percent

Vacancy

10.3

6.6

10.2

15.4

10.3

9.8

NUREG-1872 2-108 August 2008
Affected Environment

Source: Southern 2008a; USCB 2007a

Table 2-18 provides the number of housing units and vacancies for the five counties where

most VEGP site employees reside: Columbia, Richmond, Burke, Screven, and Aiken. In

2000, there were a total of 193,315 housing units in the five-county region, with an average

vacancy rate of 9.8 percent. The vacancy rate in Screven County is significantly higher than

the average rate of this five-county region, while the vacancy rate in Columbia County is lower

than the average (USCB 2000). Richmond County has more rental property than any other

county. Of the 8392 vacant housing units in Richmond County, 3739 were for rent and 1160

were for sale. In Columbia County, of the 2201 vacant housing units, 560 units were available

for rent and 760 were for sale.(a) Of 908 vacant housing units in Burke County in 2000,

167 were for rent and 77 were for sale (Southern 2008a).

2.8.2.6 Public Services

Water Supply and Waste Treatment

The VEGP site consumes approximately 3.8 million Ud (1 MGD) of water from three onsite

groundwater wells. One well generally supplies all necessary water for normal plant operation,

leaving two wells on standby. The VEGP site has permits to withdraw 20.8 million L/d

(5.5 MGD) from the three wells (Southern 2008a).

In the Central Savannah River Area, municipal water sources can be surface water (such as

rivers, lakes, and streams), or groundwater. 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 (Southern 2008a).

In the Coastal Plains of Georgia and South Carolina, two major regional aquifer systems supply

about 11 million L/d (3 MGD) of water: the lower Cretaceous aquifer system and upper Tertiary

aquifer system. The VEGP site withdraws groundwater primarily from the Cretaceous aquifer.

Most counties in the Coastal Plain, including Burke and Richmond Counties, obtain their water

from these aquifers, and some municipalities use the Savannah River to supplement their

supply. Tables 2-19 and 2-20 identify water supplies in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond

Counties, their permitted capacities, and their average daily production levels (Southern 2008a).

According to local planning officials, water supply in the three counties is not a concern. Local

communities are adequately served by the existing water supplies and planners estimate that

the counties have adequate supply to support growth in the region (Southern 2008a).

(a) U.S. Census classifications of vacant homes includes the following: for rent, rented but not yet

occupied, for sale only, sold but not yet occupied, vacation home, migrant housing, other.

August 2008 2-109 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Local governments provide wastewater treatment and each municipality decides which

treatment method to use based on its needs and the technology and funds available. Currently,

municipalities in the three counties can meet their current and projected wastewater treatment

needs. Table 2-21 details public wastewater treatment systems, their permitted capacities, and

their average daily processed wastewater volume. The rural areas of each county use

individual septic systems (Southern 2008a).

Table 2-19. Water Supply System Usage and Capacity for Groundwater Withdrawals

Permitted Annual Average Reported Annual Average

Withdrawal, Million Lid Withdrawal, Million L/d Population

System Name (MGD) (MGD) Served

Burke County

Waynesboro 13.25 (3.50) 2.99 (0.79) 5813

Sardis 1.51 (0.40) 0.26 (0.07) 1152

Columbia County

Columbia County(a) 2.20 (0.58) 0.00 (0.00) 77,280

Grovetown 3.41 (0.90) 0.49 (0.13) 5500

Harlem 0.95 (0.25) 0.08 (0.02) 4290

Richmond County

Augusta-Richmond 65.87 (17.40) 31.80 (8.40) 200,000

County Water System

Hephzibah 4.54 (1.20) 1.29 (0.34) 3011

Source: Southern 2008a

(a) Columbia County system is withdrawn primarily from surface-water systems.

Table 2-20. Water Supply System Usage and Capacity for Withdrawals from Surface Water

Permitted Monthly Average Reported Monthly Average

Withdrawal, Withdrawal, Population

System Name Million Lid (MGD) Million Lid (MGD) Served

Burke County

Waynesboro 3.8 (1.0) 0.38-0.72 (0.10-0.19) 5813

Sardis(a) ..

Columbia County

Columbia County 147.6 (39.0) 31.60-67.30 (8.35-17.78) 77,280

Grovetown(a) ......

H arlem (a) ......

Richmond County

Augusta-Richmond 227.12 (60.00) 92.36-167.85 (24.40-44.34) 200,000

County Water System

Hephzibah(a) ......

Source: Southern 2008a

(a) Systems do not withdraw surface water.

I

NUREG-18722 2-110 August 2008
Affected Environment

Police, Fire, and Medical

Burke County's Sheriffs Department and Fire Department have jurisdiction over the immediate

area around the VEGP site. According to a 2005 draft planning report produced by the Central

Savannah River Area Regional Development Center, planning officials consider the current

level of police and fire protection adequate in the region (Southern 2008a).

Table 2-21. Wastewater System Usage and Capacity

Average Daily Permitted Maximum Current System Usage

Wastewater Processed Sewer Capacity as a Percent of

System Name million L/d (MGD) million L/d (MGD) Permitted Capacity (%)

Burke County

Waynesboro 3.8 (1.0) 7.6 (2.0) 50

Sardis 0.0163 (0.043) 0.76 (0.20) 2

Columbia County

Kiokee Creek 0.08 (0.02) 1.14 (0.30) 7

Crawford Creek 3.8 (1.0) 5.68 (1.50) 67

Little River 9.46 (2.50) 11.4 (3.0) 83

Reed Creek 12.49 (3.30) 17.41 (4.60) 72

Richmond County

Augusta-Richmond-J.B. 117.3 (31.0) 174.89 (46.20) 67

Messerly Plant

Source: Southern 2008a

Richmond County serves as a regional medical hub for most of the region's hospitals and

medical services, with four general hospitals, one military hospital, one mental and psychiatric

hospital, one rehabilitation hospital, and two Federal hospitals. Burke County has one general

hospital and Columbia County has no hospitals. Table 2-22 presents hospital and medical

practitioner data by county. All three counties have health departments, which provide several

basic medical services and are available to residents regardless of their ability to pay. Social

services in Georgia are overseen by the State Department of Human Resources through four

main divisions: family and children services; public health; mental health, developmental

disabilities, addictive diseases; and aging services (Southern 2008a).

2.8.2.7 Education

A total of 96 public primary and secondary schools are in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond

Counties, supporting a 2004 to 2005 student enrollment of 57,704 (see Table 2-23) (GOSA

2007). In addition, there are 24 private primary and secondary schools with a 2006 enrollment

of 5070 students. There are six four-year colleges and seven two-year colleges within an 80-km

(50-mi) radius of the VEGP site (Southern 2008a).

August 2008 2-111 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Table 2-22. Hospitals and Physicians in Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties

Hospital beds per Physicians per

County 1000 population 1000 population

Burke 1.7 0.6

Columbia 0 0.5

Richmond 10.1 6.1

Source: Southern 2008a

Table 2-23. Number of Public Schools, Students, and Student Capacity in Burke,

Columbia, and Richmond Counties

Number of Student Population

County Schools (2005)

Burke 6 4365

Columbia 30 20,181

Richmond 60 33,158

Total 96 57,704

Source: GOSA 2007

Richmond County School District is the largest of the three school districts, with more than

30,000 students enrolled in the public school system. After struggling with over-crowding issues

for several years, the district now meets the Georgia Department of Education-mandated

student-teacher ratios. The Columbia County School District services some of the highest

growth residential developments around Augusta. Of the three school districts, Columbia

County has experienced the highest rate of student enrollment growth in recent years and has

continually struggled to meet state student-teacher ratios for pre-K through fifth grade. During

the 2005 to 2006 school year, enrollment increased by more than 1000 students and was

expected to increase by approximately 800 students during the 2007 to 2008 school year. New

school construction is a high priority for the Columbia County Board of Education.(a) Burke

County School District is the smallest of the three and has excess capacity. The Burke County

School District office estimates a current (2006 to 2007 school year) excess capacity of about

17 percent, meaning the district could support an additional 700 to 800 students.(b)

2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the NEPA process to comply with

the obligations imposed under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as

amended (NHPA). The NRC has determined that the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the ESP

(a) Data provided by Columbia County School District office in e-mail from Pam Zgutowicz, March 5,

2007. Accession No. ML072290140.

(b) Data provided by Burke County School District office in e-mail from Wilbert Roberts, Assistant

District Superintendent, March 6, 2007. Accession No. ML072290177.

NUREG-1872 2-112 August 2008
Affected Environment

review is the area at the power plant site and the immediate environs that may be impacted by

land-disturbing activities associated with the construction and operation of the new unit(s), and

construction and operation of a new transmission line that may be constructed to connect the

new VEGP units with the existing electrical grid.

This section discusses the historic and cultural background in the VEGP site region. It also

details the efforts that have been taken to identify cultural resources in the APE and the

resources that were identified. A description of the consultation efforts accomplished to

date is also provided. The assessments of effects from the proposed construction and

operation are found in Sections 4.6 and 5.6, respectively.

2.9.1 Cultural Background

The area in and around the VEGP site has a rich cultural history and a substantial record of

significant prehistoric and historic resources (NSA'2006a,b). The Savannah River system flows

through the area and influenced settlement in the area. The record indicates that prehistoric

occupation of the area was as follows:

" Paleoindian (Prior to 7800 B.C.) - Minimal evidence from this time period has been found.

Of particular interest is speculation that the Topper site, located approximately 40 km (25 mi)

downstream in South Carolina, may document the presence of human settlement as far as

50,000 years ago.

* Archaic (7800 B.C. to 1050 B.C.) - During this period, people appear to have become more

sedentary and particularly adept at exploiting resources found within their environment. The

period is characterized by fine-tempered pottery and shell middens.

* Woodland (1050 B.C. to 800 A.D.) - Settlement size increased as the people developed

agricultural methods. Evidence of food preservation and storage is found.

* Mississipian (800 A.D. to 1450 A.D.) - The period is characterized by ceremonial mounds,

along with large agriculturally based settlements, generally considered to have been

controlled by chiefdoms.

* Post-1450 A.D. - Chiefdoms dissolved and the settlement in the area dispersed. As EuroAmericans moved into the area, the area was further depopulated, while some intermarriage

between the Euro- and Native Americans occurred.

When Euro-Americans arrived in the area in the 17 th and 1 8 th centuries, the area was occupied

by American Indian groups descended from the earlier chiefdoms that populated the

southeastern United States. New South Associates (2006a) identifies American Indians in the

general VEGP area as ancestors of groups later called Creeks and Seminoles.

August 2008 2-113 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

The European colonization of Georgia began in the early 1700s. Burke County was formed in

1777. A 1780 map shows two settlements in the VEGP site area: Telfare's Plantation and

Mathew's Bluff. These and others settlements appear on maps into the 2 0 th century. Limited

activities associated with the Civil War occurred in Burke County. Following the war, plantations

evolved into large farms, an economic strategy that continues today. Since the 1920s, farming

acreage has shifted from cotton to corn and more recently to soybeans and wheat (NSA 2006a).

2.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the VEGP Site

To identify the historic and cultural resources at the VEGP site and associated transmission

lines, the following information was used:

" Original FES - An archaeological assessment was conducted in the early 1970s before the

construction of the original unit (Honerkamp 1973). Seven sites were identified (9BK21,

9BK22, 9BK1/20, 9BK23, 9BK24, 9BK25, 9BK26). None of the resources were considered

important enough to further investigate before construction of the first VEGP plant

(AEC 1974, NRC 1985).

* VEGP ER - Southern's contractor, TetraTech, subcontracted with New South Associates

(NSA), a cultural resource contractor to identify and evaluate cultural resource sites in the

area (NSA 2006a,b; 2007, 2008).

* Transmission Line Right-of-Way Study - A study of possible transmission line rights-of-way

was conducted to address cultural resource issues (GPC 2007).

" NRC Audit - NRC staff conducted a records search at the Georgia Archaeological Site Files

and also conducted an on-the-ground visit of the VEGP site.

To comply with NRC guidance, National Register-eligible archaeological sites, structures,

buildings, and districts located within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP site and within set distances of

the transmission lines were identified (NSA 2006a,b). Twenty-six sites and 14 buildings were

identified. Most of the areas within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP site or transmission lines have

not been systematically surveyed; therefore, this information does not reflect the general cultural

sensitivity of the area.

To identify on-plant resources within the APE, NSA identified and evaluated cultural resources

located within the proposed construction areas at the plant. NSA performed its surveys and

shovel tests in 2006 in 16 areas (NSA 2006a). Ten new archaeological sites were located. Site

forms were completed for the sites and submitted to the Georgia Office of Historic Preservation.

New South Associates recommended that two of the sites (9BK41!6 and 9BK423) were eligible

for listing in the National Register, six sites were not eligible (9BK414, 9BK415, 9BK417,

9BK418, 9BK419, 9BK420), and two sites required additional information before an evaluation

could be completed (9BK421, 9BK422) (NSA 2006a,b) (Table 2-24). The Georgia State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with this assessment (GDNR 2006c).

NUREG-1872 2-114 August 2008
Affected Environment

Table 2-24. Archaeological Sites Identified Within the VEGP Site

Site NumberTa Eligibility•D) Description

9BK414 Not Eligible Historic homesite

9BK415 Not Eligible Historic homesite

9BK416 Eligible Large multicomponent prehistoric site

9BK417 Not Eligible Liquor still

9BK418 Not Eligible Undiagnostic lithic scatter

9BK419 Potentially Eligible Woodland prehistoric site

9BK420 Potentially Eligible Undiagnostic lithic scatter.

9BK421 Not Eligible Undiagnostic lithic scatter

9BK422 Not Eligible Historic andprehistoric scatter

9BK423 Eligible Multicomponent prehistoric site

9BK459 Not Eligible Undiagnostic lithic scatter

9BK460 Not Eligible Woodland prehistoric site

9BK461 Not Eligible Undiagnostic lithic scatter

9BK462 Not Eligible Undiagnostic lithic scatter

9BK463 Not Eligible Undiagnostic lithic scatter

9BK464 Not Eligible Undiagnostic lithic scatter

9BK465 Not Eligible Undiagnostic lithic scatter

Sources: Southern 2008a; New South Associates 2006b; GDNR 2007f

(a) The Smithsonian numbering system for archaeological sites.

(b) Eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the National Park Service,

U.S. Department of Interior)

Subsequent to the initial work, NSA returned to complete surveys in one additional area

(NSA 2006b). Seven new sites were identified (9BK459 through 9BK465), all of which NSA

recommended as not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NSA 2006b).

Concurrence was received from the Georgia (GDNR 2008 - an additional reference 7/3/08

letter).

In June 2007, additional testing was conducted due to modifications of the water pipeline

associated with the proposed water intake structure. NSA conducted a Phase 1 archaeological

survey of approximately 2500 feet of proposed pipeline corridor, which included site 9BK416.

No new sites were identified during this survey. The results of the Phase 1 survey support the

original findings that site 9BK416 is a multicomponent prehistoric site that is eligible to be listed

in the NRHP (NSA 2007). NSA recommended that site 9BK416 be avoided; however, if

avoidance was not possible, further excavations would be necessary to mitigate the project's

adverse effects.

Southern determined that it would not be feasible to avoid site 9BK416 during the water pipeline

construction. As requested by the Georgia SHPO (GDNR 2008e), additional field investigation

was performed by NSA in 2008 (NSA 2008). Field investigations consisted of block excavations

designed to locate subsurface archaeological features and artifact distribution patterns. Results

August 2008 2-115 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

of the investigations were minimal, suggesting that the area to be impacted by the water

pipeline does not contain significant archaeological deposits.

Previous investigations did not discover any human remains in the proposed project areas. To

date, literature reviews and consultations with regional American Indian Tribes have not

identified any traditional cultural properties in the vicinity of the proposed construction area of

the ESP units.

No analysis of historic and cultural resources was conducted for the transmission line rights-ofway. The full extent of potential land-use impacts in the transmission line rights-of-way can be

estimated only after a specific route is defined. However, a study produced by the GPC (2007)

examined potential impacts that would result should certain transmission line rights-of-way be

selected for the new transmission line. The report included information on the recorded

archaeological sites and historic buildings located within each right-of-way.

During construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2, an important fossilized whale skeleton was

unearthed. The fossil (Georgiacetus vogtlensis) was found at a depth of 30 feet below ground

surface in a stratum known as the Blue Bluff Marl. Excavations associated with the new plant

are not expected to encounter the Blue Bluff Marl stratum, and therefore, no fossil discoveries

are anticipated (Southern 2008a).

2.9.3 Consultation

In October 2006, the NRC initiated consultations on the proposed action by writing the Georgia

SHPO, the Alabama SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Also in

October 2006, the NRC initiated consultations with 25 tribes (See Appendix C for complete

listing). In the letters, the NRC provided information about the proposed action, indicated that

review under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 would be integrated with the NEPA

process in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8, invited participation in the identification and possible

decisions concerning historic properties, and invited participation in the scoping process.

On October 19, 2006, NRC conducted a public scoping meeting in Waynesboro, Georgia. No

comments or concerns regarding historic and cultural resources were received at this meeting.

The NRC did receive letters in response to its earlier communications (Appendix F). The

Miccosukee Tribe indicated that it restricts itself to those matters within the State of Florida and

would defer to other tribes with a more direct cultural affiliation with the VEGP site. The

Alabama Historical Commission indicated that it would look forward to reviewing the project if

any alternative site located in Alabama is selected.

Following the issuance of the Vogtle DEIS, the Georgia SHPO responded to NRC

(GDNR 2007f). The only concerns expressed related to archaeological sites identified in the

NUREG-1872 2-116 August 2008
Affected Environment

DEIS for which the Georgia SHPO had no record. There have been subsequent discussions

between Georgia SHPO and Southern, which are summarized in Section 4.6.

2.10 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations.(a) The

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has provided guidance for addressing environmental

justice (CEQ 1997). Although it is not subject to the Executive Order, the Commission has

voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice reviews. On August 24, 2004, the

Commission issued its policy statement on the treatment of environmental justice matters in

licensing actions (69 FR 52040).

-This section describes the existing demographic and geographic characteristics of the proposed

site and its surrounding communities. It offers a general description of minority and low-income

populations within the region surrounding the site. The characterization in this section forms the

analytical baseline from which potential environmental justice effects would be identified. The

characterization of populations of interest includes an assessment of "populations of particular

interest or unusual circumstances," such as minority communities exceptionally dependent on

subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations, such as Native American

settlements.

2.10.1 Analysis

The staff first examined the geographic distribution of minority and low-income populations

within 80 km (50 mi) of the VEGP site, employing a geographic information system and the

2000 Census to identify minority and low-income populations. The staff verified its analysis by

field inquiries to numerous agencies and groups (see Appendix B for listing of contacts).

The staffs environmental justice methodology examines each census block group that is fully or

partially included within the analytical area to determine for each minority or low-income

population group, whether:

1. the population of interest exceeds 50 percent of the total population for the block group

2. the percentage of the population of interest is 20 percent (or more) greater than the same

population's percentage in the block group's state.

(a) Minority categories are defined as American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or

other Pacific Islander; Black races; or Hispanic ethnicity; "other" may be considered a separate

minority category. Low income refers to individuals living in households meeting the official poverty

measure.

August 2008 2-117 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

If any Census block area meets either of the above criteria, then the staff must investigate

further in that Census block area before determining whether or not the potential for a

disproportionate adverse effect exists.

Census data for Georgia (USCB 2007b) characterizes 28.7 percent of the state population as

Black races; 0.3 percent American Indian or Alaskan Native; 2.1 percent Asian; 0.1 percent

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; 2.4 percent all other single minorities; 1.4 percent

multiracial; 34.9 percent aggregate of minority races; and 5.3 percent Hispanic ethnicity. For

South Carolina, the USCB reports 29.5 percent of the state population as Black races;

0.3 percent American Indian or Alaskan Native; 0.9 percent Asian; 0.04 percent Native

Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; 1.0 percent all other single minorities; 1.0 percent multiracial; 32.8 percent aggregate of minority races; and 2.4 percent Hispanic ethnicity. I

Minority Populations: Of the 491 census block groups within 80 km (50 mi) of the VEGP site,

175 have Black races populations that exceed the state average by 20 percent or more and

171 of which have Black races populations of 50 percent or more. One census block group

within the 80-km (50-mi) radius has Hispanic ethnicity populations exceeding the state average

by 20 percent or more, but no block had a Hispanic population greater than 50 percent. No

census block group within the 80-km (50-mi) radius had any other minority classification that

met either of the two selection criteria. One hundred sixty-eight census block groups have

aggregate minority population percentages that exceed the state average by 20 percentage

points or more. One hundred and eighty-three census block groups have aggregate minority

population percentages that exceed 50 percent.(a) The geographic locations of block groups that

meet any of the minority criteria are shown in Figure 2-18.

Low-Income Populations: The staff used Census data to identify low-income households

within the analytical area. The data indicate 12.6 percent of Georgia and 14.1 percent of South

Carolina households are low income (USCB 2000). Seventy-two census blocks within an 80-km

(50-mi) radius of the proposed site exceed the state average for low-income population

households by 20 percent or more. Of those 72 block groups, 14 have 50 percent or more lowincome households. Figure 2-19 displays the geographic location of disproportionately high

populations of low-income families in census block groups.

(a) Note that because Georgia and South Carolina have relatively large percentages of aggregate

minority populations, 34.0 and 32.8 percent, respectively, adding 20 percentage points to these

averages equates to 54.9 and 52.8, respectively. Therefore, there are more census block groups

that meet the "50-percent" threshold criteria than the "20 percentage-points-greater" threshold.

NUREG-1872 2-118 August 2008
Affected Environment

Figure 2-18. Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups Meeting Environmental Justice

Selection Criteria (Southern 2008a)

August 2008 2-119 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Figure 2-19. Aggregate Low Income Populations in Block Groups Meeting Environmental

Justice Selection Criteria (Southern 2008a)

NUREG-1872 2-120 August 2008
Affected Environment

2.10.2 Scoping and Outreach

During the development of its ER, Southern interviewed community leaders of the minority

populations within the analytical area. The staff built on this base and performed additional

interviews within the analytical area that had the potential for the greatest socioeconomic

effects. Advanced notice of public hearings for the EIS scoping purposes was provided by the

staff in accordance with its guidance.(a) The staff was successful in its outreach effort to minority

and low-income populations, as evidenced by public comments from Black community leaders

at the October 19, 2006, public meeting in Waynesboro, Georgia. The activities did not identify

any additional groups of minority or low-income persons not already identified in the geographic

information system analysis of census data.

2.10.3 Health Preconditions and Special Circumstances of the Minority and

Low-Income Populations

The staffs outreach and scoping activity identified several special socioeconomic and health

circumstances and potential pathways for disproportionate health and environmental impacts,

which are analyzed in Sections 4.8, 4.9, 5.8, and 5.9. The staff gathered data on mortality

statistics of the total and Black/African American populations in Burke County and Georgia's

East Central Health District (ECHD), which includes 11 counties within the 80-kmn (50-mi) radius

of the VEGP site. Data are shown in Table 2-25. Local mortality rate data are not available by

income level.

Mortality rates for all causes of death are slightly higher in Burke County than in the state for

both total population and for Blacks/African Americans. The age-adjusted mortality rate for all

cancer-related deaths for the total population in Burke County is slightly higher than the state

average. When examining cancer deaths for African-Americans, however, the mortality rate in

Burke County is slightly lower than mortality rates for the ECHD and for the State of Georgia. In

Burke County, the Black/African American population has a lower cancer-related mortality rate

than the total population in this county; however, in many other places in the ECHD and in the

state, the cancer-related mortality rate for Blacks/African Americans is higher relative to total

population averages. BurkeCounty has slightly higher age-adjusted mortality rates for

respiratory and cardiovascular diseases for the total population and for Black/African American

populations when compared to the same rates for the ECHD and the state.

(a) "Management Directive 3.5, Attendance at NRC Staff Sponsored Meetings," NRR Office Instruction

COM-202 Rev1. Accession No. ML0518800110.

August 2008 2-121 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Table 2-25. Selected Health and Mortality Statistics for Minority and Total Population in Burke

County, the ECHD, and the State of Georgia

East Central Health

Burke County District(a) Georgia

Black/African- Black/African- Black/AfricanTotal American Total American Total American

Population Population Population Population Population Population

Selected Causes of Death (age adjusted ratesi") per 100,000 population)

All Causes 1190 1175 1034 1169 923 1072

Cancer 221 212 223 248 196 225

Respiratory 141 111 107 89 90 65

Diseases

Major 448 454 358 411 326 401

Cardiovascular

Diseases

Source: Georgia Department of Human Resources 2007

(a) Includes the following Georgia counties: Burke, Columbia, Emanuel, Glascock, Jefferson, Jenkins, Lincoln,

McDuffie, Richmond, Screven, Taliaferro, Warren, and Wilkes

(b) Age adjusted death rates are weighted averages of the age-specific mortality rates, where weights are the

proportion of persons in the corresponding age groups of a standard population.

For each location (Burke County, ECHD, and the State of Georgia) examined, the respiratory

disease-related mortality rates are lower for the Black/African-American populations than for

total populations while the cardiovascular disease-related mortality rates were higher for

African-American population than the total populations.

There is no evidence the Black/African-American population in Burke County is less healthy

than other population subgroups, and would appear to be less likely to die of cancer than

Black/African-American populations living in other parts of the state. There is no evidence in the

health and mortality statistics of any environmental conditions that make the Black/AfricanAmerican population exceptionally vulnerable in Burke County.

2.10.4 Migrant Populations

Migrant workers can 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.

The U.S. Census Bureau defines a migrant worker as an individual employed in the agricultural

industry in a seasonal or temporary nature and who is required to be absent overnight from his

or her permanent place of residence. From an environmental justice perspective, there is a

potential for such groups in some circumstances to be disproportionately affected by emissions

in the environment. However, agricultural activities within the analytical area have traditionally

NUREG-1 872 2-122 August 2008
Affected Environment

been concentrated on tobacco, corn, soy beans, and cotton. None of these products require the

intensive application of migrant labor. In addition, none of the interviews produced any mention

of migrant workers. Consequently, the staff determined there were no significant concentrations

of migrant workers within the analytical area.

2.10.5 Environmental Justice Conclusion

The staff found low-income, Black, Hispanic, and aggregated minority populations that exceed

the percentage criteria established for environmental justice analyses. Consequently, the staff

performed additional analyses before making a final environmental justice determination. These

analyses can be found in Chapter 4 of this EIS for construction effects, and in Chapter 5 for

operational effects.

2.11 Related Federal Projects and Consultation

The staff reviewed the possibility that activities (e.g., dam construction) of other Federal

agencies might impact the issuance of an ESP to Southern. Any such activities could result in

cumulative environmental impacts and the possible need for another Federal agency to become

a cooperating agency for preparation of the EIS (10 CFR 51.10(b)(2)).

Federal lands within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the VEGP site include the Savannah River Site,

Sumter National Forest, and the U.S. Army Signal Center Fort Gordon. There are no

wilderness areas or wild and scenic rivers within the region. Several Georgia and South

Carolina State parks exist within the region. The closest Native American tribal reservations are

more than 80 km (50 mi) from the VEGP site.

After reviewing the Federal activities in the vicinity of the VEGP site, the staff determined that

there were no Federal project activities that would make it desirable for another Federal agency

to become a cooperating agency for preparation of this EIS. By letter dated June 27, 2007,

Southern submitted a license renewal application for VEGP Units 1 and 2 (Southern 2007f).

The NRC staff has prepared a separate EIS (NRC 2008) for that licensing action. Federal

actions related to this ESP include permits and licenses that may be required at the time of the

construction permit (CP) or combined license (COL) application. Southern submitted a COL

application to NRC on March 31, 2008 (Southern 2008d). Other Federal projects may become

necessary at the CP or COL stage, such as transmission-related studies by FERC. However,

these activities do not relate to the ESP. In summary, no other Federal activities or projects are

associated with the proposed ESP for of the VEGP site.

The NRC is required under Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA to consult with and obtain the comments

of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any

environmental impact involved in the subject matter of the EIS. During the course of preparing

August 2008 2-123 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

this EIS, NRC consulted with the FWS and NOAA Fisheries. Contact correspondence is

included in Appendix F.

2.12 References

7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, "Prime and Unique

Farmlands."

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

Protection Against Radiation."

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

Production and Utilization Facilities."

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site

Criteria."

36 CFR Part 297. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests and Public Property,

Part 297, "Wild and Scenic Rivers."

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties."

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 Operation."

32 FR 4001. March 11, 1967. "Native Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species." Federal

Register. U.S. Department of the Interior.

35 FR 16047. October 13, 1970. "Conservation of Endangered Species and Other Fish or

Wildlife." Federal Register.

49 FR 7332. February 28, 1984. "U.S. Breeding Populations of the Wood Sto.rk Determined to

be Endangered." Federal Register, U.S. Department of Interior.

NUREG-1872 2-124 August 2008
Affected Environment

51 FR 6690. February 25, 1986. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:

Determination of Oxypolis Canbyi (Canby's dropwort) to be an Endangered Species." Federal

Register, U.S. Department of Interior.

52 FR 21059. June 4, 1987. "Reclassification of the American Alligator to Threatened Status

Due to Similarity of Appearance Throughout the Remainder of its Range." Federal Register,

U.S. Department of Interior.

53 FR 10879. April 4, 1988. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination

of Endangered Status for the Relict Trillium." Federal Register, U.S. Department of Interior.

57 FR 46340. October 8, 1992. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Echinacea

laevigata (Smooth coneflower) Determined to be Endangered." Federal Register, U.S.

Department of Interior.

64 FR 15691. April 1, 1999. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rule to

List the Flatwoods Salamander as a Threatened Species." Federal Register, U.S. Department

of Interior.

69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice

Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

70 FR 24870. May 11, 2005. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Review of

Native Species that are Candidates for Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened.

Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listed

Actions Proposed Rule." Federal Register, U.S.Department of interior.

72 FR 37346. July 9, 2007. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the

Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife."

Federal Register, U.S. Department of Interior.

72 FR 4967. February 2, 2007. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month

Finding on a Petition to List the American Eels Threatened and Endangered." Federal Register,

U.S. Department of Interior.

72 FR 5856. February 7, 2007. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation

of Critical Habitat for the Flatwoods Salamander." Federal Register, U.S. Department of

Interior.

August 2008 2-125 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP). 2001. 2000 Savannah River Biological

Surveys for Westinghouse Savannah River Company. Report No. 01-16F. Patrick Center for

Environmental Research, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP). 2003. 2001 Savannah River Biological

Surveys for Westinghouse Savannah River Company. Report No. 03-08F, Patrick Center for

Environmental Research, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP). 2005. 2003 Savannah River Biological

Surveys for Westinghouse Savannah River Company. Report No. F04-06, Patrick Center for

Environmental Research, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

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, D.C.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006. Review of the Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plan for American Eel (Anguilla rostrata).

Prepared by the American Eel Plan Review Team of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission, Washington, D.C.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007. American Shad Stock

Assessment Report for Peer Review, Volume Ill. Stock Assessment Report No. 07-01

(Supplement), Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.

Aucott, W.R., S.R.S. Meadows, and G.G. Patterson. 1987. Regional Ground-Water Discharge

to Large Streams in the Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina and Parts of North Carolina and

Georgia. Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4332, U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia,

South Carolina. Accessed January 23, 2008 at

http:llpubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri864332.

Badr, A.W., A. Wachob, and J.A. Gellici. 2004. South Carolina Water Plan. Second Edition.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources; Land, Water and Conservation Division.

Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed April 17, 2008 at

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/water/hydro/wtrplanerrata.html.

Bailey M.M., J.J. Isely, and W.C. Bridges, Jr. 2004. "Movement and Population Size of

American Shad near a Low-Head Lock and Dam." Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 133:300-308.

NUREG-1872 2-126 August 2008
Affected Environment

Bennett D.H. and R.W. McFarlane. 1983. The Fishes of the Savannah River Plant: National

Environmental Research Park. SRO-NERP-12. Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, U.S.

Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

Buckley J. and B. Kynard. 1985. "Yearly Movements of Shortnose Sturgeon in the Connecticut

River." Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114:813-820.

Cherry G.S. 2006. Simulation and Particle-Tracking Analysis of Ground-Water Flow near the

Savannah River Site, Georgia and South Carolina, 2002, and for Selected Ground-Water

Management Scenarios, 2002 and 2020. Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5195. U.S.

Geological Survey. Accessed August 7, 2007 at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5195/ (web-only

publication).

Cherry, G.S. and J.S. Clarke. 2007. Simulation and Particle-Tracking Analysis of Selected

Ground-Water Pumping Scenarios at Vogtle Electric Generation Plant, Burke County, Georgia.

Open-File Report 2007-1363, 51 p., U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed April 17, 2008 at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1363/.

Clarke J.S. and C.T. West. 1997. Ground-Water Levels, Predevelopment Ground Water Flow,

and Stream-Aquifer Relations in the Vicinity of the Savannah River Site, Georgia and South

Carolina. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4197, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver,

Colorado.

Clarke J.S. and C.T. West. 1998. Simulation of Ground-Water Flow and Stream-Aquifer

Relations in the Vicinity of the Savannah River Site, Georgia and South Carolina,

Predevelopment through 1992. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4062, U.S.

Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

[FWPCA]).

Collins M.R. and T.I.J. Smith. 1993. "Characteristics of the Adult Segment of the Savannah

River Population of Shortnose Sturgeon." In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of

Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47:485-491.

Collins M.R. and T.I.J. Smith. 1997. "Distributions of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon in South

Carolina." North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 17:995-1000.

Collins M.R., W.C. Post, D.C. Russ and T.I.J. Smith. 2002. "Habitat Use and Movements of

Juvenile Shortnose Sturgeon in the Savannah River, Georgia-South Carolina." Transactions of

the American Fisheries Society, 131:9757-979, 2002.

.August 2008 2-127 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

Accessed February 17, 2004, at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf.

Coulter M.C. and A.L. Bryan. 1993. "Foraging Ecology of Wood Storks (Mycteria americana) in

East-Central Georgia I. Characteristics of Foraging Sites." Colonial Waterbirds 16(1 ):59-70.

Dadswell M.J., B.D. Taubert, T.S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. 1984. Synopsis of

Biological Data of Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818. Technical

Report NMFS 14. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C.

Donahue J.C. 2004. Ground-Water Quality in Georgia, January 2003 Through January 2004.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia

Geologic Survey, Atlanta, Georgia.

Dudley R.G., A.W. Mullis, and J.W. Terrel. 1977. "Movements of Adult Striped Bass (Morone

saxatilis) in the Savannah River, Georgia." Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

106(4):314-322.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). 16 USC 1531, et seq.

Fanning J.L. 2003. Water Use in Georgia by County for 2000 and Water-Use Trends for 1980-

2000. U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 106. Accessed,

August 7, 2007 at http://ga.water.usgs.govlpubs/other/ggs-icl06/.

Falls, W.F. and D.C. Powell. 2001. Stratigraphy and Depositional Environments of Sediments

from Five Cores From Screven and Burke Counties, Georgia. U.S. Geological Survey

Professional Paper 1603-A, p A.3. U.S. Geological Survey Information Services, Denver,

Colorado.

Georgia Department of Human Resources (GDHR). 2007. Division of Public Health's

Standardized Health Data Repository. Accessed February 2007 at

http://oasis.state.ga.us/oasis/qrymorbmort.aspx.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 1999. A Conservation Plan for RedCockaded Woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) on Private Land in Georgia. Georgia Department

of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame/Natural Heritage Section,

Nongame-Endangered Wildlife Program, Forsyth, Georgia. Accessed August 7, 2007 at

http://www.jonesctr.org/conservation/monitoringmapping/Gahcpl 1 a.pdf.

NUREG-1872 2-128 August 2008
Affected Environment

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2000. Southeastern Pocket Gopher,

Geomys pinetis. Accessed July 2, 2007 at

http://dromus.nhm.uga.edu/-GMNH/gawildlife/index.php?page=speciespages/species-page&ke

y=gpinetis.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2001. Savannah River Basin Management

Plan 2001. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division.

Accessed March 30, 2007 at http://www.gaepd.org/Files_PDF/plans/savannah/savannah.pdf.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2003. Overview of the Coastal

Management Program. Accessed November 3, 2006 at

http://crd.dnr.state.ga.us/contentldisplaycontent.asp?txtDocument=54.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2004a. Authorization to Discharge Under

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Environmental Protection Division,

May 21, 2004, Atlanta, Georgia.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2004b. Rules and Regulations for Water

Quality Control: Chapter 391-3-6, Section 391-3-6-.03, Water Use Classifications and Water

Quality Standards Amended. Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, Georgia.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2006a. Coastal Georgia Water and

Wastewater Permitting Plan for Managing Salt Water Intrusion. Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed July 21, 2007 at

http://www.gadnr.org/cws/Documents/saltwater-management-planjune2OO6.pdf.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2006b. Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Yucci WMA Game Harvest Records. E-mail from Georgia Department of Natural

Resources to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. November 15, 2006. Atlanta, Georgia.

Accession No. ML070861368.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2006c. Letter from Georgia Department of

Natural Resources to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc regarding Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant Expansion, Burke County, Georgia, HP-060428-001. October 4, 2006.

Accession No. ML063000219.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007a. E-mail from Greg Krakow (Georgia

Department of Natural Resources) to Amanda Stegen (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,

Terrestrial Ecology Scientist) regarding Digital Rare Element Data for Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory. January 19, 2007. Accession No. ML070851855.

August 2008 2-129 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007b. Bald Eagle Recovery. Accessed

April 13, 2007 at

http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=80&txtPage=4.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007c. Locations of Special Concern

Animals, Plants, and Natural Communities. Accessed April 23, 2007 at

http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage=9.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007d. Commercial Freshwater Fishing.

A Guide to the Laws and Regulations on Commercial Freshwater Fishing. Accessed August 7,

2007 at http://georgiawiIdlife.dnr.state.ga.us/contentldisplaycontent.asp?txtDocument=9.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007e. Striped Bass Harvest Now Allowed

in the Savannah River. Press Release. Accessed August 7, 2007 at

http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaypressrelease.asp?ArticlelD=83l..

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007f. Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Early Site Permit - Draft EIS Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Letter from Georgia

Department of Natural Resources to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. December 27,

2007. Accession No. ML080070095.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2008a. Locations of Special Concem

Animals, Plants and Natural Communities in Burke County, Georgia. Accessed April 22, 2008

at http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/specieslocationbycounty.asp?lstCounty=Burke.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2008b. Locations of Special Concem

Animals, Plants and Natural Communities in Jefferson County, Georgia. Accessed April 22,

2008 at

http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/specieslocationbycounty.asp?lstCounty=Jefferson.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2008c. Locations of Special Concern

Animals, Plants and Natural Communities in McDuffie County, Georgia. Accessed April 22

2008 at

http://georgiawild life.dnr. state. ga. us/content/specieslocationbycounty. asp?lstCounty=McDuffie.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2008d. Locations of Special Concern

Animals, Plants and Natural Communities in Warren County, Georgia. Accessed April 22, 2008

at http://georgiawiIdlife.dnr.state.ga.us/contentlspecieslocationbycounty.asp?lstCounty=Warren.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2008e. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Expansion, Burke County Georgia, HP-060428-001. Letter from Georgia Department of Natural

NUREG-1872 2-130 August 2008
Affected Environment

Resources to, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No.

ML080370283.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2008d. Letter from Georgia Department of

National Resources to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding Addendum

Archaeological Survey Report, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Expansion, Burke County,

Georgia, HP-060428-001. July 3, 2008. Accession ML082000378

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). 2007. Annual Traffic Counts. Office of

Transportation Data, Atlanta, Georgia. Produced by the Office of Transportation Data.

Accessed at ftp:l/ftp.dot.state.ga.us/MapProducts/.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD). 2002. Ambient Air Surveillance

Report. Accessed August 7, 2007 at http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp/report.php.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD). 2003. Ambient Air Surveillance

Report. Accessed August 7, 2007 at http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp/report.php.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD). 2004. Ambient Air Surveillance

Report. Accessed August 7, 2007 at http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp/report.php.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD). 2005. Ambient Air Surveillance

Report. Accessed August 7, 2007 at http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp/report.php.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD). 2006. Ambient Air Surveillance

Report. Accessed August 7, 2007 at http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp/report.php.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD). 2007a. Water Use Classifications

and Water Quality Standards. Amended, Chapter, Rules and Regulations for Water Quality

Control, 391-3-6-03. Accessed June 2007 at http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/rulesexist.html.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD). 2007b. 2006 River/Stream Not

Fully Supporting Designated Use, Georgia 305(b)/303(d) List. Accessed June 2007 at

http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/305b.html.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD). 2008. Draft Permit to Use

Groundwater. Permittee's Name: Souther Nuclear operating Company - Vovtle Electric

Generating Plant. Permit Number: 017-0003. Environemtnal Proetection Division, Department

of Natural Resources, State of Georgie. Accessed June 10, 2008 at

http://www.georgiaepd.org/notices/1127506607.htm.

August 2008 2-131 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Georgia Office of Planning and Budget Policy (GOPBP). 2005. Georgia 2015, Population

Projections, 2005. Produced by the Office of Planning, and Technical Support. Accessed at

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/Pages/default.aspx.

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2007. Corridor Study - Thomson Vogtle 500-kV

Transmission Project. Georgia Power Company, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No.

ML070460368.

Governor's Office of Student Achievement (GOSA). 2007. Annual Education Accountability

Report Cards. Accessed March 10, 2007 at http:I/reportcard2005.gaosa.org/.

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 135(5):1145-1155.

Hall J.W., T.I.J. Smith, and S.D. Lamprecht. 1991. "Movements and Habitats of Shortnose

Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Savannah River." Copeia 1991 (3):695-702.

Halverson N.V., L.D. Wike, K.K. Patterson, J.A. Bowers, A.L. Bryan, K.F. Chen, C.L. Cummins,

B.R. de Carmen, K.L. Dixon, D.L. Dunn, G.P. Friday, J.E. Irwin, R.K. Kolka, H.E. Mackey, Jr.,

J.J. Mayer, E.A. Nelson, M.H., Paller, V.A. Rogers, W.L. Specht, H.M. Westbury, and

E.W. Wilde. 1997. SRS Ecology Environmental Information Document. WSRC-TR-97-0223,

Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Washington, D.C.

Haro A., W. Richkus, K. Whalen, A. Hoar, W.D. Busch, S. Lary, T. Brush, and D. Dixon. 2000.

"Population Decline of the American Eel: Implications for Research and Management."

Fisheries 25(9):7-16.

Hendricks A.S. 2002. The Conservation and Restoration of the Robust Redhorse, Moxostoma

robustum. Volume 3. Georgia Power Company Environmental Laboratory, Smyrna, Georgia.

Hirsch R.M. and J.E. Costa. 2004. "U.S. Stream Flow Measurement and Data Dissemination

Improve." EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 85(20):197-203.

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.

Huddlestun P.F. and J.H. Summerour. 1996. The Lithostratigraphic Framework of the

Uppermost Cretaceous and Lower Tertirary of Eastern Burke County, Georgia. Bulletin 127,

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia

Geologic Survey, Atlanta, Georgia.

NUREG-1872 2-132 August 2008
Affected Environment

Hunter C.H. 2004. Savannah River Site Annual Meteorology Report for 2003.' WSRCRP2004-00256, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina.

Mamatey A.R. 2004. Savannah River Site Environmental Report for 2003. Report No. WSRCTR-2004'000015, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina.

Marcy Jr. B.C., D.E. Fletcher, F.D. Martin, M. Paller, and M.J.M. Reichert. 2005. Fishes of the

Middle Savannah River Basin. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.

Matthews J. 2005. Fiscal Capacity of Counties in Georgia. Policy Brief, Fiscal Research

Center of Georgia State University. Accessed at

http://domestic.gsu.edu/frp/frpreports/briefl 03/brief1 03.pdf.

McCord J.W. 2004. American Eel (Anguilla rostrata), Species Account. South Carolina

Department of Natural Resources. Accessed at

http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/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 August 10,

2007 at http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/publications/pdf/summaryreport.pdf.

Mitchell W.A. 1999. Species Profile: Wood stork (Mycteria americana) on Military Installations

in the Southeastem United States. Technical Report SERDP-99-2, U.S. Army Engineer

Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Miller J.A. 1990. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Segment 6, Alabama, Florida,

Georgia, and South Carolina. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-G, U.S. Geological Survey,

Washington, D.C.

National Climatological Data Center (NCDC). 1999. 1998 Local Climatological Data Annual

Summary with Comparative Data - Augusta, Georgia. Asheville, North Carolina. Accessed at

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html.

National Climatological Data Center (NCDC). 2000. 1999 Local Climatological Data Annual

Summary with Comparative Data - Augusta, Georgia. Asheville, North Carolina. Accessed at

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html.

August 2008 2-133 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

National Climatological Data Center (NCDC). 2001. 2000 Local Climatological Data Annual

Summary with Comparative Data - Augusta, Georgia. Asheville, North Carolina. Accessed at

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html.

National Climatological Data Center (NCDC). 2002. 2001 Local Climatological Data Annual

Summary with Comparative Data - Augusta, Georgia. Asheville, North Carolina. Accessed at

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html.

National Climatological Data Center (NCDC). 2003. 2002 Local Climatological Data Annual

Summary with Comparative Data - Augusta, Georgia. Asheville, North Carolina. Accessed at

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html.

National Climatological Data Center (NCDC). 2006. 2005 Local Climatological Data Annual

Summary with Comparative Data - Augusta, Georgia. Asheville, North Carolina. Accessed at

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2007. Storm Events. Accessed March 26, 2007 at

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent-storms.

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

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose

Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Accessed-at

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr.pdfs/recovery/sturgeon-shortnose.pdf.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006. Letter from Walt Wilson, Fisheries Biologist

to NRC Submitting a List of Federally Protected Species Under the Jurisdiction of NMFS for the

States of Alabama and Georgia. October 24, 2006. Accession No. ML063200127.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics.

Accessed July 19, 2007 at

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/stl/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. EFH for the South Atlantic. Accessed April

21, 2008, at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov./habitat/habitatprotection/profile/southatlanticcouncil.htm.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Coastal Services Center (NOAA-CSC).

2007. Historical Hurricane Tracks 1851-2005. Accessed April 2, 2007 at

http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/viewer.html.

NUREG-1872 2-134 August 2008
Affected Environment

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. Troup Series. Accessed May 9, 2007

at http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/T/TROUP.html.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002. Shellbluff Series. Accessed May 9,

2007 at http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/S/SHELLBLUFF.html.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2003a. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)

Database for Burke County, Georgia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, National Cartography and Geospatial Center, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Accessed August 7, 2007 at http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2003b. Lucy Series. Accessed May 9, 2007

at http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/datlL/LUCY.html.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2003c. Tawcaw Series. Accessed May 9,

2007 at http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.govlosd/datITITAWCAW.html.

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 I Archaeological Survey of the

Water Line Corridor for the Proposed Intake Structure at Plant Vogtle. New South Associates,

Stone Mountain, Georgia.

New South Associates (NSA). 2008. Phase II Testing of Archaeological Site 9BK416 Within

Proposed Water Line and Intake Structure Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Burke County,

Georgia. New South Associated Technical Report 1585, Revised May 9, 2008, Stone

Mountain, Georgia.

Nichols M.C. 1983. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Survey of the Drifting Microinvertebrates

of the Savannah River, Burke County, Georgia, From September 1980 through August, 1981.

Operating License Stage Environmental Report Technical Document. Georgia Power Company

Environmental Affairs Center.

Nichols M. 2003. Conservation Strategy for Robust Redhorse (Moxostoma robustum).

Environmental Laboratory Georgia Power Company for Robust Redhorse Conservation

August 2008 2-135 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Committee, Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed at

http://www.robustredhorse.com/f/ConservStrategyMay62003.pdf.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). 2006. Letter from Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding Vogtle Early Site Permit Audit

Trip Report. October 17-19, 2006. Accession No. ML071020317.

Paller M.H., B.M. Saul, and D.V. Osteen. 1986. Distribution and Abundance of lchthyoplankton

in the Mid-Reaches of the Savannah River and Selected Tributaries. Primary Report No.

DPST-86-798, Environmental and Chemical Sciences, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina.

Parker E.L. 2007. Ontogeny and Life History of Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum

Lesueur 1818): Effects of Latitudinal Variation and Water Temperature. Dissertation submitted

to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts.

Patrick T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected Plants of Georgia, an Information

Manual on Plants Designated by the State of Georgia as Endangered, Threatened, Rare, or

Unusual. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia

Natural Heritage Program. Accessed August 7, 2007 at

http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/trilre.pdf.

Patrick T.P. 2007. Plant Vogtle Rare Plant Survey. Georgia Department of National

Resources, Wildlife Resources Division. Accession No. ML072080264.

Petranka J. 1998. Salamanders of the U.S. and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, D.C.

Pollastro R.M., C.J. Schenk, and R.R. Charpentier. 2001. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and

Gas in the Onshore and State Waters Portion of the South Florida Basin, Florida - USGS

Province 50. U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 69-A. Accessed August 7, 2007 at

http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/energylnoga/dds-69a/REPORTS/SFB2000.pdf.

Price J. 2007. Federal Threatened and Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric

Generating Station. Email from South Carolina Department of National Resources to Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory. July 24, 2007. Accession No. ML072140872.

Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee (RRCC). 2008. Robust Redhorse Conservation

Committee (Moxostoma robustum). Accessed June 19, 29008 at

http://www.robustredhorse.com/.

Ramsdell J.V. 2005. Tornado Climatology of the Contiguous United States. NUREG/CR-4461,

Rev.1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1872 2-136 August 2008
Affected Environment

Ransom, C. (111), J.E. Landmeyer, W.R. Logan, and J.M. Childress. 2006. Evaluation of the

Downward Migration of Saltwater to the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the Savannah, Georgia, and

Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, Area. Technical Publication No. 011-06, South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control, prepared in cooperation with the U.S.

Geological Survey, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed April 17, 2008 at

https://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/docs/capacitytecpubO 11-06.pdf.

Reinert T.R., C.A. Jennings, T.A. Will, J.E. Wallin. 2005. "Decline and Potential Recovery of

Striped Bass in a Southeastern U.S. Estuary." Fisheries 30(3):18-25.

Richmond, A.M. and B. Kynard. 1995. - "Ontogenetic Behavior of Shortnose Sturgeon,

Acipenser brevirostrum." Copeia 1995(1 ):72-182.

Roberts W. 2007. Email from Burke County School District to Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory regarding Upcoming Visit. March 6, 2007. Accession No. ML072290177.

Rutherford & Associates. 2000. Comprehensive Water Supply Management Plan for Burke

County and Municipalities: Girard, Keysville, Midville, Sardis, Vidette, Waynesboro, Georgia.

Submitted to Georgia Environmental Protection Division.

Smith T.I.J., W.E. Jenkins, M.R. Denson, and M.R. Collins. 2001. "Stock Enhancement

Research with Anadromous and Marine Fishes in South Carolina." In Proceedings of the

Thirtieth U.S.-Japan Meeting on Aquaculture: Ecology of Aquaculture Species and

Enhancement of Stocks, December 3-4, 2001, Sarasota, Florida.

South-Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2003. Watershed

Water Quality Assessment: Savannah River Basin. Technical Report No. 002-03, Bureau of

Water, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed July 21, 2007 at

http://www.scdhec.net/environment/water/docs/sav03.pdf.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2005. South

Carolina Water Use Report, 2004 Annual Summary. Technical Report Number, 004-05,

Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed March 30, 2007 at

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/docs/wtruse2004.pdf.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2004. South Carolina Water Plan.

2nd Edition, Land, Water, and Conservation Division, Columbia, South Carolina.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2007a. E-mail from South

Carolina Department of Natural Resources to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory regarding

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.

April 9, 2007. Accession No. ML071230462.

August 2008 2-137 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2007b. Commercial Shad, Herring

Fisheries Now Open in South Carolina. Department of Natural Resources News. Columbia,

South Carolina. Accessed July 19, 2007 at

http:/lwww.dnr.sc.gov/news/Yr2007/febl 2/feb 12_shad.html.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2002. Annual Radioactive Effluent

Release Report for January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001. Vogtle Electric Generating PlantUnits I and 2. NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68

and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2003a. Annual Radioactive Effluent

Release Report for January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant -

Units I and 2. NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68

and NPF81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2003b. Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Revision 11. Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2004. Annual Radioactive Effluent

Release Report for January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant -

Units I and 2. NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68

and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2005. Annual Radioactive Effluent

.Release Report for January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant -

Units I and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68

and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2006a. Cooling Water Blowdown

Thermal Discharge Analysis for Plant Vogtle Early Site Permit Facility. Southern Nuclear

Operating Company, Birmingham, Alabama. July 7, 2006. Accession No. ML063000221.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2006b. Executive Summary for

Groundwater Drawdown Calculation, Included in Vogtle ER sections 4.2.2 and 5.5.2

"Groundwater Use Impacts During Construction and Operation." Southern Company,

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML063000223.

Revised to Southern 2007h

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2006c. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Environmental Site Audit Information Needs.

NUREG-1872 2-138 August 2008
Affected Environment

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, Inc. (Southern). 2006d. Personal communication with

Southern Human Resources regarding Plant Vogtle Zip Code Listing, information dated June

20, 2005 and gathered during the Environmental Site Audit in October 2006. Accession No.

ML063000202.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007a. Southern response to May 10,

2007, requests for additional information. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Accession No. ML071700767.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007b. E-mail from Southern

Company to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concerning intake water pipe route.

July 24, 2007. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML072140322.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007c. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to Requests for Additional

Information on the Environmental Report. January 30, 2007. Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama. Accession No. ML070880039.

No callout

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007d. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to Requests for Additional

Information on the Environmental Report; Attachment 2, Jurisdictional Water Report (prepared

by Eco Sciences). Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham,

Alabama) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington D.C.), January 31, 2007.

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML0760460323.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007e. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to Requests for Additional

Information on the Environmental Report; Attachment 6, Wildlife Habitat Council 2006

Recertification Application for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Letter report from Southern

Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (Washington D.C.),ýJanuary 31, 2007. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Accession No. ML0760460323.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008a. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Revision'4. Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

August 2008 2-139 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008b. Vogtle Early Site Permit

Application Response to Requests for Additional Information Regarding Comments Provided on

Draft Environmental Impact Statement. April 4, 2008, Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama. Accession No. ML080990410.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008c. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to NRC Questions from April 23,

2008 Environmental Conference Call. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company

(Birmingham, Alabama) to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington, D.C.), June

26, 2008. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081790598.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008d. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Application for a Combined Operating License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Units 3 and 4. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081050133.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008e. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company Vogtle Early Site Permit Application Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring at

Plant Vogtle. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama)

to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington D.C.), May 27, 2008. Southern

Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081510022.

Specht W.A (ed.). 1987. Comprehensive Cooling Study Final Report, Volume V, Aquatic

Ecology. DP-1739, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Aiken, South Carolina.

Staats A.A. 1983. The Impact of Construction of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant on the

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Population of Beaverdam Creek, July 1973 through June 1978.

Operating License Stage, Environmental Report Technical Document. April 1983. Southern

Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Summerour J.H., E.A. Shapiro, J.A. Lineback, P.F. Huddlestun, P.F., and A.C. Hughes. 1994.

An Investigation of Tritium in the Gordon and Other Aquifers in Burke County, Georgia.

Information Circular 95, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection

Division, Georgia Geologic Survey, Atlanta, Georgia.

Summerour J.H., E. A. Shapiro, and P.F. Huddlestun. 1998. An Investigation of Tritium in the

Gordon and OtherAquifers in Burke County, Georgia; Phase II. Information Circular 102,

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia

Geologic Survey, Atlanta, Georgia.

The Catena Group. 2007. Freshwater Mussel Surveys, The Savannah River from Augusta to

Savannah: South Carolina & Georgia. The Catena Group, Hillsborough, North Carolina.

NUREG-1872 2-140 August 2008
Affected Environment

The Outdoor Wire. 2007. Georgia Power And Southern Nuclear Sign Safe Harbor

Management Agreement With Georgia DNR. Accessed April 17, 2008 at

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/tow-release. php?l D= 118230.

Third Rock Consultants, LLC (TRC). 2006. Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Final

Report. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and Associated Transmission Corridors. Prepared for

Tetra Tech Nus, Inc by Third Rock Consultants, LLC, Lexington, Kentucky. Accession

No.ML071710037.

University of Georgia. 2008. Salamanders of Georgia and South Carolina. Savannah River

Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia. Accessed May 9, 2008 at

http://www.uga.edu/srelherp/salamanders/necpun.htm.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation

Manual Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,

Vicksburg, Mississippi.

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). 2006a. 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). 2006b. Threatened and Endangered Species of the

Upper Savannah River Basin. Atlantic Pigtoe Mussel (Fusconaia masoni). Savannah River

District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia. Accessed August 10, 2006 at

http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/imussel.htm.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Onsite Meteorological Programs. Safety Guide

23 (now referred to as Regulatory Guide 1.23), U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington,

D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Final Environmental Impact Statement Related

to the Proposed Alvin W Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. U.S. Atomic Energy

Commission, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2007. Local Area Unemployment Statistics.

Accessed March 4, 2007 at http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm.

August 2008 2-141 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. Total Population [1]- Universe: Total Population Dataset.

Census 2000 Summary File I (SF1) 100-Percent Data. Accessed August 7, 2007 at

http://factfinder.census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007a. Population Finder Fact Sheets. 2000 U.S. Census.

Using American FactFinder. Accessed February 24, 2007 at

http://facffinder.census.gov/homelsafflmain.html?_lang=en.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007b. Demographic Profiles. 2000 U.S. Census. Accessed

March 3, 2007 at http://censtats.census.gov/cgi bin/pct/pctProfile.pl.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Designated Sole Source Aquifers in EPA

Region IV. Accessed July 30, 2007 at

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/pubs/qrgssamapreg4.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Air Quality Index Report. Accessed

August 7, 2007 at http:llwww.epa.govlairldatalmonaqi.html?stn-GA-Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1990a. Canby's Dropwort Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1990b. Recovery Plan for the Relict Trillium. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997. Revised Recovery Plan for the U.S. Breeding

Population of the Wood Stork. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1999. Federally-listed Species in South Carolina

Counties. Accessed April 25, 2007 at http:llwww.fws.govlsoutheastleslSCarolina.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003a. Bald Eagle Endangered Species Fact Sheet.

Accessed April 18, 2007 at http:llwww.fws.govloregonfwolEndSpplFactsBirdslBaldEagle.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003b. Recovery Plan for the Red-Cockaded

Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Second Revision, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003c. Wood Stork Report. Volume 2, Number 1,

March 2003, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. Listed Species in Georgia Counties. Accessed

April 20, 2007 at http:llwww.fws.govlathenslendangeredlcountiesendangered.html.

NUREG-1872 2-142 August 2008
Affected Environment

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006. Bald Eagle: Haliaeetus leucocephalus. Accessed

April 26, 2007 at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirdslissues/BaIdEagle/bald.eagle.info.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007a. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. Accessed April 4,

2007 at http://www.fws.gov/ncsandhills/rcw.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007b. Species Profile: Red-Cockaded Woodpecker

(Picoides borealis). Accessed April 17, 2007 at

http:l/ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfilelSpeciesReport.do?spcode=BO4F.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007c. Species Profile: Wood Stork (Mycteria

americana). Accessed April 26, 2007 at

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=B060.

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). 2003a. U.S. Geological Survey, The Mineral Industry of

Georgia. Mineral Yearbook 2003, Volume I Metals and Minerals. Accessed May 19, 2005 at

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2003/gastmybO3.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003b. U.S. Geological Survey, The Mineral Industry of

South Carolina, Mineral Yearbook 2003, Volume I Metals and Minerals. Accessed May 19,

2005 at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2003/scstmybO3.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003c. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources

of the Appalachian Basin Province, 2002. Accessed August 7, 2007 at

http:llpubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-009-03/FS009-03-508.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006a. Water Resources Data, Georgia: Water Year 2005.

Water-Data Report GA-2005, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006b. Water Resources Data, South Carolina: Water Year

2005. Water-Data Report SC-05-1, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. National Oil and Gas Assessment. Accessed August

7, 2007 at http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/noga.

August 2008 2-143 NUREG-1872
Affected Environment

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1985. Final Environmental Impact Statement

Related to the Operation of Vogtle Electronic Generating Plant, Units I and 2. NUREG-1 087,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1989. Appendix B to Facility Operating License

No. NPF-68 and Facility Operating License No. NPF-81, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units

I and 2, Environmental Protection Plan. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Accession No. ML052840233.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan:

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

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. Accessed at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/srl 555/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007a. Trip Report from Site Visit to the Vogtle

Early Site Permit (ESP) Site and Audit of Hydrology, Geology, Geo-Technical Engineering,

Seismology, and Health Physics Aspects of the Vogtle ESP Application. Accession No.

ML070610265.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007b. Letter from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission to US Army Corps of Engineers, Subject: Early Site Permit for the Plant Vogtle

Site. February 26, 2007. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accession

No. ML070310063.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007c. Conference Call Summary from June 20,

2007; Discussion with Southern Nuclear Operating Company Concerning Inconsistencies

Between RAI Responses and the Environmental Report for the Plant Vogtle Early Site Permit.

August 2, 2007. Accession No. ML071840243.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units I and

2. Draft Report for Comment. NUREG-1437, Supplement 34, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 9, 2008 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/srl 437/supplement34/.

Walters J.R., P.D. Doerr, and J.H. Carter, II1. 1988. "The Cooperative Breeding System of the

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker." Ethology 78:275-305.

Wells D.G. 1999. Groundwater Protection Management Program. WSRC-TR-99-00350.

Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.

NUREG-1872 2-144 August 2008
Affected Environment

Wells D.G and B.A. Hiergesell. 2005. Chapter 6 in Groundwater in Environmental Report for

2004. WSRC-TR-2005-00005, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South

Carolina.

Wike L.D. 1998. Potential Effect of Increased SRS River Water Withdrawal on the Savannah

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, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.

Wiltz J.W. 1982a. 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.

Wiltz J.W. 1982b. 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., and R.D. Miracle. 1982. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Survey of the Feeding

Habits of Fishes in the Savannah River, Burke County, Georgia, from October, 1980 through

September, 1981. Operating License Stage, Environmental Report Technical Document,

Georgia Power Company, Environmental Affairs Center, Atlanta, Georgia.

Wiltz J.W. 1983. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Savannah River Larval Fish Study, Burke

County, Georgia from January through August, 1974. Operating License Stage, Environmental

Report Technical Document, Georgia Power Company, Environmental Affairs Center, Atlanta,

Georgia.

August 2008 2-145 NUREG-1872

3.0 Site Layout and Plant Description

The site for the proposed Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) early site

permit (ESP) is located in Burke County in rural Georgia, within the current Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant (VEGP) boundary. The site is situated approximately 42 km (26 mi) southeast

of Augusta, Georgia. This chapter describes the key site characteristics needed to assess the

environmental impacts of the proposed action. The site layout and existing facilities are

discussed in Section 3.1. The plant design and power transmission system are discussed in

Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively, and the list of references cited is in Section 3.4.

3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout

The existing VEGP site consists of two Westinghouse pressurized water reactors, a turbine

building, a switchyard, water intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. The site is

located on the Savannah River, about 241 river km (150 river mi) from the mouth of the

Savannah River. Plant Wilson, a six-unit, oil-fueled combustion turbine facility built in 1974 and

owned by the Georgia Power Company (GPC) is also located on the site. A radioactive waste

disposal system, a fuel-handling system, the auxiliary structures, and other onsite facilities

required for a complete nuclear power station are located on the VEGP site. The existing VEGP

site development is shown in Figure 2-1. The existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 would not be

changed. The ESP site is located in a previously disturbed area adjacent to the existing

two units.

Southern states (Southern 2008) that the two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors would share

a river intake structure and certain support structures such as office buildings and water,

wastewater, and waste-handling facilities. Each proposed Westinghouse AP1000 reactor would

have a rated thermal power level of 3400 megawatts thermal (MW(t)) (Southern 2008). For the

cooling system, Southern proposed natural draft cooling towers, in addition to mechanical draft

service water system (SWS) cooling towers.

3.2 Plant Description

Southern has proposed adding two additional nuclear generating units at the VEGP site. The

Westinghouse AP1000 NRC-certified plant design (Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

[CFR] Part 52, Appendix D) (Westinghouse 2003, 2005) was selected by Southern for the

VEGP ESP application (Southern 2008). The planned location for the proposed Westinghouse

AP1000 reactors, referred to as VEGP Units 3 and 4, would be west of and adjacent to the

existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 (see Figure 3-1) (Southern 2008).

August 2008 3-1 NUREG-1872
Site Layout and Plant Description

Figure 3-1. Artist's Conception of New Westinghouse AP1 000 Units 3 and 4 (foreground)

Located Adjacent to Existing VEGP

The AP1000 reactor design, which is based on Westinghouse pressurized water reactor

technology, includes a single reactor pressure vessel, two steam generators, and four reactor

coolant pumps for converting reactor thermal energy into steam. One high-pressure turbine and

three low-pressure turbines drive a single electric generator. Figure 3-2 shows a flow diagram

of the reactor power conversion system (Southern 2008). Each Westinghouse AP1000 unit is

based on a "standalone" concept and consists of five principal generation structures: (1) the

nuclear island, (2) the turbine building, (3) the annex building, (4) the diesel generator building,

and (5) the radwaste building. Structures that make up the nuclear island include the

containment building, the shield building, and the auxiliary building.

The Westinghouse API 000 reactor has a thermal power rating of 3400 MW(t), with a net output

of 1117 megawatts electrical (MW(e)). It uses uranium dioxide with a uranium enrichment of

approximately 2.35 to 4.45 weight percent uranium-235 for the initial reactor core load and

4.51 weight percent uranium-235 for core reloads (Southern 2007a). The total fuel capacity is

approximately 84.5 metric tons (93.1 tons) of uranium.

NUREG-1872 3-2 August 2008
Site Layout and Plant Description

Steam

Containment 4

--,- Turbine Building

Figure 3-2. Simplified Flow Diagram of the Reactor Power Conversion System

(Southern 2008)

The proposed cooling system for the new units includes one concrete natural draft hyperbolic

cooling tower for each unit (see Figure 3-1). Each tower, which would be approximately 183 m

(600 ft) tall, would be able to reject about 7.55 x 109 Btu/hr (2208 MW(t)) of waste heat to the

atmosphere. Together, the two towers and their supporting facilities would require an area of

28.04 ha (69.3 ac). In addition to the natural draft cooling towers, the new units also would have

SWS cooling towers. These mechanical draft cooling towers would be approximately 18 m

(60 ft) high, would require an area of approximately 0.2 ha (0.5 ac) per unit, and would be

located within the powerblock area. The unit thermal efficiency of the complete cycle would be

approximately 35 percent. The new units would share common intake and discharge structures

and certain support structures such as office buildings and water, wastewater, and wastehandling facilities (Southern 2008).

As noted in Southern's comments on the draft environmental impact statement (EIS)

(Southern 2007a), Westinghouse, the AP1000 reactor vendor, has submitted a revision to the

August 2008 3-3 NUREG-1872
Site Layout and Plant Description

AP1000 design to NRC for review (Westinghouse 2007; NRC 2008). The NRC staff is

reviewing that design revision separately from the Vogtle ESP application. Changes in the

reactor design that might have affects the environment different from the currently referenced

certified design are noted in several locations in this EIS. However, the NRC staff has not

completed its technical review of the requested design changes or completed a site-specific

analysis of the revised design at the Vogtle site.

3.2.1 Plant Water Use

This section of the EIS describes plant water use based on the design parameter values

provided by Southern in its Environmental Report (ER) (Southern 2008) and supplemented by

additional information (Southern 2007a). At the ESP stage, the staff's review of the design

parameters is limited to an evaluation of whether the parameter values are reasonable. At the

construction permit (CP) or combined license (COL) stage, an applicant referencing the ESP is

required to demonstrate that the specific plant design would fall within the design parameters in

the ESP. The following sections describe both the consumptive and non-consumptive water

uses of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 and the associated plant water treatment systems.

3.2.1.1 Plant Water Consumption

This section describes power plant make-up water/water use consumption demands, and

excludes those demands that are part of the normal cooling system (e.g., circulating water

system [CWS]). Consumptive water demands associated with the normal cooling systems are

discussed in Section 3.2.2 of this EIS.

The proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would have demands for demineralized, potable, and fire

protection system water. Southern (2008) states that the normal combined water demands for

these systems are as follows: demineralized water demand of 9.5 L/s (150 gpm), potable water

demand of 2.65 L/s (42 gpm), fire suppression water demand of 0.6 L/s (10 gpm), and

miscellaneous water demands (e.g., rinse water for the demineralization system filters) of

0.82 Us (13 gpm). Southern (2008) also states that the maximum combined water demands for

these systems are a demineralized water demand of 38 L/s (600 gpm), potable water demand

of 8.8 L/s (140 gpm), fire-suppression water demand of 0.76 L/s (12 gpm), and miscellaneous

water demands of 2.21 L/s (35 gpm). The fire suppression system would also provide a backup

water supply for other systems, including the passive containment cooling system

(Southern 2008). Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised NRC staff (Southern

2007c) that based on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, some

of these water demand values would change. The staffs evaluation of the effect of these

changes on the staff's environmental impact conclusions is provided in Sections 5.3.3.2 and

7.3.1.2 of this EIS.

NUREG-1872 3-4 August 2008
Site Layout and Plant Description

3.2.1.2 Plant Water Treatment

Southern discusses plant water treatment systems in its ER (Southern 2008). The water quality

of effluents from any water treatment system would be regulated by the Georgia Department of

Natural Resources (GDNR) via a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit.

The potable water system would be supplied from groundwater wells, and one system may

supply both VEGP Units 3 and 4. A disinfection system would be used; however, it is not known

at this time if additional treatment systems, such as filtration or corrosion control, would be

needed (Southern 2008).

Water for the demineralized water system would be drawn from groundwater wells. The

groundwater would be treated via both reverse osmosis and an electro-deionization/mixed-bed

system to remove solids, salts, organic compounds, dissolved gaseous carbon dioxide, and the

majority of the ions in the water. These treatment processes would produce a stream of purified

water that would then be distributed to a number of plant systems.

Groundwater supplying the fire protection system would be filtered through strainers, as

needed, to prevent system fouling. Southern anticipates that the groundwater would be of

sufficient quality to not require straining, disinfection, or other treatment; however, treatment

needs would be evaluated and implemented as appropriate (Southern 2007a, 2008).

3.2.2 Cooling System

The following sections provide detailed descriptions of the operational modes and the

components of the cooling water systems for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. These

descriptions were determined from the Westinghouse APIO00 Design Control Document

(Westinghouse 2005), and included site-specific characteristics (Southern 2008).

3.2.2.1 Description of Operational Modes

The following sections describe the cooling systems under normal operating conditions and

emergency/shutdown conditions for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. A general diagram of

the cooling water flow is shown in Figure 3-3.

Circulating Water System

Waste heat is a by-product of normal power generation at a nuclear power plant. During normal

plant operation, the CWS of each unit would dissipate up to 7.55 x 109 Btu/hr of waste heat

(Southern 2008). The CWS comprises a closed-cycle wet cooling system to transfer heat from

the main condenser, the turbine building closed-cycle cooling water heat exchangers, and the

condenser vacuum pump seal water heat exchangers to one natural draft cooling tower per unit.

August 2008 3-5 NUREG-1872
Site Layout and Plant Description

Excess heat in the cooling water is then transferred to the atmosphere by evaporative and

conductive cooling in the cooling tower. During the heat dissipation process, evaporation of

water increases the concentration of dissolved solids in the cooling water system. To limit the

concentration of dissolved solids, a portion of the water is continuously discharged from the

system as blowdown. In addition to blowdown and evaporative losses, a small percentage of

water is also lost in the form of droplets (drift) from the cooling towers. Evporation

Cirulairnlagn

Wae SseTwer Cooling = I Turbine Building

'm a a Closed Cooling i

Hea Exh ng r Water Syste

River Main Condensers

m Component Cooling

W

Water System

on tComponent•= Cooling Water .... .................... ... ..................... ... ........ .....

, service.Water

Other Station Waste ""wdw Sum I I 'o

lw o C mmn toBthUitmaku

Wells

Figure 3-3. General Cooling System Flow Diagram (Southern 2008)

Southern (2008) states that water pumped from the Savannah River would be used to make up

water lost to the system by evaporation, blowdown, and drift. Blowdown water would be

directed to a common CWS blowdown sump. Water from the blowdown sump would be

retained for a brief holdup period to allow dechlorination before the water is discharged to the

Savannah River (Southern 2008). Consistent with Vogtle Units 1 and 2 operation, no significant

total suspended solids impact is foreseen in cooling tower blowdown (Southern 2007a).

Southern (2008) provided the following normal operation water fluxes for the CWS (all values

assume two reactor units):

" The normal make-up water flow rate would be 2348.47 Us (37,224 gpm).

* The normal consumptive water use rate (evaporation and drift) would be 1761.73 Us

(27,924 gpm).

NUREG-1872 3-6 August 2008
Site Layout and Plant Description

e The normal blowdown rate would be 586.74 LUs (9,300 gpm).

Southern (2008) also provided the following bounding water fluxes for the CWS (all values

assume two reactor units):

" The maximum make-up water flow rate would be 3645.60 L/s (57,784 gpm).

" The maximum consumptive water use rate (evaporation and drift) would be 1823.56 L/s

(28,904 gpm).

* The maximum blowdown rate would be 1822.04 L/s (28,880 gpm).

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised NRC staff (Southern 2007c) that based

on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, some of these water

flux values would change. The staffs evaluation of the effect of these changes on the staff's

environmental impact conclusions is provided in Sections 5.3.3.1 and 7.3.1.1 of this EIS.

Service Water System

The non-safety-related SWS provides cooling water to the component cooling water heat

exchangers located in the turbine building (Southern 2008). The closed-cycle cooling system

uses mechanical draft cooling towers to dissipate waste heat during normal operations,

refueling, shutdown, and other operational events. Excess heat in the cooling water is then

transferred to the atmosphere. During the heat dissipation process, evaporation of water

increases the concentration of dissolved solids in the cooling water system. To limit the

concentration of dissolved solids, a portion of the water is continuously discharged from the

system as blowdown.

Southern (2008) states that groundwater would be used to make up water lost by the SWS to

evaporation, blowdown, and drift. Blowdown water would be directed to a common blowdown

sump, and water from the sump ultimately would then be discharged to the Savannah River. An

option also exists to discharge the SWS blowdown to the CWS basin (Southern 2008).

Southern provided the following normal operation water fluxes for the SWS (Southern 2008) (allvalues assume two reactor units):

" The normal make-up water flow rate from groundwater would be 33.88 LUs (537 gpm).

" The normal consumptive water-use rate (evaporation and drift) would be 25.43 L/s

(403 gpm).

" The normal blowdown rate would be 8.45 L/s (134 gpm).

Southern also provided the following bounding water fluxes for the SWS (Southern 2008) (all

values assume two reactor units):

* The maximum make-up water flow rate from groundwater would be 148.5 L/s (2353 gpm).

August 2008 3-7 NUREG-1872
Site Layout and Plant Description

* The maximum consumptive water-use rate (evaporation and drift) would be 76.26 L/s

(1177 gpm).

" The maximum blowdown rate would be 74.19 L/s (1176 gpm).

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised NRC staff (Southern 2007c) that based

on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, some of these water

demand values would change. The staff's evaluation of the effect of these changes on the

staff's environmental impact conclusions is provided in Sections 5.3.3.2 and 7.3.1.2 of this EIS.

Ultimate Heat Sink

The ultimate heat sink (UHS) cooling system is a tank filled with approximately 3.55 million L

(780,000 gal) of demineralized water (Southern 2008). The tank is situated on top of the

containment structure, so the water can be released to form a water film over the containment

dome and side walls should an accident occur. The water from the tank flows passively;

therefore, an active external safety-related UHS system is not needed to achieve safe shutdown

of the reactor. The tank has no other plant function and, once filled, requires only minimal

additions of demineralized water to compensate for minor evaporative losses.

3.2.2.2 Component Descriptions

The following sections describe the intake, cooling water treatment, discharge, and heat

dissipation systems for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. Pursuant to Section 316(a) and

316(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251), an applicant for a CP or COL who references an

ESP for the site would be required to obtain approval from the GDNR by documenting the plant

design and conducting a site-specific analysis regarding impacts of the thermal discharges and

operation of the intake system on the aquatic environment of the-Savannah River.

Intake System

The proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would use a common river intake structure to obtain makeup water for the CWS. The proposed location of the intake structure, which is shown in

Figure 2-1, is located on the southeast bank of the Savannah River, just upstream of the

existing river intake. The intake canal would be approximately 73 m (240 ft) long and 52 m

(170 ft) wide, and would have an earthen bottom at an elevation of 21 m (70 ft) above mean sea

level (MSL) (Southern 2008). The intake structure would be located at the end of the intake

canal and would contain three pump bays for each unit. The maximum total pump rate for all

six pump bays would be 3645.6 L/s (57,784 gpm) (Southern 2008). The normal operation total

pump rate for all bays would be 2348.47 L/s (37,224 gpm) (Southern 2008). Each pump bay

NUREG-1872 3-8 August 2008
Site Layout and Plant Description

would contain one traveling screen and trash rack to prevent debris from entering the intake

pumps. Diagrams of the proposed intake structure are shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5.

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised NRC staff (Southern 2007c) that based

on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, some of these water

demand values would change. The staff's evaluation of the effect of these changes on the

staff's environmental impact conclusions is provided in Sections 5.3.3.1 and 7.3.1.1 of this EIS.

Cooling Water Treatment System

Southern states in its ER that make-up water used in the CWS would be treated to control

biofouling, corrosion, scaling, and deposition of solids (Southern 2008). Biocides would be

injected at the intake structure, and other chemicals may be added to the cooling water basins.

Likewise, the SWS make-up water may also be treated; however, because this water originates

from groundwater sources, significant water treatment may not be necessary (Southern 2007a,

2008). The water quality of the effluents from either the CWS or SWS would be regulated by

the State of Georgia via an NPDES permit.

Discharge System

A common sump would collect wastewater from the CW blowdown, the SWS blowdown, and

the treated sanitary waste systems (Southern 2008). The collected waste would then be

discharged to the Savannah River approximately 120 m (400 ft) downstream of the existing

discharge pipe terminus (Southern 2008). Figure 2-1 shows the location of the discharge pipe;

diagrams of the discharge pipes are shown in Figures 3-6 and 3-7.

The normal operation flow rate from the new discharge pipe to the Savannah River would be

606.17 L/s (9608 gpm), with the CWS blowdown contribution being 586.74 L/s (9300 gpm)

(Southern 2008). The maximum flow rate from the new discharge pipe to the Savannah River

would be 1940.72 Us (30,761 gpm) (Southern 2008). The CWS blowdown water would be the

major contributor to the total discharge with a maximum flow rate of 1822.04 L/s (28,880 gpm)

(Southern 2008) and a maximum calculated discharge temperature to the Savannah River

would be 33.1°C (91.5 0F) (Southern 2008). The water quality of all effluents discharged to the

Savannah River would be regulated by the State of Georgia via an NPDES permit, and would

need to meet established discharge limits on both the quantity of the waste and the quality/

concentration of each constituent pollutant.

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised NRC staff (Southern 2007c) that based

on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1 000 DCD, some of these flow rate

values would change. The staff's evaluation of the effect of these changes on the staffs

environmental impact conclusions is provided in Sections 5.3.3.1 and 7.3.1.1 of this EIS.

August 2008 3-9 NUREG-1872
z ¢

M r- •0 CD

m QCD

-0

/i ( I '-v¢ 9 C)--I

SO

)K-

*VACANT LOCATiON FOR TI-C

THREE NEW WATER PUMPS WHICH WOULD BEL REOUIREO C FOR VEOF UINIT 5

cn

K) Figure 3-4. Plan View of River Intake System (Southern 2008) 0D

0:
CO

00

R]VER BCT70M

SERRA-ED WEIR WALLS

S -C T I NA

*\TS

RIP' lE

[X[571NGGA.-

-RIP RAP

,XIMSTiNG GRAPE

CD

0

CL

CD

0

0

z Mc

C:

;0

M'

SEC I DN B

NfS t

Figure 3-5. Section View of River Intake System (Southern 2008)
z

M

mo4)

CD

r0

-0

CCD

U)

0

o

-SHEET PILING TO BE CUT OFF BELOW

GRADE AND LEFT IN PLACE

-SHEET PILING FOR COFFER

DAM CUT WITHIN 1'-0" OF

RIVER BOTTOM AND LEFT

IN PLACE AFTER PIPE IS

INSTALLED.

SHEET PIL IFigure 3-6. Plan View of New Discharge Outfall for the Discharge System (Southern 2008)

C

C

co0

0
C

co 42"

F I ST

EL 87'-0" (+)

FILTER CLOTH MIRAFI -

iOS MFG DY. CELANESE

OR APPRCVED EOUAL

H PILING

-P RAP

\".-SHEET PILING FOR COFFER DAM

CUT WITHINi-O" OF RIVER

BOTTOM AND LEFT IN PLACE

AFTER PIPE IS INSTALLED

EL. 50'-0" .JII

SECTION A

NTS -

CD

0

CL

-U

CD

0

*0

03

Figure 3-7. Section View of New Discharge Outfall for the Discharge System (Southern 2008)

z

C

m

G)

,o
Site Layout and Plant Description

Heat Dissipation System

The proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would have several different heat dissipation systems. The

largest heat load would be dissipated by the normal heat sink that cools the CWS. The heat

dissipation system would consist of one natural draft hyperbolic cooling tower per unit

(i.e., two cooling towers would be constructed for the proposed VEGP plant). The SWS waste

heat would be dissipated using mechanical draft cooling towers. The UHS for the proposed

ESP plant incorporates a passive design, so it does not require a cooling tower. Instead,

evaporated water exits the containment through a plenum located between the steel

containment and concrete wall of the shield building, and eventually exhausts to the atmosphere

via a shield building chimney (Southern 2008).

3.2.3 Radioactive Waste-Management System

Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste-management systems would be used to collect

and treat the radioactive materials produced as by-products of operating the proposed VEGP

Units 3 and 4. These systems would process radioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid effluents to

maintain releases within regulatory limits and to levels as low as reasonably achievable before

releasing them to the environment. Waste-processing systems would be designed to meet the

design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I ("Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and

Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion 'As Low as is Reasonably Achievable' for

Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents"). Radioactive

material in the reactor coolant would be the primary source of gaseous, liquid, and solid

radioactive wastes in light-water reactors. Radioactive fission products build up within the fuel

as a consequence of the fission process. These fission products would be contained in the

sealed fuel rods, but small quantities escape the fuel rods and contaminate the reactor coolant.

Neutron activation of the primary coolant system would also be responsible for coolant

contamination.

The description of the radioactive waste management system provided in the ER is sufficient for

an environmental review of the ESP application; however, Southern did not identify specific

radioactive waste-management systems for the new units on the VEGP site, thus deferring

analysis of the radioactive waste-management system to the CP or COL stage. The description

provided by Southern is based on information in the AP1O00 Design Control Document

(Westinghouse 2005). Solid radioactive wastes produced from operating the proposed VEGP

Units 3 and 4 would be either dry or wet solids. The solid-waste-management system would

receive, collect, and store solid wastes prior to onsite storage or shipment offsite. Bounding

liquid and gaseous effluent releases were not provided by Southern; however, Southern did

provide information on normal liquid and gaseous effluent releases along with solid waste

activities (Southern 2008). The bounding total annual volume of solid radioactive waste shipped

NUREG-1872 3-14 August 2008
Site Layout and Plant Description

is estimated at 162 m3/yr (5717 ft3/yr) with an expected total amount of radioactive material

activity of 6.527 x 1013 Bq/yr (1764 Ci/yr) (Southern 2008a).

3.2.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste-Management System

The liquid radioactive waste-management system functions to control, collect, process, handle,

store, and dispose of liquids containing radioactive material. This is managed using several

process trains consisting of tanks, pumbs, ion exchangers, and filters. The system is designed

to handle both normal and anticipated operational occurrences. Normal operations include

processing of (1) reactor coolant system effluents, (2) floor drains and other wastes with

potentially high suspended solid contents, (3) detergent wastes, and (4) chemical wastes. In

addition, the radioactive waste-management system 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). With two exceptions, liquid

effluents processed through the liquid radioactive waste-management system are discharged to

the environment. The exceptions are steam generator blowdown that is normally returned to

the condensate system after processing and reactor coolant that can be degassed prior to

reactor shutdown and returned to the reactor coolant system.

3.2.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste-Management System

The gaseous radioactive waste-management system functions to collect, process, and

discharge radioactive or hydrogen-bearing gaseous wastes. This is managed using a oncethrough, ambient-temperature, activated-carbon delay system. Radioactive isotopes of iodine

and the noble gases xenon and krypton are created as fission products within the fuel rods

during operation. Some of these gases escape to the reactor coolant system through cladding

defects and subsequently decay to stable isotopes, are released to the environment via plant

ventilation, or are captured and then released by the gaseous radioactive waste-management

system. In addition, various gaseous activation products, such as argon-41, are formed directly

in the reactor coolant during operation. The gaseous radioactive waste-management system is

typically active only when gaseous concentrations are observed to reach a given threshold. The

gaseous system cannot collect noble gases, so if noble gases are monitored to reach a

threshold value, the reactor coolant system is diverted to the liquid radioactive wastemanagement system that can collect noble gases using the degasifier.

3.2.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste-Management System

The solid radioactive waste-management system functions to treat, store, package, and dispose

of dry or wet solids. This is managed with the same process used to treat, store, and dispose of

solid radioactive waste at currently operating VEGP Units 1 and 2. The solid radioactive wastes

include spent ion exchange resins, deep bed filtration media, spent filter cartridges, dry active

wastes, and mixed wastes. The system is designed to handle both normal and anticipated

August 2008 3-15 NUREG-1872
Site Layout and Plant Description

operational occurrences (Southern 2008). There are no onsite facilities for permanent disposal

of solid wastes. Prior to being shipped to a licensed disposal facility, packaged wastes would

be temporarily stored in a radioactive waste storage facility planned for construction east of the

existing cooling towers (Southern 2007a).

3.2.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

The following sections provide descriptions of the nonradioactive waste systems proposed for

the VEGP site, including systems for chemical, biocide, sanitary, and other effluents.

3.2.4.1 Effluents Containing Chemicals or Biocides

Water withdrawn from the Savannah River for use in the CWS would be treated with both

biocides and chemicals (Southern 2008). The biocides would be used to control biofouling of

the CWS, and chemicals would be added to control scaling, corrosion, and solids deposition

(Southern 2008). Depending on the intended use, groundwater would be treated with chemicals

and/or biocides (Southern 2008). Southern provided a representative list of chemicals or

biocides that may be used in the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. These chemicals include

sodium hypochlorite, sodium bromide, ammonium bisulfite, tolytriazole, and polymers that

control corrosion or that act as a dispersant (Southern 2007b). Southern states that a GDNRissued NPDES permit for the VEGP site would limit the volume and concentration of these

discharges (Southern 2008).

3.2.4.2 Sanitary System Effluents

A treatment system for sanitary waste currently is operated on the VEGP site to dispose of

waste from the VEGP site. This treatment system would be expanded to accommodate the

additional waste stream associated with the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2008).

Discharges from this plant would be controlled in accordance with a GDNR-issued NPDES

permit. Southern states that the normal sanitary-waste discharge rate would be 2.65 Us

(42 gpm), and the maximum discharge rate would be 8.8 Us (140 gpm) (Southern 2008).

3.2.4.3 Other Effluents

Nonradioactive gaseous emissions result from testing and operating the standby diesel

generators. Emissions from the generators include particulates, sulfur oxides, carbon

monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Gaseous releases would comply with levels

permitted by the GDNR (Southern 2008).

Nonradioactive liquid effluents from laboratory drains, equipment decontamination, and

chemical additives would be collected in liquid waste sumps or approved chemical storage

units. Oily waste would be removed via an oil/water separator and sent to a waste storage tank

prior to shipment offsite for disposal (Southern 2008). Liquid effluent not containing oily waste

NUREG-1872 3-16 August 2008
Site Layout and Plant Description

would be monitored, treated, and discharged to the Savannah River as allowed under an

NPDES permit issued by the GDNR (Southern 2008). No liquid waste would be discharged to

groundwater (Southern 2008).

Nonradioactive solid wastes would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. At

present, a private industrial landfill permitted by GDNR is located on the VEGP site near the

location of the proposed switchyard for VEGP Units 3 and 4. During construction, the landfill

would either be relocated onsite, or the material would be removed and disposed in an offsite

permitted facility (Southern 2008). Nonradioactive resins and sludge would be disposed of in a

permitted industrial landfill, and putrescible wastes would be disposed of in a permitted offsite

facility (Southern 2008). Recyclable solid waste materials generated on the VEGP site, such as

scrap metal, used oil and antifreeze, office paper, and aluminum cans, would be collected for

recycling or recovery (Southern 2008).

Nonradioactive hazardous wastes would be stored temporarily onsite and periodically disposed

of at a permitted disposal facility (Southern 2008). These wastes are regulated under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and all hazardous wastes activities would be

performed in compliance with all applicable regulations (Southern 2008).

3.3 Power Transmission System

As discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this EIS, the VEGP site is connected to the regional power grid

-via two 500-kV transmission lines and four 230-kV transmission lines in four rights-of-way.

Information on the dimensions of each existing transmission line right-of-way is provided in

Section 2.2.2. The transmission lines are operated by the GPC, which is a wholly owned

subsidiary of Southern Company. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. also is a wholly

owned subsidiary of Southern Company.

One new 500-kV transmission line would be constructed to handle the power generated by the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. The proposed new transmission line would be routed from the

VEGP site to the Thomson-Vogtle substation west of Augusta, Georgia. This substation would

be upgraded to contain a 500-kV bus by the time the connection is made (Southern 2008).

Although the-precise route of the new transmission line had not yet been determined, GPC

prepared a routing study (GPC 2007). Routing information, transmission line dimensions, and

land-use characteristics in the planned route are discussed in Section 4.1.2 of this EIS. In

conjunction with selecting a final route, the GPC would consult with appropriate State and

Federal agencies, including the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, the GDNR, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Southern 2008).

Currently, all of the GPC's 500-kV transmission lines are supported by steel, lattice-type towers

designed to provide clearances consistent with the National Electrical Safety Code and the

August 2008 3-17 NUREG-1872
Site Layout and Plant Description

GPC's engineering standards. At a minimum, all clearances would equal or exceed 13.7 m

(45 ft) phase-to-ground. For 500-kV transmission lines, the GPC uses a three-subconductorper-phase system with two overhead ground wires. All towers are grounded with either ground

rods or a counterpoise system. Any new transmission lines would be constructed using the

same standards. No transmission line tower would be higher than 60 m (200 ft) above the

ground surface (Southern 2008).

3.4 References

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic

Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities."

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses,

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

[FWPCA]).

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2007. Corridor Study - Thomson Vogtle 500-kV

Transmission Project. Georgia Power Company, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No.

ML070460368.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA). 42 USC 6901, et

seq,

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007a. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company Vogtle Early Site Permit Application Comments on Draft Environmental Impact

Statement. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington D.C.), December 26, 2007. Southern

Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML073620401.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007b. 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.), January 30, 2007. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Accession No. ML070880039.

NUREG-1872 3-18 August 2008
Site Layout and Plant Description

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007c. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company Vogtle Early Site Permit Application Comments on Draft Environmental Impact

Statement. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington D.C.), December 26, 2007. Southern

Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML073620401.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Revision 4. Southern Company,

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Letter from D. B. Matthews, Director

Division of New Reactor Licensing (Washington D.C.) to W. E. Cummings, Vice President

Regulatory Affairs and Standardization, Westinghouse Electric Company (Pittsburgh, PA)

regarding Acceptance Review of the AP1000 Design Certification Amendment Application

for Revision 16. January 18, 2008, NRC, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML073600743.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2003. APIO00 Siting Guide: Site

Information for an Early Site Permit. APP-0000-X1-001, Revision 3, Westinghouse Electric

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2005. APIO00 Design Control

Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 15, Westinghouse Electric

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2007. AP1O00 Design Control

Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 16, May 26, 2007,

Westinghouse Electric Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

August 2008 3-19 NUREG-1872

4.0 Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

This chapter examines the environmental issues associated with potential site-preparation

activities and construction of proposed new Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

(VEGP) as described in the application for an early site permit (ESP) submitted by Southern

Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). As part of its application, Southern submitted an

Environmental Report (ER) and a site redress plan (Southern 2008a). The ER provides

information used as the basis for the environmental review. The site redress plan allows for

specific construction activities to be conducted with approval of an ESP. Those construction

activities evaluated for the proposed site, designated the VEGP site, are those defined by Title

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 50.10(a). In the event that the ESP is approved

and Southern conducts those construction activities but does not build the new units, Southern

would be required to implement its site redress plan.

As mentioned above, the staff analyzes the impacts of construction and operation of the

proposed action in Chapters 4 and 5, and discusses cumulative impacts in Chapter 7. As a

result of the NRC's recent new rule on the limited work authorizations for nuclear power plants

(see 72 FR 57416), the definition of construction activities in 10 CFR 50.10 has changed to

more clearly reflect the NRC's jurisdiction. The staffs draft EIS for the VEGP ESP review was

published prior to the issuance of the final rule. To reflect the effects of the new rule, site

preparation and preconstruction activities would most appropriately be analyzed in the staffs

EIS as cumulative impacts rather than as impacts of construction or operation of the proposed

facility. However, in this instance, to ensure appropriate consideration of public comments on

the draft EIS and avoid confusion from reorganizing the document following those comments,

the staff will keep discussions of such impacts (e.g., those no longer defined by regulation as

construction activities) in the chapters in which they were discussed in the draft EIS. While the

staff's analysis of construction activities in the draft EIS and its discussion of cumulative impacts

are different, they are generally at a similar depth of analysis. The staff believes this approach

will allow effective consideration of public comments while still ensuring that impacts relevant to

the NEPA analysis are disclosed and fully evaluated.

In Sections 4.1 through 4.9 of this chapter, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

staff evaluates the potential impacts on land use; meteorology and air quality; water use and

quality; terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; socioeconomics; historic and cultural resources;

environmental justice; nonradiological and radiological health effects; and applicable measures

and controls that would limit the adverse impacts of station construction. In accordance with

10 CFR Part 51, impacts have been analyzed, and a significance level - SMALL, MODERATE

or LARGE - of potential adverse impacts has been assigned to each analysis. In the

socioeconomic area where the impacts of taxes are assessed, the impacts may be considered

August 2008 4-1 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

beneficial and are stated as such. Possible mitigation of adverse impacts, where appropriate, is

presented in Section 4.10, followed by a description of Southern's site redress plan in

Section 4.11. A summary of the construction impacts is presented in Section 4.12. Full

citations for the references cited in this chapter are listed in Section 4.13. As noted above,

cumulative impacts of construction and operation are discussed in Chapter 7. The technical

analyses provided in this chapter support the results, conclusions, and recommendations

presented in Chapters 10 and 11.

The staff relied on the mitigation measures and the required Federal, State, and local permits

and authorizations presented in the ER in reaching its conclusion on the significance level of the

adverse impacts. The staff relied on the infrastructure upgrades planned by the counties, cities,

and towns, such as road and school expansions, in assigning significance levels to the impacts.

Failure to implement such infrastructure upgrades may result in larger impact levels.

4.1 Land-Use Impacts

This section provides information on land-use impacts associated with site-preparation activities

and construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site. Topics discussed include

land-use impacts at the VEGP site and in the vicinity of the site and land-use impacts in

transmission line rights-of-way and offsite areas.

4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

The VEGP site is located entirely within the existing VEGP site where no zoning regulations

currently apply.

All site-preparation and construction activities for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4, including

ground-disturbing activities, would occur within the existing VEGP site boundary (Southern

2008a). The area that would be affected on a long-term basis as a result of permanent facilities

at the site is approximately 131 ha (324 ac). An additional approximately 94 ha (232 ac) would

be disturbed for temporary facilities and spoils storage (Southern 2008b). The 12.5-ha (31-ac)

potential borrow area would be adjacent to and northwest of the proposed road to the Unit 3 and

4 intake structure (Southern 2008b).

No new railroad lines to support the construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 are planned; however,

three new roads would be constructed. A heavy-haul road would be constructed from the barge

slip on the Savannah River to the construction site. A construction access road would be

constructed from River Road near the rail spur crossing. A third new road would be constructed

to the new intake structure (Southern 2008a). The 500-kV Thalmann transmission line would be

rerouted on the VEGP site to avoid the footprint of the planned new units. An existing landfill on

the VEGP site (Landfill #3) would be relocated onsite or the materials would be removed and

disposed in an offsite disposal facility.

NUREG-1872 4-2 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Clearing and removal of trees growing within the VEGP site would be required. No agricultural

lands would be directly affected by construction activities. Borrow material would be taken from

the excavation for the powerblock and switchyard for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4

(Southern 2007a). Areas for soil storage are shown in Figure 2-1.

A few small wetland areas and three small unnamed streams exist on the VEGP site

(Figure 2-1). Southern intends to avoid watercourses and wetlands to the extent possible

during construction. Any work that has the potential to impact a wetlands area would be

performed in accordance with applicable State and Federal regulatory requirements.

The cooling water intake structure (CWIS) and discharge structure for the proposed VEGP

Units 3 and 4 (Figure 2-1) would be located in the Savannah River floodplain. The barge slip,

also located in the Savannah River floodplain, would be expanded. All other construction

activities would be outside the 500-year floodplain (Southern 2008a). Some dredging in the

Savannah River would be needed for a passage from the main channel of the river to the barge

slip to accommodate movement of heavy equipment and components to the site by barge.

Dredging would also be needed to enlarge the barge slip. Dredge material would be removed

and transported to a spoils area, as shown in Figure 2-1, for disposal. Dredging activities for the

barge slip would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

A few offsite land-use changes in the vicinity of the VEGP site would be expected as a result of

construction activities. For example, a recreational vehicle park and store within 10 km (6 mi) of

the VEGP site operated during construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 and could reopen during

construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4. Additional information on roads, housing, and

construction-related infrastructure impacts can be found in Sections 4.5.1.3, 4.5.4.3, and 4.5.4

respectively.

Based on information provided by Southern, the site redress plan, and NRC's own independent

review, the staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts related to land

use that would influence the granting of an ESP to Southern for the VEGP site. The staff

concludes that the land-use impacts of construction would be SMALL, and further mitigation is

not warranted.

4.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Ways and Offsite Areas

Southern and Georgia Power Company (GPC) plan a new 500-kV transmission line to serve the

proposed new units at the VEGP site. VEGP Units 3 and 4 would use the new transmission line

or some combination of the new and existing transmission lines. The new transmission line

right-of-way would be routed northwest from the VEGP site, passing west of Fort Gordon, a

U.S. Army facility west of Augusta, Georgia, and then north to the Thomson substation. The

Thomson substation is located about 32 km (20 mi) west of Augusta, Georgia. The

transmission line right-of-way would be approximately 46 m (150 ft) wide and approximately

August 2008 4-3 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

97 km (60 mi) long (Southern 2007b). The new transmission line would require approximately

390 towers (Southern 2008a). Each tower would require foundation excavations.

Transmission line siting in Georgia is regulated under Title 22 of the Georgia Code. Although

the precise route for the planned new transmission line has not yet been determined, the area

where the new transmission line right-of-way would be sited is shown in Figure 4-1. Land use

for a representative route within the approximate right-of-way is shown in Table 4-1

(GPC 2007).

South

~ ~ , orgia carolina

a, n on

RM,

Figure 4-1. Approximate Siting of the Planned New Transmission Line Right-of-Way

(GPC 2007)

NUREG-1872 4-4 N August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 4-1. Existing Land Uses in Planned New Transmission Line Right-of-Way

Land Use Percentage

Forested 23.3

Open land 15.3

Open water 0.6

Planted pine 32.0

Mine/Quarry 1.0

Residential 0.5

Transportation 5.6

Utility 7.1

Row crop 14.6

Source: GPC 2007

In siting the new transmission right-of-way, the GPC would consult with the Georgia State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Georgia

Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), and the USACE (Southern 2008a). In siting new

transmission lines, GPC has indicated a number of areas to be avoided, if possible, including

buildings, mines, airports, military facilities, park and wetlands (GPC 2007). In the event that

wetlands are disturbed, construction would be conducted in accordance with necessary State

and Federal permits to protect wetland areas (Southern 2008a).

Based on information provided by Southern and the GPC and NRC's own independent review,

the staff concludes that the land-use impacts of constructing an additional transmission line to

serve the VEGP site would be MODERATE.

4.2 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts

Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 describe the meteorological characteristics and air quality of the site.

The primary impacts of construction of a new unit on local meteorology and air quality would be

from dust from construction activities, open burning, emissions from equipment and machinery

used in construction, concrete batch plant operations, and emissions from vehicles used to

transport workers and materials to and from the site.

4.2.1 Construction Activities

Construction of the proposed VEGP Unit 3 and 4 would result in temporary impacts to local air

quality as a result of emissions associated with construction activities. Similar to any largescale construction project, dust particle emissions would be generated during ground-clearing,

grading, and excavation activities. Fugitive dust particles would be generated from the

movement of machinery and materials as well as during windy periods over recently disturbed

August 2008 4-5 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

or cleared areas. The Air Protection Branch of the GDNR Environmental Protection Division,

which regulates air-quality control for the State of Georgia, does not require a permit for dust

generated by construction activities (GDNR 2004). However, Southern stated in its ER

(Southern 2008a) that it would develop a dust-control plan prior to construction that would

include specific dust mitigation measures. Techniques such as imposing speed limits on

unpaved construction roads, minimizing material handling, covering haul trucks, wetting of

potential source areas during dry periods, limiting grading and excavation activities during high

winds or periods of poor air quality, and stabilizing bare ground areas are possible mitigation

actions that would be considered (Southern 2008a).

Exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment would also generate smaller

amounts of particulate matter. In addition, these emissions would contain carbon monoxide,

oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds. As was discussed in Section 2.3.2, Burke

County is in attainment or is unclassified for all criteria pollutants for which National Ambient Air

Quality Standards have been established (40 CFR 81.314). As a result, a conformity analysis

on direct and indirect emissions is not required (58 FR 63214). If construction activities include

the burning of debris, refuse, or residual construction materials, a permit would need to be

secured from the State, and Southern would need to contact local county officials to determine

which local ordinances, if any, must be followed.

In general, emissions from construction activities would vary based on the level and duration of

a specific activity, but the overall impact is expected to be temporary and limited in magnitude.

The staff therefore concludes that the impacts from construction activities on air quality at the

VEGP site would be SMALL, and additional mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not

warranted.

4.2.2 Transportation

In the ER, Southern estimates that during peak construction there would be 3500 workers

divided equally into four shifts, or 875 workers per shift (Southern 2008c). Additional

information on work shifts is presented in Section 4.5.4.1. Using a conservative assumption of

one worker per vehicle in its transportation analysis, Southern estimates that an additional

1750 vehicles would be added to the roadway system during a shift change (Southern 2008c).

The majority of the construction workers would likely reside in Burke, Richmond, and Columbia

Counties in a proportion comparable to the existing workforce (Southern 2008a) and use

primary roadways to commute to the VEGP site. In addition to construction workers, Southern

estimates increased traffic from approximately 100 daily truck deliveries would occur at the site

(Southern 2008a).

Depending on the actual residency location of workers, roadways leading to the site would

experience increased traffic volume. NRC staff believes that vehicle occupancy rate would

likely be higher than Southern's conservative estimate, and would range between 1.5 to

NUREG-1872 4-6 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

2.0 occupants per vehicle. This would result in 33 to 50 percent fewer construction worker

vehicles than conservatively estimated by Southern. Nevertheless, River Road, the primary

access road to the VEGP site, would still experience a significant increase in traffic during shift

changes that could lead to periods of congestion. Stopped vehicles with idling engines would

lead to increased emissions beyond what would occur from normal vehicle operation alone.

However, the overall impact caused by increased traffic volume and congestion is difficult to

estimate because timing of construction activities, shifts, and exact worker residence locations

are largely unknown.

In its ER, Southern has committed to develop mitigation measures that would be included in a

construction management traffic plan prior to the start of construction (Southern 2008a).

Numerous measures, such as installing turn lanes near the construction entrance, encouraging

car pools, establishing central parking and shuttling services to and from the construction site,

and scheduling shift changes for operating personnel, outage workers, and construction workers

would be considered to mitigate the impact of vehicular traffic on air quality. Based on

Southern's commitment to develop and implement a traffic management plan and NRC's own

independent review, the staff concludes that the impact on the local air quality from the increase

in vehicular traffic related to construction activities would be temporary and SMALL, and

additional mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

4.3 Water-Related Impacts

Water-related impacts involved in the construction of a nuclear power plant are similar to

impacts that would be associated with any large industrial construction project, and not much

different than those seen during the construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2. Prior to initiating

construction, including any site-preparation work, Southern would be required to obtain the

appropriate authorizations regulating alterations to the hydrological environment. These

authorizations would likely include:

" Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit. This permit would be issued by the USACE, which

governs impacts of construction activities on wetlands or waters of the United States and

management of dredged material.

* Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification. This certification would be issued by the GDNR

and would ensure that the project does not conflict with State water-quality management

programs.

* Clean Water Act Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

construction and industrial stormwater permits. These permits would regulate point source

stormwater discharges. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) stormwater

regulations have established requirements for stormwater discharges from various activities

including construction activities. The EPA has delegated the authority for administering the

NPDES program in the State of Georgia to the GDNR.

August 2008 4-7 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

* Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This section prohibits the obstruction or

alteration of navigable waters of the United States without a permit. Appropriate USACE

permits would be obtained for construction in the Savannah River.

4.3.1 Hydrological Alterations

Construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 would potentially affect several surface waterbodies as well

as the aquifers underlying the site. Potentially affected surface waterbodies include Mallard

Pond and the associated downstream unnamed creek, several of the onsite debris/sediment

basins and their associated drainage areas, and the Savannah River.

Dewatering of the foundation excavations would occur for 18 months during construction of

VEGP Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2008a). Dewatering systems would potentially depress the

water table in the vicinity of the construction excavation; however, these systems would not

dewater the confined aquifers (i.e., Tertiary or Cretaceous aquifer systems) underlying the water

table because the Blue Bluff Marl acts to provide a hydraulic separation. Southern has stated

that water continued to discharge from Mallard Pond throughout the dewatering activity

associated with construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 (Southern 2007b). The powerblock

dewatering program persisted for almost 7 years, from June 1976 through March 1983

(Southern 2003a). Southern states in its ER that water pumped from the excavation would be

discharged into a settling basin if necessary before being released through a NPDES permitted

outfall (Southern 2008a).

Southern has proposed construction of a 73-M (240-ft) long and 52-m (170-ft)-wide intake canal

along the shoreline of the Savannah River to support cooling system water demands for VEGP

Units 3 and 4 (see Figures 3-4 and 3-5). The CWIS for VEGP Units 3 and 4 will be located at

the end of the intake canal, and will be approximately 27.4 m (90 ft) long and 38.1 m (125 ft)

wide. It will include nine pump bays. The bottom of the canal would be constructed at an

elevation of 21.3 m (70 ft) above mean sea level (MSL), and vertical sheet piles would be driven

into the river bottom along the sides of the canal that extend upwards to an elevation of about

29.9 m (98 ft) above MSL (Southern 2008a).

A discharge pipe would extend approximately 15.2 m (50 ft) into the Savannah River from the

normal water surface shoreline (an elevation of 24 m (80 ft) above MSL). The centerline

elevation of the pipe would be approximately 0.9 m (3 ft) above the river bottom, and rip-rap

material would be placed around the pipe outfall to resist erosion (Southern 2008a). A cofferdam

would be built using sheet piles before installation of the pipe. The sheet piling would be cut to

within 0.3 m (1 ft) of the river bottom grade and left in place after installation of the pipe

I (Figures 3-6 and 3-7).

Southern would construct a barge slip to support delivery of heavy equipment and components

associated with construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2008a). Southern states in its

NUREG-1872 4-8 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

ER that Savannah River at the VEGP site may need to be dredged to provide access to the

barge slip (Southern 2008a) but current bathymetry suggests that no dredging is needed at this

time (NRC 2007).

Activities supporting construction of the barge slip, the new intake structure, and the new

discharge outfall would involve dredging adjacent to the VEGP site in the Savannah River, and

Southern is required to obtain permits from the USACE prior to construction. Southern states in

its ER that dredge materials would be removed from the river and deposited in an area preapproved for dredge spoils (Southern 2008a). Because of the possibility of dredging the

Federal Navigation Channel to allow the transport of large components, the potential impacts of

large-scale dredging from Savannah Harbor to the VEGP site are discussed in Section 7.5,

"Cumulative Impacts."

Southern states in its ER that new debris basins would be constructed, and that debris basins

built for construction of the existing facilities would not be reused (Southern 2008a). The new

debris basins would serve as sedimentation basins for surface-water runoff and water pumped

from the powerblock excavation (Southern 2008a).

Wetlands delineations and jurisdictional determinations of the sites impacted by construction,

including the equipment laydown areas and associated infrastructure such as roads and

stormwater drainage, would be required for Southern to submit an application for a Section 404

Permit to the USACE. Southern has made preliminary wetlands delineations and jurisdictional

determinations and has initiated consultation with the USACE (Southern 2007b). These

determinations are discussed in Section 2.7.1.1. The USACE permitting process would ensure

that construction impacts to wetlands are avoided or minimized by implementation of

appropriate best management practices (BMPs).(a)

Southern has not obtained a Section 401 certification from the State of Georgia for ESP-related

site-preparation and preliminary construction activities at the VEGP site. The USACE would

require that Southern obtain a certification from the State of Georgia, which is required pursuant

to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, before issuing a Section 404 permit. In accordancewith

the Clean Water Act, a Section 401 certification must therefore be obtained before ESPpermitted limited construction activities can commence.

The impacts of hydrological alterations resulting from construction activities would be

localized and temporary, and the NPDES stormwater permits, 401 Certification, and

USACE Section 404 and Section 10 permit processes would minimize impacts. The staff

(a) Best management practices are recommended site management, maintenance, or monitoring

activities that have been shown to work effectively to mitigate impacts. Government agencies

sometimes use BMPs to specify standards of practice where a regulation may not be sufficiently

descriptive.

August 2008 4-9 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

concludes that the impacts of hydrological alterations would be SMALL and further mitigation

beyond the actions stated is not warranted.

4.3.2 Water-Use Impacts

Other than a small quantity of surface water that may be used to wash construction equipment

or spray roads for dust abatement, Southern generally does not plan to use surface water

during construction of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2008a). Southern states in

its ER that groundwater wells placed in the Cretaceous aquifer would provide water needed

during construction of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 for standard construction purposes

including dust abatement, mixing concrete, and all potable water required by the construction

workforce (Southern 2008a).

Among the proposed construction activities, dewatering would potentially impact the

groundwater environment temporarily in the immediate vicinity of the VEGP site. Construction

of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would employ a dewatering method similar to the method

used when VEGP Units 1 and 2 were constructed (Southern 2007b). That experience is

summarized in Section 2.6.2.2 of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Dewatering

during construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 involved the same aquifer at a nearby location and

employed four pumps, each with a 32 L/s (500 gpm) capacity (thus, a maximum capacity of

126 L/s [2000 gpm]). There were instances when greater capacity was needed for brief periods

because of storm events (Southern 2003a).

Data from observation wells monitored during construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 suggest a

variable response in the Water Table aquifer near the excavation (Southern 2008a). The most

distant well in the vicinity of the excavation for which a record exists (well #804), which is

located approximately 300 m (1000 ft) southwest of the excavation, was not substantially

impacted (0.6 m [2 ft] decline and subsequent recovery). Southern states that the stream

discharging from Mallard Pond and the west branch of the drainage below the pond are

perennial streams (Southern 2008a). The applicant stated that water continued to discharge

from Mallard Pond throughout the dewatering activity for VEGP Units 1 and 2, which lasted from

mid-1976 until mid-1983 (Southern 2007b). Monitoring data from the period of VEGP Unit 1 and

2 construction indicate recovery from dewatering within 2 years (Southern 2008a). The Blue

Bluff Marl is believed to substantially isolate the Water Table aquifer from the underlying

confined Tertiary aquifer. Locally, the existing downward hydraulic gradient from the Water

Table aquifer toward the Tertiary aquifer would be maintained as downward directed but be

somewhat less during the dewatering period. Southern has committed to protect the aquifer

from impact during the construction process. Southern states they will "...visually monitor

Mallard Pond.. .use best management practices... (and) In the event a significant impact to

the groundwater resource is discovered.. .this information would be evaluated as potentially

new and significant information and provided to the NRC for review as appropriate"

(Southern 2007b). Therefore, the staff determined a dewatering activity conducted in the

NUREG-1872 4-10 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Water Table aquifer would be localized and temporary, and not impact substantially local

groundwater users in the vicinity of the VEGP site.

The Water Table aquifer in the vicinity of the VEGP site may also experience a change in net

infiltration (i.e., recharge from precipitation) because of the clearing of land, the construction of

facilities including a stormwater drainage system, and the temporary disturbance of vegetated

areas. The staff reviewed hydrographs of the water table elevation provided in the ER for wells

in the immediate vicinity of VEGP Units 1 and 2 (Southern 2008a). These graphical data

illustrate the water table change over the 20-year period since construction of VEGP Units 1 and

2. The net change is variable, but all changes appear to range between 1.5 and 2.4 m (5 and

8 ft) in magnitude.

Southern proposes to supply water for construction from the confined aquifer system under its

existing groundwater permit for which there is unused groundwater capacity. Southern

estimates current pumping at 46.1 Us (730 gpm) to operate VEGP Units 1 and 2, a maximum of

26.5 Us (420 gpm) during construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4, and 47.44 L/s (752 gpm) to

operate the two new units when they begin operations. This maximum water usage rate during

construction is small compared to the deep aquifer baseflow rate of 5210 L/s (5.21 m3

/s,

184 cfs, 119 MGD) (see Section 2.6.1.2).

In this analysis well MU-2A, the deep confined aquifer well nearest the VEGP site property

boundary (1740 m [5700 ft] distant) is assumed to supply all of the water. Three pumping rates

are of interest.

1. A drawdown in the year 2015 associated with a baseline for VEGP Units 1 and 2 operation;

the total rate would be 46.1 Us (730 gpm).

2. A drawdown in the year 2015 associated with operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2 and

maximum construction pumping; the total rate would be 72.55 Us (1150 gpm).

3. A drawdown in the year 2017 associated with operation of VEGP Units 1, 2, and 3, and

construction of VEGP Unit 4; the total rate would be 83.03 Us (1316 gpm).

The projected annual average groundwater resource use during construction of VEGP Units 3

and 4 is shown in Table 4-2 as outlined in the three cases above. These three cases examine

the construction period including the time when VEGP Unit 3 is in operation and VEGP Unit 4 is

still under construction.

Conservative models are employed by Southern and the staff to estimate drawdown in the

confined Cretaceous aquifer as a result of groundwater withdrawal. A simplified form of the

Theis equation (Theis 1935; Cooper and Jacob 1946) for estimating drawdown in a confined

aquifer was used to estimate drawdown in the Cretaceous aquifer. The assumptions of this

August 2008 4-11 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

model are described in Section 5.3.2.2. Conservatism in this analysis also comes from the use

of a single well to produce the water and from that well being closest to the VEGP site boundary.

Table 4-2. Drawdown Due to Groundwater Withdrawal During VEGP Unit 3 and 4 Construction

Time Drawdown at Drawdown at

Period Pumping Rate 5700' 3500'

Water Withdrawal Scenario (yr) Us (gpm) m (ft) m (ft)

Aquifer response 2015

Units 1 and 2 Operation 30 46.1 (730) 1.75 (5.75) 1.91 (6.26)

Aquifer Response 2015

Units 1 and 2 Operation 30 46.1 (730) 1.75 (5.75) 1.91 (6.26)

Units 3 and 4 Construction 6(a) 26.5 (420) 0.86 (2.82) 0.95 (311

72.6 (1150) 2.61 (8.56) 2.86 (9.38)

Aquifer Response 2017

Units 1 and 2 Operation 32 46.1 (730) 1.75 (5.78) 1.92 (6.30)

Units 3 and 4 Construction 8 26.5 (420) 0.88 (2.90) 0.98 (3.20)

Unit 3 Operation 2 10.5 (166) 0.30 (0.98) 0.34 (10

83.0 (1316) 2.95 (9.67) 3.23 (10.60)

(a) Assume construction period of 6 years

Source: (Falls and Powell 2001)

Estimated drawdown for the three water withdrawal scenarios are shown in Table 4-2. The

resulting drawdown levels are estimated as 1.8 m (5.8 ft), 2.6 m (8.6 ft), and 2.9 m (9.7 ft),

respectively, for the three events. Increased drawdown over that of VEGP Unit 1 and 2

operation at the property boundary in the Cretaceous aquifer during construction of VEGP

Units 3 and 4 is estimated to be 0.85 m (2.8 ft). Similarly, increased drawdown for startup of

VEGP Unit 3 and continued construction of VEGP Unit 4 is estimated to be 1.1 m (3.9 ft).

These estimates reflect the potential impact at the property boundary, which is 1740 m (5700 ft)

from the production well. The closest users of the Cretaceous aquifer are a municipal well

23.3 km (14.5 mi) away, an industrial well 13.7 km (8.5 mi) away, and wells located 6.4 km

(4 mi) away in the D Area of the Savannah River Site. At these distances, the change in

drawdown resulting from the supply of water during the construction period is estimated as less

than 0.9 m (3.5 ft) for these wells~in 2017. These drawdowns are small relative to the 120 m

(400 ft) of confining hydraulic head in the Cretaceous aquifer.

The staff also estimated drawdown impacts if all groundwater demand was drawn from the

proposed well location approximately 1070 m (3500 ft) from the property boundary. The

estimated drawdowns for a neighboring water user on the VEGP site property boundary were

approximately 10 percent greater. The more distant users are not influenced by this relatively

minor change in well location.

NUREG-1872 4-12 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

The staff's conclusion is based on the existing water-use permit (i.e., State of Georgia,

Groundwater Use Permit No. 017-003) being of adequate capacity for construction water

demand, on a deep aquifer with a baseflow much greater than construction groundwater

demand, and the forgoing analysis of the change in groundwater drawdown. Because wateruse impacts during construction would be localized and temporary, and recovery from

construction activity would be short term, the staff concludes that water-use impacts caused by

construction activities would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

4.3.3 Water-Quality Impacts

During construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 and their associated infrastructure, a potential exists

for soil erosion to degrade the water quality of surface-waterbodies such as Mallard Pond,

Telfair Pond, and the Savannah River. Southern would be required to obtain a NPDES

construction stormwater permit before the start of construction, which would ensure that BMPs

are followed. Southern states in its ER that they would also develop an Erosion, Sedimentation

and Pollution Control Plan (Southern 2008a).

Construction activities in and along the shoreline of the Savannah River would disturb river

sediments, thus increasing turbidity both near and downstream of the construction sites. To

limit the downstream effects of these activities, Southern states in its ER that cofferdams would

be constructed around the sites to limit downstream distribution of the river sediments

(Southern 2008a).

The VEGP site is served by a private wastewater treatment facility sized for the workforce of the'

existing units (see Section 3.2.4.2). During construction, the temporary office and warehouse

facilities would use the existing waste treatment facility. Portable toilets or other approved

supplemental means of sanitary waste treatment would be employed on the construction area

(Southern 2008a).

Because the impacts of hydrological alterations resulting from the above construction activities

would be localized and temporary, and the NPDES stormwater permits, 401 Certification, and

the USACE permits require the implementation of BMPs to minimize impacts, the staff

concludes that the impacts on water quality during construction would be SMALL, and further

mitigation beyond the actions stated is not warranted.

4.4 Ecological Impacts

This section describes the potential impacts to ecological resources from construction of VEGP

Units 3 and 4 including the construction of a new transmission line to connect the units to the

grid. The section is divided into three subsections: terrestrial impacts, aquatic impacts, and

impacts to threatened and endangered species.

August 2008 4-13 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

4.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts

This section provides information on the site-preparation activities and construction of VEGP

Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site and the impacts on the terrestrial ecosystem. Topics discussed

include terrestrial resource impacts at the VEGP site and terrestrial ecosystem impacts

associated with the expansion of the transmission system to include a new 500-kV transmission

line right-of-way. Southern stated that "BMPs used to minimize impacts during preconstruction

and construction activities begin with a programmatic construction Environmental Control Plan"

(Southern 2007b). This plan would address BMPs that would be used to minimize impacts.

The plan would cover topics such as erosion and sedimentation control, sensitive resources,

spill prevention and response, noise and vibration, air emissions, and general site maintenance.

In addition, the applicant states that regular environmental compliance inspections of

construction activities would be performed to ensure that site activities are in compliance with all

applicable environmental requirements (Southern 2007b).

4.4.1.1 Wildlife Habitat

The VEGP Site

The VEGP site includes land developed for industrial use, previously disturbed land, and

undeveloped land. Southern stated that approximately 210 ha (520 ac) would be disturbed by

construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2008b). The acreage did not include the area for

the potential borrow area (Southern 2008b) or the acreage associated with the simulator

building, which was previously identified by Southern as being part of the disturbance footprint

(Southern 2007b). Therefore, the staff included 1.6 ha (4.0 ac) for the simulator building

(Southern 2007b RAI response E4.3-1 b) and 31 acres for the potential borrow area (Southern

2008b). The total acreage of potential disturbance used in the staffs analysis was 225.ha

(556 ac), including 131 ha (324 ac) that could be permanently disturbed and an additional 94 ha

(232 ac) could be temporarily disturbed. The total number of acres needed for each major

construction activity and the associated habitat types that would be disturbed is provided in

Table 4-3. Southern stated that "it is unlikely that each activity will disturb the entire area

identified, and where possible, efforts will be made to minimize disturbance" (Southern 2007b).

Approximately 11 ha (27.1 ac) of habitat onsite would be permanently removed for construction

of the new 500-kV transmission line (Southern 2008b). The new transmission line would

originate in the new switchyard and would be routed west across the south end of Mallard Pond.

It would follow the existing Vogtle-Scherer 500-kV right-of-way west until it exits the site

boundary. The right-of-way would be 46 m (150 ft) wide, and six transmission tower structures

would be located onsite. Transmission towers would be located to free span Mallard Pond and

minimize habitat impacts. The area near Mallard Pond that would be crossed by the line is

approximately 0.6 ha (1.4 ac) and is composed of pond and bottomland hardwood habitat. The

remaining 10.4 ha (25.7 ac) is a mixture of planted loblolly pine, previously disturbed industrial

areas, and open fields (Southern 2007a, 2008b).

NUREG-1872 4-14 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 4-3. Habitat Types and Acreage Associated with Permanent and Temporary

Construction Areas Associated with Construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4

Hectares

Construction Area (Acres) Affected

Permanent

Powerblock

Cooling Tower

Switchyard

Cooling Water Intake

Barge Slip/Discharge structure

500-kV transmission line (onsite)

Debris basin

Buried Pipe and Electrical

to/from River

Simulator building

Onsite Roads

Temporary

Parking

Batch Plant

Warehouse, Office, and

Laydown

Spoils Areas

Borrow Area

Source: Southern (2007a, 2007b, 2008b)

Dominant Habitat Type

30.4 (75.2) Planted loblolly pine/previously disturbed

28.0 (69.3) Previously disturbed/industrial

26.2 (64.7) Open fields/planted loblolly pine

4.4 (10.8) Bottomland hardwoods/wetlands

4.2 (10.3) Bottomland hardwoods/wetlands

11.0 (27.0) Planted pine, previously disturbed industrial,

open fields, pond, and bottomland hardwood

6.0 (14.8) Planted pine, grasses, herbaceous

groundcover

4.8 (11.8) Planted pine, grasses, herbaceous

groundcover

1.6 (4.0) Mixed hardwoods and pine

14.7 (36.3) Open fields, planted pine, previously disturbed

19.7 (48.8) Planted longleaf pine

6.5 (16.1) Plantedlongleaf pine

38.4 (94.9) Previously disturbed/planted loblolly/longleaf

pine

16.9 (41.7) Mixed planted loblolly/longleaf pine

12.5 (31.0) Planted longleaf pine/mixed pine/hardwood

Temporary impacts on approximately 81 ha (201 ac) associated with spoils areas, parking lots,

warehouses, offices, and laydown yards would occur in planted longleaf and loblolly pine

habitats and in previously disturbed areas. Southern has identified 12.5 ha (31 acres) that

would be set aside for borrow material. Southern plans to first use borrow material from the

powerblock and switchyard excavations, and will only use the set aside borrow area if

insufficient borrow is recovered from the powerblock and switchyard excavations. Habitat on

the set aside borrow area consists of planted longleaf pine and mixed pine/hardwood. There

are no identified wetlands in this potential borrow area (Southern 2008b). The staff assumed

impacts associated with the borrow area would be temporary. Of the 131 ha (324 acres) that

would be permanently disturbed (including the onsite portion of the new transmission line)

approximately 120 ha (297 acres) would be composed of previously disturbed, open fields or

planted pine habitats. About 1.6 ha (4 ac) of mixed hardwoods and pine would be permanently

removed for the simulator building (Southern 2007b).

About 8.5 ha (21.0 ac) of wetlands would be directly affected by Unit 3 and 4 construction

activities including approximately 4.5 ha (11 ac) during construction of the CWIS and 4 ha

August 2008 4-15 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

(10 ac) during the construction of the barge facility and discharge structure (Southern 2008b).

Most of the acreage involved would be along the Savannah River (Southern 2007b). Southern

estimates that the actual intake structure and canal would be located on about 1.2 ha (3 ac) of

wetlands. Impacts to the remaining construction area associated with the CWIS would be

temporary (Southern 2007b). The applicant stated that "Temporary construction ramps at the

canal and CWIS area would be removed and disturbed areas around the intake structure would

then be stabilized and re-vegetated to preclude future erosion. Erosion and sediment controls

would remain in place and would be maintained as long as necessary" (Southern 2007b). One

hundred twenty-two meters (400 ft) of shoreline would be disturbed at the CWIS, 27 m (90 ft)

would be disturbed at the barge facility, and 6.1 m (20 ft) would be disturbed at the discharge

structure (Southern 2007b; NRC 2007).

Southern has committed to minimize impacts to adjacent wetland areas and the Savannah

River during the construction process. Construction of the CWIS, barge facility, and discharge

structure would be conducted under a Section 404 permit issued by the USACE, and

appropriate wetland mitigation requirements would be developed as part of the 404 permitting

process. In early 2007, Southern submitted the Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form

to the USACE and began the Section 404 permitting process (Southern 2007b). The Section

404 permit would also require a Water Quality Certification issued by the GDNR Environmental

Protection Division to control discharge of water from the construction process to the Savannah

River (Southern 2007b). A Section 10 permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act would be

required prior to any in-stream construction activities in the Savannah River. This project would

also require a Georgia General Stormwater Permit for Construction (Southern 2007b).

The CWIS houses the river water make-up pumps, traveling screens, screen wash pumps, and

associated equipment. To minimize dewatering and potential for impact to the Savannah River

and adjacent wetlands, Southern may perform the excavation of the intake structure primarily

from land rather than working on the water. Prior to cut-and-fill operations associated with the

building of the access road, silt fences and other erosion and sediment controls would be

installed in drainage areas and at the perimeters of the disturbed areas. Southern stated, "The

access road would be built incorporating erosion and sediment control measures and road

drainage systems consistent with the requirements of the Georgia stormwater permit for the

upland portions of the project. Additional controls required by the USACE Section 404 permit

would be applied in wetland areas" (Southern 2007b).

Southern plans to excavate the intake canal and intake area to just above the high water mark.

The excavated material would be stored in an upland area onsite. These materials may be

reused in the canal banks. Southern stated, "Erosion and sediment control measures would be

installed, and BMPs would be employed, as necessary, for this upland storage area"

(Southern 2007b).

NUREG-1872 4-16 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Final construction of the CWIS would be conducted from a barge located in the Savannah River.

Southern stated that "appropriate environmental controls would be used for this phase of the

operation to prevent spills and minimize environmental impact to the river and adjacent

wetlands" (Southern 2007b).

At this time, Southern anticipates only having to dredge during construction of the barge facility

(Southern 2007b). The dredge material associated with construction of the barge facility

(approximately 230 m3 [300 yd3]) would be transported and placed in an uplands spoils area.

Fill activity in the area would primarily be limited to that associated with barge facility

construction. Construction of the barge facility would require an over-excavation approximately

0.9 m (3 ft) deep to allow for placement of a 0.9-m (3-ft)-thick gravel bed (approximately

1990 M3 [2600 yd3]). Southern stated that after construction of the barge facility "the site will be

stabilized and re-vegetated in accordance with permit requirements after all construction activity

is complete at the barge facility. Erosion and sediment controls would remain in place as long

as necessary and would be removed only after vegetation is well established and controls are

no longer necessary" (Southern 2007b).'

Southern does not anticipate having to conduct sediment characterization of the material

dredged in support of the new barge facility (Southern 2007b). In addition, based on a

bathymetry survey conducted in 2006, the need for dredging from the end of the barge facility to

connect with the Federal navigation channel is not anticipated at this time. However, dredging

may be required in the future due to natural movement of sediment in the river (Southern 2007b,

NRC 2007).

The discharge structure would consist of a buried pipe with a submerged discharge outlet into

the Savannah River. Impacts related to construction and placement of the discharge structure

would include the removal of native vegetation, grading, and cut-and-fill activities. Southern

stated that "the disturbed area would be re-vegetated to prevent erosion and allowed to revert to

its native condition once the discharge pipe is in place and covered. Once installed, the

discharge pipe is expected to permanently disturb less than 0.04 ha (0.1 ac)" (Southern 2007b).

A small amount of rip-rap material would also be placed in the river at the end of the discharge

pipe to "armor" the bottom in the immediate area of the discharge to minimize scour

(Southern 2007b).

Southern has not discussed specific mitigation activities related to wetlands with the USACE. If

mitigation for wetlands is required, Southern stated that sufficient areas are available within the

VEGP site for potential mitigation actions (Southern 2007b).

There is the potential for other construction activities associated with the proposed VEGP

Units 3 and 4 to have indirect impacts to wetlands at the VEGP site. Indirect impacts to the

debris basins, Mallard Pond, Telfair Pond, and Beaverdam Creek could occur as a result of

construction activities (e.g., sedimentation).

August 2008 4-17 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Construction of the heavy-haul road and the new switchyard could result in sediment transport

into Mallard Pond after heavy rainfall events (Southern 2007b). Additionally, excavated soil

placed in the proposed spoils and overflow storage areas south of the Main Plant Access Road

could move with runoff into Telfair Pond or Beaverdam Creek along one of the small intermittent

unnamed streams in the area (Southern 2008a). Southern stated that it would implement the

necessary erosion and sediment controls and BMPs to ensure runoff does not negatively

indirectly impact wetlands associated with the heavy haul road (Southern 2007b).

New upland retention ponds would be constructed and used to accept surface-water runoff and

water from the dewatering process. These new retention ponds would function as

sedimentation basins. The existing debris basins would not be used for trapping sediment

generated by construction, but they would be used for stormwater management and would likely

receive the outflow from the new retention basins (NRC 2007).

Excavation for the powerblock would extend below the normal water table in the unconfined

(i.e., Water Table) aquifer, and a dewatering system (described in Section 4.3.2) would be

installed to remove groundwater from the excavation during the construction process

(Southern 2007b). Excavation is expected to take place over a 6-month period, and operation

of the dewatering system would occur over an 18-month period (Southern 2008a). Mallard

Pond, which is located a short distance to the north of the excavation, is fed by a spring

believed to originate in Utley Cave, a karst formation that intercepts groundwater from the

unconfined (Water Table) aquifer. Southern recently conducted an evaluation of the potential to

indirectly dewater Mallard Pond and the stream that drains Mallard Pond through the removal of

groundwater as part of the excavation process. Based on the evaluation, Southern believes

there may be a short-term reduction in recharge flow to Mallard Pond during the dewatering of

the powerblock excavation. This evaluation showed the pond level would not be substantially

affected and the stream below the pond may experience a reduction in flow, but it is not

expected that this reduction would significantly alter the stream habitat, beyond what might be

experienced during a drought period (Southern 2007b). Southern stated they would visually

monitor Mallard Pond to determine "if activities produce changes in pond level or flow reductions

in the drainage below the pond" (Southern 2007b). It is expected that dewatering would impact

the fringe vegetation surrounding Mallard Pond and in the stream below Mallard Pond, but these

impacts would be temporary and not beyond that of a typical drought. Therefore, the impacts

should be negligible. If the excavation process extends beyond 18 months or the dewatering

results in a drop in flow that is lower than the flow expected during a drought year, impacts to

Mallard Pond and the wetlands in the stream below Mallard Pond could be greater than

negligible. Southern stated "if a significant impact to the groundwater resource is discovered,

this information will be evaluated as potentially new and significant information and provided to

the NRC for review, as appropriate" (Southern 2007b).

NUREG-1872 4-18 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

In summary, an estimated 8.5 ha (21 ac) of wetlands habitat on the VEGP site would be altered

to construct permanent structures and facilities associated with construction of the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site. This represents about 12.5 percent of the total 69 ha

(170 ac) of wetlands that have been identified onsite. Within 16 km (10 mi) of the site there are

approximately 41,092 ha (101,538 ac) of wetlands, including about 33,369 ha (82,455 ac) of

wetlands along the Savannah River (FWS 2004a,b). Wetlands habitat that would be altered is

less than 0.03 percent of the total wetlands acreage in the vicinity. An estimated 120 ha

(297 ac) of upland habitat including planted pines, previously disturbed areas, and open fields

would be removed during construction of permanent structures and facilities (including the

onsite portion of the new transmission line), representing about 17 percent of the total 700 ha

(1730 ac) of planted pine and open areas currently available onsite. An estimated 1.6 ha (4 ac)

of mixed hardwood and pine habitat would be lost to permanent structures and facilities,

representing less than 1 percent of the total 247.7 ha (612 ac) of hardwood habitat available

onsite. Approximately 0.57 ha (1.4 ac) of land, composed of pond and bottomland hardwood

would be crossed by the new transmission line onsite.

Habitats associated with temporary impacts to 81 ha (201 ac) resulting from construction of

parking areas, the batch plant, warehouses, offices, laydown yards, and spoils areas would be

re-vegetated following construction activities. The staff assumed that habitat on the 12.5 ha

(31 ac) potential borrow area would be revegetated if the borrow from this area is needed.

However, Southern will only use this area if insufficient borrow is recovered from the powerblock

and switchyard excavations (Southern 2008b).

Upland hardwood forests and bottomland wetlands have much greater plant 'species and

structural diversity than upland fields, planted pines, and previously disturbed areas, and are

thus assumed to be much more important as wildlife habitat. The combined onsite upland

hardwood forest and bottomland wetlands lost to permanent structures and facilities represent a

small percentage of the combined total of these available onsite and in the vicinity of the VEGP

site. Therefore, the staff finds the impact would be negligible.

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way

The extent and type of wildlife habitat within the proposed new transmission line right-of-way is

not known. Currently, Southern and the GPC are evaluating the actual right-of-way alternatives

for the transmission line within the Representative Delineated Corridor (RDC). It is anticipated

that the transmission line would cross primarily Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie and Warren Counties

in Georgia and would be 46 m (150 ft) wide and 97 km (60 mi) long. There are no U.S. Forest

Service Wilderness Areas, Wild/Scenic Rivers or Wildlife Refuges, or State or National Parks

within the RDC (GPC 2007). Construction activities would avoid wetlands to the extent

practicable. In the event that wetlands are encountered, construction would be conducted in

accordance with the necessary permits to protect wetland areas (GPC 2007).

August 2008 4-19 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

A hypothetical transmission line right-of-way that represents what GPC believes is a feasible

route within the RDC was identified as part of the 2007 right-of-way study (GPC 2007). Habitats.

within the hypothetical right-of-way include approximately 97 ha (240 ac) of forested habitat,

133.1 ha (329 ac) of planted pine, 2.6 ha (6.4 ac) of open water, and 63.9 ha (158 ac) of open

land. Other land-use categories that were identified as potentially being impacted such as

quarry mine, pecan orchard, row crop, transportation, and utility provide little value as wildlife

habitat. Southern stated that wetlands would not be impacted by construction of the new rightof-way (NRC 2007). In the region (identified in the original GPC study area as approximately

117,359 ha [290,000 ac]) surrounding the RDC and any new transmission line, there are

approximately 18,085 ha (44,688 ac) of forest, 1354 ha (3346 ac) of open water, and 17,262 ha

(42,656 ac) of open land (GPC 2007). Assuming the actual routing is similar to the hypothetical

route, the number of acres of forested habitat, open water, open land, and planted pine that

would be impacted represent a very small portion of the available habitat, and thus impacts on

wildlife habitat would be minimal. However, if the actual routing differs from the hypothetical

route, impacts on wildlife habitat could be greater.

Wildlife Habitat Summary

Construction of the Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site and the new 500-kV transmission line would

follow Federal and State regulations, permit conditions, established construction procedures,

and established BMPs. Waterways and wetlands would be avoided to the extent possible

(Southern 2008a). Therefore, the staff concludes construction impacts to wildlife habitat on the

VEGP site would be negligible. Because of the uncertainty regarding the actual routing of the

new transmission line right-of-way, impacts to wildlife habitat caused by construction of the

transmission line could be greater than small.

4.4.1.2 Wildlife

During construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 and the new 500-kV transmission line, wildlife may

be destroyed or displaced, primarily as a result of operating heavy equipment (e.g., during land

clearing). Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, are

expected to incur greater mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds. Although

undisturbed forested and wetlands habitat would be available for displaced animals during

construction, increased competition for available space during construction activities may result

in increased predation and decreased fecundity, ultimately leading to a temporary reduction in

population size. Species that can adapt to disturbed or developed areas may readily

re-colonize portions of the disturbed area where suitable habitat remains or is replanted or

restored. The above discussion also applies to offsite disturbances in forest habitat that would

result as land is cleared for the new transmission line. As construction activities end and

habitats are restored naturally or through mitigation activities, habitats would again become

available to wildlife.

NUREG-1872 4-20 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Noise from construction can affect wildlife by inducing physiological changes, nest or habitat

abandonment, or behavioral modifications, or it may disrupt communications required for

breeding or defense (Larkin 1996). However, it is not unusual for wildlife to habituate to such

noise (Larkin 1996). Construction activities that would generate noise include operation of

equipment such as jack hammers, pile drivers, and heavy construction vehicles. In addition,

construction noise results from the movement of workers, materials, and equipment. Short-term

noise levels from construction activities onsite could be as high as 110 dBA. These noise levels

would not extend far beyond the boundaries of the project site. At 120 m (400 ft) from the

construction site, the construction noise would range from 60 to 80 dBA (Southern 2008a). The

threshold at which birds and small mammals are startled or frightened is 80 to 85 dBA (Golden

et al. 1980). The staff expects that noise levels associated with construction of the transmission

line right-of-way would be similar to noise levels associated with construction at the VEGP site

and would be below threshold levels for startle or frightening of wildlife at 120 m (400 ft).

Wildlife can also be affected by the masking of important sounds when there is increased noise

from the construction site. While animals may habituate to higher noise, they may not be able

to distinguish a critical sound in the presence of noise. In some sense their habituation may

make them more vulnerable if their survival is a function of ability to detect certain sounds.

Thus, while behavioral impacts on wildlife from construction noise caused by startle response

are expected to be negligible, it is expected that masking, particularly if accompanied by

habituation to higher noise levels, may increase exposure to risks that require detection of

specific sounds for avoidance (risk management) (Dooling 2002). Nevertheless, the loss of

individuals due to this phenomenon would be localized and would be expected to have a

minimal impact on overall population health.

The use of natural draft cooling towers for VEGP Units 3 and 4 as well as the addition of

transmission towers for the new transmission line introduces additional tall structures, and

therefore increases the potential for avian collisions. Avian collisions with man-made structures

are a result of numerous factors such as flight behavior, age, habitat use, seasonal habits, and

diurnal habits; and to environmental characteristics such as weather, topography, land use, and

orientation of the structures. Most authors on the subject of avian collisions with utility

structures agree that collisions are not a significant source of mortality for thriving populations of

birds with good reproductive potential (EPRI 1993). In the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, the NRC reviewed monitoring data

concerning avian collisions at nuclear power plants with large cooling towers and determined

that overall avian mortality is low (NRC 1996). Southern has not quantitatively assessed the

number of bird collisions with construction equipment or new structures. However, avian

collisions with existing structures at the VEGP site have been infrequent and transmission line

maintenance personnel have not reported any dead birds from collisions or contact with the

existing transmission lines for VEGP Units 1 or 2 (Southern 2006a). The additional number of

bird collisions, if any, would not be expected to cause a measurable reduction in local bird

populations. Consequently, the number of construction-related bird collisions with structures is

expected to be negligible.

August 2008 4-21 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Workers commuting to the VEGP site take one of three routes to access the site. All three

routes converge on River Road. Southern estimates the current peak traffic rate on River Road

nearest to the site is currently 1200 vehicles per hour (see Section 4,5.4.1). This number is

projected to increase during construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 to a maximum of 2950 vehicles

per hour at peak traffic times (see Section 4.5.4.1). This would likely increase traffic-related

wildlife mortalities. Local wildlife populations could suffer declines if road-kill rates were to

exceed the rates of reproduction and immigration. However, while road kills are an obvious

source of wildlife mortality, except for special situations not applicable to the VEGP site

(e.g., ponds and wetlands crossed by roads where large numbers of migrating amphibians and

reptiles would be susceptible), traffic mortality rates rarely limit population size (Forman and

Alexander 1998). Consequently, the overall impact on local wildlife populations from increased

vehicular traffic on the VEGP site during construction would be expected to be undetectable.

The staff has determined that the construction-related impacts of habitat loss, noise, collisions

with elevated structures, and increased traffic may adversely affect onsite wildlife. However,

these impacts would be temporary, minor, and mitigable.

4.4.1.3 State-Listed Species

The VEGP Site

The bay star-vine (Schisandra glabra), State-listed as Threatened in Georgia, is the only statelisted plant species known to occur on the VEGP site. It was recorded on the wooded bluffs

above the floodplain in the vicinity of the proposed CWIS during the 2005 threatened and

endangered species survey (TRC 2006). Its habitat preferences are such that it could occur in

the floodplain forest as well. No other Georgia or South Carolina State-listed plant or animal

species are known to occur within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the VEGP site (GDNR 2007). However,

mounds suggestive of the Georgia State-threatened southeastern pocket gopher

(Geomys pinetis) were recorded on property just north of the VEGP site boundary

(Southern 2007a). This species was not targeted in the 2005 threatened and endangered

surveys by Third Rock Consultants LLC. Similar habitat occurs on the nearby VEGP site. The

southeastern pocket gopher is found in upland areas of dry, sandy soil or well-drained, finegrained gravely soil (GDNR 2000). There are no known records of the pocket gopher in Burke

County (GDNR 2007). No mounds similar to those made by the southeastern pocket gopher

have been reported from the VEGP site, although suitable habitat appears to be present.

Southern does not expect the disturbance footprint to encompass such habitat (Southern

2008c). Southern stated that it would work with the GDNR to ensure that any species of

concern are protected during construction (Southern 2007a).

Four Georgia State-listed plant species have been recorded in Burke County within 16 km

(10 mi) of the VEGP site: Ocmulgee skullcap (Scutellaria ocmulgee), Georgia plume

(Elliottia racemosa), sweet pitcherplant (Sarracenia rubra), and Indian olive

NUREG-1872 4-22 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

(Nestronia umbellula). All are listed as State threatened except for the Indian olive, which is

listed as rare. Because the VEGP site is located along the Savannah River, which forms the

boundary between Georgia and South Carolina, State-listed species occurring across the river

but within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP site (Aiken and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina) also

were examined (SCDNR 2007). The smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) is listed in both

Georgia and South Carolina as State-endangered; and 29 other plant species are of regional

and local concern within 16 km (10 mi) of the site in South Carolina. None of these State-listed

species occur on the VEGP site or within the areas affected by construction. No impacts to

these species are expected.

Three Georgia State-listed bird species, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), wood stork

(Mycteria americana), and red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), have potential to

occur in suitable habitats within Burke County (FWS 2004c). The wood stork and red-cockaded

woodpecker are also Federally endangered. Impacts on these species are discussed in

Section 4.4.3.

Although no reptile or amphibian species of concern have been recorded in Georgia within

16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP site, seven species have been recorded within this distance of the

site in South Carolina (SCDNR 2007). Recorded were the South Carolina endangered and

Georgia rare gopher frog (Rana capito) and six species of various levels of concern in one or

both states: eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum), southern hognose snake

(Heterodon simus), bird-voiced treefrog (Hyla avivoca), eastern coral snake (Micrurus fulvius),

pine or gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), and black swamp snake (Seminatrix pygaea).

These species have not been reported on the VEGP site. Impacts to these species are not

expected.

In summary, the impact on State-listed species from construction of Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP

site is expected to be negligible.

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way

Three State-listed species have been documented by the GDNR to occur within the RDC: the

bald eagle, silky camellia (Stewartia malacodendron), and sandhill rosemary

(Ceratioia ericoides). GPC has committed to establishing a 180-m (600 ft) buffer around the

active eagle nest to minimize any potential impacts from transmission line construction

(GPC 2007).

The impact on common wildlife within the new transmission line right-of-way resulting from landclearing, noise, and bird collisions is expected to be negligible. The impact on State-listed

wildlife species in the transmission line right-of-way is not known at this time. Impacts to

State protected species are likely to be minimal provided that adequate surveys are

conducted prior to commencement of transmission line construction and consultation with

August 2008 4-23 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

GDNR is initiated, as needed. However, without proper surveys, consultation, and appropriate

mitigation, the impact could be greater than negligible.

4.4.1.4 Terrestrial Ecosystems Impact Summary

The impact of construction on wildlife habitat within the VEGP site (including permanent and

temporary losses of upland hardwood forest and bottomland forested wetlands) would be

minimal. Southern is required to comply with conditions of the 404 permit from USACE

including any specified wetland mitigation. The onsite impact on wildlife populations, including

State-listed species, would be minimal, and Southern stated it would consult with the GDNR to

ensure that any species of concern would be protected during construction. Southern would

implement construction mitigation at the VEGP site and within the transmission line right-of-way

including BMPs for erosion and dust control, proper equipment maintenance, and adherence to

all applicable permit conditions. The staff reviewed the potential impacts of constructing Units 3

and 4 on terrestrial ecological resources on the VEGP site, including the loss of habitat and

wetlands, noise, traffic mortality, and avian collisions. Based on NRC's independent review and

the BMPs identified in the ER and in Southern's responses to NRC's Requests for Additional

Information (RAIs), the staff concludes that the overall impact of construction-related activities

on terrestrial ecological resources in the vicinity of the VEGP site would be SMALL, and further

mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

The staff reviewed the potential impacts of constructing the new 500-kV transmission line rightof-way on terrestrial ecological resources, including noise, avian collisions, and the loss of

habitat and wetlands. The impact on State-listed wildlife species in the right-of-way is not

precisely known. GPC would site the transmission line in accordance with Georgia Code

Title 22, Section 22-3-161. GPC's procedures for implementing this code include consultation

with GDNR as well as an evaluation of impacts to special habitats (including wetlands) and

threatened and endangered species. In addition, the GPC would comply with all applicable

laws, regulations, and permit requirements, and would use good engineering and construction

practices (Southern 2008a). If the actual transmission line route is similar to the hypothetical

route proposed by GPC, and adequate threatened and endangered surveys are conducted prior

to commencement of construction, consultation with GDNR is initiated as needed, and

appropriate mitigation is implemented, impacts to terrestrial resources along the transmission

line are likely to be minimal. Based on this independent review, the potential BMPs identified in

the ER, and Southern's responses to NRC's RAIs, the staff concludes that the overall impact of

construction-related activities on terrestrial ecological resources in the vicinity of the new

transmission line would likely be SMALL. However, due to the uncertainty regarding the actual

transmission line route, as well as the uncertainty regarding the distribution of State-protected

species along and within the right-of-way, impacts could be MODERATE. Mitigation actions

would be dependent on the exact location and nature of environmental impacts associated with

construction within the transmission line right-of-way.

NUREG-1872 4-24 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

4.4.2 Aquatic Impacts

Impacts on the aquatic ecosystem from construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 would mainly be

associated with impacts to the Savannah River from the construction of a new CWIS, a new

cooling water discharge line, and a barge slip. Also, ponds and streams on the site could be

impacted by soil-disturbing activities that lead to soil erosion during site preparation and

construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4. In addition, there could potentially be impacts to streams

or other waterbodies during the construction of the new Thomson-Vogtle 500-kV transmission

line.

4.4.2.1 Impacts of Construction on Aquatic Ecosystem in the Savannah River

The construction of the intake and discharge structures and a new barge facility would result in

the loss of aquatic habitat, both temporary and permanent, in the Savannah River

(Southern 2008a). All work would be conducted in accordance with a Clean Water Act

Section 404 permit, a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit issued by the USACE, and a

Section 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the GDNR Environmental Protection Division.

This project would also require a Georgia General Stormwater Permit for Construction

(Southern 2007b).

Cooling Water Intake Structure

The proposed location of the new CWIS is upstream of the existing intake structure for VEGP

Units 1 and 2. The intake structure and canal are sized for three Westinghouse AP1000

reactors at the VEGP site; however, only the mechanical components supporting the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be installed (Southern 2007b). A schematic of the intake structure

and canal are shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5. The intake canal would be approximately 73 m

(240 ft) long by 52 m (170 ft) wide with an earthen bottom at 21 m (70 ft) MSL and vertical sheet

pile sides extending to 29.9 m (98 ft) MSL (Southern 2008a). The new intake structure and

canal construction would affect approximately 5 ha (12.5 ac) with most of it in the Savannah

River floodplain (Southern 2007b). Southern indicated that it is anticipated that the construction

on the intake structure would occur in the summer, fall, and early winter to minimize the

potential for unwanted flooding of the construction area (Southern 2007b). This timing would

also minimize the impact to fish and other aquatic organisms that move into the floodplain with

the high-water conditions that typically occur during the months of February, March, and April.

Southern has indicated that to minimize turbidity entering the river, excavation would begin at

the west end of the canal cofferdam face and proceed toward the river (Southern 2007b).

Permanent sheet piles forming the north and south banks of the intake canal would be driven

using a vibratory or diesel hammer to form the north and south walls of a cofferdam. Temporary

sheet piling would be driven around the perimeter of the intake structure and across the east

and west face of the intake canal to complete the cofferdam. The piling installations would be

August 2008 4-25 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

completed from the land side (Southern 2007b). Material within the intake area cofferdam

would be excavated followed by the excavation of material within the intake structure cofferdam.

The interior of the cofferdam would be dewatered to 6 m (20 ft) below water level and excavated

(Southern 2007b). Southern has indicated that the excavationprocess would include controls to

manage erosion and sediment and, as necessary, controls to ensure that runoff from the

excavation process does not create environmental or aesthetic problems (Southern 2007b).

The discharge from the dewatering system, and potentially from a hydraulic dredge, would be

managed in accordance with the Section 401 Water Quality Certification to be issued by the

GDNR Environmental Protection Division in support of the USACE Section 404 permit

(Southern 2007b) to control discharge of water from the construction process to the Savannah

River. This typically includes the use of BMPs to prevent spills of oils or hazardous materials

associated with the excavation equipment operation as well as controls on turbidity (Southern

2007b). A tethered and floating silt curtain would also be used during excavation of the canal

interior down to an elevation of 21 m (70 ft) above MSL. The installation of the inner serrated

weir wall and the outer serrated wall and guide vanes at the mouth of the intake would occur

from a barge located in the Savannah River. Southern has also committed to using appropriate

environmental controls during this process to prevent spills and minimize environmental impact

to the river and adjacent wetlands (Southern 2007b).

Barge Slip

The existing barge unloading facility is located between the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 intake

canal and the ring crane foundation. A new barge slip would be constructed along the west

bank of the Savannah River, downstream of the intake structure for VEGP Units 1 and 2

(Southern 2007c) to support the unloading of the Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor components

and modules at the VEGP site (Southern 2008a). The downstream sheet pile wall would be

removed and the slope excavated to extend the barge slip 27 m (90 ft) along the shoreline

(Southern 2008a). The downstream sheet pile wall would be reconstructed and the shoreline

stabilized (Southern 2008a). The barge slip is currently on fill that was put into place during the

initial construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 (Southern 2007b). A tethered, floating silt curtain

would be at the entrance to the barge slip prior to excavating below 27 m (90 ft) MSL

(Southern 2007a). Excavation would begin at the west end of the barge slip and move toward

the river, thus minimizing turbidity entering the river (Southern 2007b).

Southern estimated that approximately 230 m3 (300 yd3) of sediment would be dredged or

excavated from the Savannah River at the east end of the barge slip where the barge slip enters

the river. The depth of dredging is approximately 20.4 m (67 ft) MSL (normal water elevation is

24 m [80 ft] MSL) (Southern 2007b). In addition, construction of the barge slip would require

approximately 1988 m3 (2600 yd 3) of stone fill within the barge slip basin (most of which is not in

the Savannah River) to provide a stable foundation for grounding the loaded barges (Southern

2008a). Some of this fill would be placed in the area that is currently a part of the river.

NUREG71872 4-26 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Based on a bathymetry survey conducted in 2006, the need for dredging from the end of the

barge slip to connect with the Federal navigation channel is not anticipated (Southern 2007b).

However, river bathymetry may change and dredging to the Federal navigation channel may be

necessary in the future (NRC 2007). A permit for this activity would be needed from the USACE

to dredge this small portion of the river. The permit would typically contain restrictions related to

the type of dredging, time of year that in-river work could be performed, turbidity and possible

requirements for relocation of important benthic macroinvertebrates.

USACE, as authorized by Section 107 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, has the responsibility for

maintaining a 27.4-m wide by 2.74-m deep (90-ft wide by 9-ft deep) channel in the Savannah

River for navigational purposes. The Federal navigation channel was last used for a

commercial shipment in 1979 and has not been maintained since that time. Recent

measurements by the USACE indicate that depending on the level of water flow, most areas of

the Federal navigation channel above rkm 56 (RM 35) would likely need to be dredged to allow

barge traffic during normal river flow as discussed in Section 4.4.2. A description of the impacts

associated with this action is provided in the cumulative impacts in Chapter 7.

Because the Rivers and Harbors Act assigns the responsibility of maintaining the navigation

canal to the USACE, prior to any authorization for dredging in the Savannah River, the USACE

would be required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to assess the

impact of dredging on the river biota. A detailed assessment of impacts to river biota by the

NRC staff is not possible at this time. Currently, the dredging project, if it should occur, is

incompletely defined, the amount of material to be removed is unknown, and the location of the

spoils dredge area has not been identified. Specifics of the project including any time-of-year

restrictions or mitigation to protect aquatic resources would be provided in the Corps'

assessment to fulfill the NEPA requirement.

Discharge Structure

The proposed discharge structure would be placed near the southwest bank of the Savannah

River, extending about 15 m (50 ft) into the river (Southern 2008a). The discharge pipe would

be approximately 1.07 m (3.5 ft) in diameter, narrowing to 0.6 m (2 ft) in diameter before the

discharge point (Southern 2008a). The anticipated centerline elevation of the discharge pipe is

0.9 m (3 ft) above the river bottom elevation (Southern 2008a). Construction would involve the

installation of a temporary sheet pile cofferdam (installed using a vibratory or diesel hammer)

(Southern 2008a) and a dewatering system. The interior of the cofferdam would be excavated

to support pipe installation to a grade of approximately 0.9 m (3 ft) below the invert elevation of

the discharge piping and contoured up the river bank. H-piles that would be used for piping

supports would be driven to 15 m (50 ft) MSL. After the pipe is laid, the dewatering system

would be removed, and the pipe trench would be backfilled and graded to the required river

bank slope contours. The cofferdam would be removed and rip-rap material would be installed

to stabilize the river bank and the river bottom in the vicinity of the discharge point.

August 2008 4-27 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Summary of Impacts

The construction activities previously described are expected to have minimal impacts on the

aquatic ecology of the Savannah River. The amount of benthic habitat altered during the

construction of the intake canal would be small because most of the activity would occur in the

floodplain during the dry season when the floodplain is not flooded. There would be

approximately 122 m (400 ft) of shoreline disturbance at the intake structure, 27 m [90 ft] at the

barge facility, and 6.1 m (20 ft) at the discharge structure (NRC 2007). A greater amount of

river habitat would be disturbed during the barge slip construction activities; however, the

amount of benthic habitat, open water, shoreline, and benthic fauna that would be lost is a small

fraction of the total present in this area of the Savannah River. During the construction process,

fish inhabiting the river in the vicinity of the construction activities may leave temporarily as a

result of noise from pile driving or other construction activities. However, after construction is

completed, fish would be expected to return to the area. Most of the habitat loss would be

temporary and is a minor percentage of the total fish habitat in this area of the Savannah River.

In addition, none of the species specifically mentioned as species of interest, concern, or listed

are known to spawn specifically in the areas where construction would occur; thus, the activities

would not disturb major spawning areas. Disruption of silt and debris during construction is

expected to be minor based on the use of siltation curtains and other BMPs. Based on this

review, the staff concludes that the overall impact of construction-related activities on aquatic

ecological resources of the Savannah River would be minor, and further mitigation beyond the

actions identified above is not warranted. This conclusion would also be reached even if

dredging between the Federal navigation channel and the barge unloading facility is needed.

4.4.2.2 Impacts to Ponds and Streams Onsite from Site-Preparation and Construction

Activities

Construction activities could also result in indirect impacts to wetlands on the VEGP site

(Southern 2008a). Although the construction activities for the powerblock and the cooling

towers are in areas of the site where no wetlands are present, the stormwater drainage from

these areas is routed to Debris Basin #2 (Southern 2007b). No runoff from areas disturbed by

construction is expected to be received by Debris Basin #1. If Debris Basin #2 is determined to

be a jurisdictional wetlands area, the basin would be left as it currently exists. If additional

stormwater retention volume is required, Southern has committed to construct additional

storage in an upland area in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements

(Southern 2008a). It is not anticipated that there would be any significant construction-related

impacts to Telfair Pond and Beaverdam Creek or the aquatic biota in these waterbodies.

Mallard Pond and its feeder stream would potentially be affected during construction activities

(Southern 2008a). Construction of the new switchyard and a proposed heavy-haul road could

convey stormwater into the head of Mallard Pond (Southern 2008a). However, Southern has

committed to plan and conduct these construction activities in accordance with applicable

NUREG-1872 4-28 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

regulations and BMPs to prevent erosion that could impact the aquatic biota in Mallard Pond

(Southern 2008a). Based on this review, the staff concludes that the overall impact of

construction-related activities on the aquatic ecological resources of the onsite ponds and

streams would be minor, and further mitigation beyond the actions identified above is not

warranted.

4.4.2.3 Impacts to the Aquatic Ecosystem from Construction of the Thomson-Vogtle

500-kV Transmission Line

Currently, Southern and the GPC are evaluating the actual right-of-way alternatives for the

Thomson-Vogtle transmission line within a larger RDC. It is anticipated that the transmission

line would cross Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie, and Warren Counties (Southern 2008a). The GPC

performed a routing study to identify potential rights-of-way for the proposed transmission line in

relation to existing land uses, including wetlands (GPC 2007). The field-verified right-of-way for

the Thomson-Vogtle 500-kV transmission line would potentially cross several waterbodies. The

right-of-way study proposed a feasible route within a field-verified right-of-way that was

hypothetically produced to represent potential impacts to land use. The feasible route contained

slightly more than 2.6 ha (6.4 ac) of open water, including various streams (GPC 2007). This is

not the actual transmission line routing, but provides an estimate of the likelihood of stream and

water-body crossings. Southern has stated that wetlands would be avoided in the routing if at

all possible (Southern 2007a). In the event that wetlands are encountered, construction would

be conducted in accordance with the necessary permits to protect wetland areas (GPC 2007).

The GPC sites new transmission lines in accordance with Georgia Code Title 12,

Section 12-2-8, and complies with all applicable laws, regulations, permit requirements, good

engineering, and construction practices (GPC 2007). In accordance with Georgia Sediment and

Erosion Control Act BMPs, a 7.6-m (25-ft) vegetative buffer would be maintained along all

waters of the state that need to be crossed for new transmission line rights-of-way. Southern

has committed that no structures would be placed in the buffer (Southern 2008a). In addition,

no State or Federally threatened and endangered aquatic species occur in the field-verified

RDC as indicated in the corridor study dated January 2007 (GPC 2007) and the State of

Georgia's Natural Heritage database (GDNR 2007) As a result, the staff concludes that the

overall impact of construction-related activities from the Thomson-Vogtle 500-kV transmission

lines on aquatic biota are minor, and further mitigation beyond the actions identified above is not

warranted.

4.4.2.4 Impacts to State-Listed Species

Three State-listed species occur in the vicinity of the VEGP site. The robust redhorse

(Moxostoma robustum) is found in the Savannah River; however, the only known spawning area

is 40 river kilometers (60 river miles) upstream from the site (Grabowski and Isley 2006). In

addition, during their migrations, the robust redhorse appears to stay within the channel,

August 2008 4-29 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

entering the floodplains only during high-water events. Thus, it is anticipated that they would

not be adversely affected by construction activities.

The Georgia State-endangered Atlantic pigtoe mussel (Fusconaia masom), was tentatively

identified in surveys by the USFWS (The Catena Group 2007) as being in the Savannah River.

However, the specimens were located at a considerable distance (84 km [52 mi]) upstream of

the VEGP site and, thus, would not be adversely affected by construction activities at the VEGP

site. The Savannah darter (Etheostoma fricksium) is a Georgia State species of concern with

no legal protective status. The Savannah darter may at times enter the Savannah River,

however its preferred habitat is shallow creeks such as Beaverdam Creek. It is unlikely that

Beaverdam Creek would be adversely affected by construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4.

Nine South Carolina mussel species of concern (Table 2-9) are known to occur in the Savannah

River near the VEGP site. Because these species have been found in multiple locations, as

documented in recent surveys, there is a potential for impact during construction activities. The

State of South Carolina (Price 2007) has expressed concern over the potential for impacts to

freshwater mussels from dredging activities (specifically from removal and disposal of sediment

containing mussels and the use of heavy equipment or other construction practices that could

crush mussels), and has recommended that sampling for freshwater mussels be conducted in

areas where dredging would occur to determine the impact on the population. Although the

area of disruption for mussels during construction of the intake, discharge, and barge slip is

small relative to the extent of the Savannah River benthic habitat at this location, further

discussions between the applicant and the State of South Carolina related to mitigative actions,

such as sampling for and moving mussels, would be appropriate prior to dredging and

construction activities. Because of the possibility that future dredging of the Federal navigation

channel in the Savannah River may be necessary for barge transport of large components, the

staff identifies the potential impacts of that activity on mussels in Chapter 7, Cumulative

Impacts.

The area of disruption for mussels during construction of the intake, discharge and barge slip,

and potential dredging between the barge slip and the Federal navigation channel is small

relative to the extent of the Savannah River benthic habitat at this location and the impact would

be temporary and largely mitigable. Thus, the impacts to these mussel species are likely to be

minor.

4.4.2.5 Summary of Impacts to Aquatic Ecosystems

The staff has reviewed the proposed construction activities for VEGP Units 3 and 4 and the

potential impacts to aquatic biota in the onsite waterbodies and the Savannah River. Based on

this review, the staff has determined that the impacts resulting from the proposed construction

activities, including the potential dredging from the Federal navigation channel to the barge slip,

would be SMALL. Any impacts that would occur would be temporary and largely mitigable.

NUREG-1872 4-30 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

4.4.2.6 Aquatic Monitoring During Construction

Southern does not plan to perform any formal construction-related monitoring. Southern bases

this decision on "...the fact that any ground- or river-disturbing activities would be of relatively

short duration, permitted and overseen by State and Federal regulators, guided by an approved

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and that any small spills would be mitigated according to

the existing VEGP Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan, and that there are no

sensitive habitats or species of interest at the proposed location...." (Southern 2008a). Although

the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), a Federally listed endangered species, is

located in the Savannah River, the known spawning areas are not near the VEGP site, and the

timing of spawning coincides with high water levels, during which time construction activities

would likely not occur. Other fish species also would avoid construction activities.

Southern also does not plan any formal construction-related monitoring of aquatic ecosystems

during construction of the transmission line. If construction of the new transmission line would

result in crossings of intermittent and perennial streams, the construction would be conducted

in accordance with the necessary permits to protect wetland areas (GPC 2007). The GPC has

stated that it sites new transmission lines in accordance with Georgia Code Title 12,

Section 12-2-8, and it complies with all applicable laws, regulations, permit requirements, good

engineering, and construction practices (GPC 2007). In addition, the proposed right-of-way for

the new transmission line does not cross areas with known populations of Federally listed or

State-listed aquatic species (Southern 2008a).

4.4.3 Federally Listed Species

This section describes the potential impacts to Federally listed or proposed threatened and

endangered aquatic and terrestrial species and associated designated and proposed critical

habitat resulting from construction of new units on the VEGP site, and the Thomson-Vogtle

transmission lines. The biology of these species is presented in Sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2.

The staff prepared biological assessments (see Appendix F) documenting potential impacts to

the Federally listed threatened and endangered aquatic and terrestrial species as a result of the

site preparation and preliminary construction of the nonsafety-related structures, systems, or

components in advance of issuance of a combined operating license. The staffs impact

determinations are reiterated in this section.

4.4.3.1 Terrestrial Species

The potential impacts of construction activities on Federally listed terrestrial species are

described below.

August 2008 4-31 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker - Endangered

The VEGP Site

The endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is listed as having the potential

to occur in the vicinity of the VEGP site in Burke County, Georgia; and Aiken and Barnwell

Counties, South Carolina (FWS 1999, 2004c). However, there are no known occurrences in

Burke County, Georgia, and no active colonies within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP site in South

Carolina (GDNR 2007; SCDNR 2007). Surveys were conducted for red-cockaded woodpeckers

in February 2006 in support of a safe harbor agreement and on 675.4 ha (1669 ac) of the site in

support of this ESP application. However, the red-cockaded woodpecker has never been

documented onsite (TRC 2006; Southern 2007b). The closest active red-cockaded woodpecker

group is located on the Savannah River Site approximately 16 km (10 mi) from the VEGP site

(Wike et al. 2006).

Suitable habitat for foraging and nesting occurs within the VEGP site, but does not occur in the

proposed construction footprint. The types of habitat that would be disturbed during

construction mainly consist of previously disturbed areas, planted pines, hardwoods, wetlands

along the Savannah River, and open fields. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are found mainly in

large stands of old longleaf pine, and this type of habitat would not be disturbed. Based on the

distance to the closest known active colony, and the fact that red-cockaded woodpeckers have

not been recorded on the VEGP site or in the general vicinity of the site, it is unlikely redcockaded woodpeckers would be affected during construction activities.

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way

The red-cockaded woodpecker is listed on the FWS website as potentially occurring in Burke

and Jefferson Counties, Georgia (FWS 2004c). The red-cockaded woodpecker has been

recorded on Fort Gordon in Richmond County (GDNR 1999), but there are no known

occurrences of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the vicinity of the RDC. Impacts to red-cockaded

woodpeckers are likely to be negligible provided that adequate surveys are conducted prior to

commencement of transmission line construction, consultation with FWS is initiated as needed,

and appropriate mitigation is implemented. However, without proper surveys, consultation, and

appropriate mitigation, the impact could be greater than negligible.

Wood Stork - Endangered

The VEGP Site

The endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana) is listed as having the potential to occur in

the vicinity of the VEGP site, Burke County, Georgia, as well as in Aiken and Barnwell Counties,

South Carolina (FWS 1999; 2004c). Wood storks were not identified in threatened and

NUREG-1872 4-32 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

endangered species surveys in 2005, and have not been documented onsite (TRC 2006;

Southern 2006a). The closest known colony of wood storks is more than 40 km (25 mi) away.

Foraging on the VEGP site may occur from June through September in suitable habitat. During

construction of the CWlS, discharge structure and the barge facility, suitable foraging habitat

may be affected. However, this species is highly mobile; hence any onsite impacts associated

with construction on the VEGP site would be minimal.

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way

Wood storks have the potential to occur in Burke and Jefferson Counties (FWS 2004c). There

are no known nesting colonies in these counties, with the nearest being 43 km (27 mi) away in

Screven County. Wood storks have also been seen foraging on the U.S. Army's Fort Gordon

installation in Richmond County adjacent to the RDC (Mitchell 1999). At this time, it is not

known if these individuals use habitat along or in the RDC. Impacts to wood storks are likely to

be negligible provided that adequate surveys are conducted prior to commencement of

transmission line construction, consultation with FWS is initiated as needed, and appropriate

mitigation is implemented. However, without proper surveys, consultation, and appropriate

mitigation, the impact could be greater than negligible.

Flatwoods Salamander - Threatened

The VEGP Site

The Federally threatened flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) has the potential to

occur in Burke County, Georgia. The last record for breeding flatwoods salamanders in Burke

County was in the 1940s (FWS 2004c). There are no known historical occurrences of flatwoods

salamanders on the VEGP site, and flatwoods salamanders were not identified in the 2005

threatened and endangered species survey (Southern 2006a; TRC 2006). There are no

recorded occurrences within 16 km (10 mi) of the site (GDNR 2007). Suitable habitat for the

flatwoods salamander may occur onsite, but suitable habitat is not found within the construction

area footprint. The types of habitat that would be disturbed during construction consist mainly of

previously disturbed areas, planted pine, hardwoods, wetlands along the Savannah River, and

open fields. Flatwoods salamanders are not likely to be encountered during construction at the

VEGP site, and adverse impacts are unlikely.

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way

Flatwoods salamanders have the potential to occur only in the Burke County portion of the RDC

(FWS 2004c). There are no known populations of flatwoods salamanders in the vicinity of the

RDC, with the nearest occurrence 35 km (22 mi) away in Screven County, Georgia (GDNR

2007). Impacts to flatwood salamanders are likely to be negligible provided that adequate

surveys are conducted prior to commencement of transmission line construction, consultation

August 2008 4-33 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

with FWS is initiated as needed, and appropriate mitigation is implemented. However, without

proper surveys, consultation, and appropriate mitigation, the impact could be greater than

negligible.

American Alligator - Threatened Based on Similarity of Appearance

In 1967, the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) was classified by FWS as Federally

endangered throughout its range, including Georgia. By 1987, following several reclassification

actions in other states, it was reclassified to "threatened based on similarity of appearance" to

the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in the remainder of its range, including Georgia

(52 FR 21059). The alligator is no longer biologically imperiled in Georgia. Its populations are

considered disjunct (i.e., limited to suitable habitat) and stable. The reclassification helps

prevent excessive take of the alligator and protects the American crocodile (52 FR 21059).

During surveys of the VEGP site made by Third Rock Consultants, LLC, in the summer of 2005,

an alligator was observed in Mallard Pond (TRC 2006). Alligators appear to be relatively

common in the Savannah River near and on the VEGP site (Wike et al. 2006). Alligators in the

Savannah River floodplain may be temporarily displaced, but there is ample wetlands habitat in

the region. The alligators may be minimally affected by construction at the VEGP site; impacts

on alligators would be considered negligible. Potentially, alligators could be encountered during

construction of the new transmission line, but it is likely that GPC would avoid alligators or

alligator nests for safety reasons.

Canby's Dropwort - Endangered

The VEGP Site

The Federally endangered Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyl) has the potential to occur in

Burke County, Georgia (FWS 2004c). Canby's dropwort was not found on the VEGP site during

the 2005 threatened and endangered species surveys, and there are no historical records of it

occurring onsite (Southern 2006a; TRC 2006). There are two historical records in Burke County

around Waynesboro, Georgia (51 FR 6690), and these populations are currently thought to be

extirpated (FWS 1990). There are no recorded occurrences within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP

site (GDNR 2007).

It is unlikely that the VEGP site contains suitable habitat for Canby's dropwort. Because of the

lack of suitable habitat, it is unlikely there would be construction-associated impacts to this

species at the VEGP site.

NUREG-1872 4-34 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way

Canby's dropwort occurs in Burke County (GDNR 2007). However, there are no known

populations within the RDC. The nearest known occurrence is about 5.6 km (3.5 mi) from the

RDC. Impacts to Canby's dropwort are likely to be negligible provided that adequate surveys

are conducted prior to commencement of transmission line construction, consultation with FWS

is initiated as needed, and appropriate mitigation is implemented. However, without proper

surveys, consultation, and appropriate mitigation, the impact could be greater than negligible.

Smooth Coneflower- Endangered

The VEGP Site

The smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) is listed as Federally endangered and is known to

occur in Stephens County, Georgia (Patrick et al. 1995). The smooth coneflower is found in

Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina, more than 8 km (5 mi) from the VEGP site

(SCDNR 2007). There are no known occurrences of smooth coneflower in Burke County, no

historical occurrences on the VEGP site, and it was not recorded in the 2005 threatened and

endangered species survey (TRC 2006; FWS 2004c; Southern 2006a). It appears unlikely that

there is suitable onsite habitat. Therefore, there would be no impacts to this species from

construction at the VEGP site.

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way

The smooth coneflower has not been recorded within any of the counties that may be crossed

by the new transmission line. No impact to this species is expected from transmission line

construction activities.

Relict Trillium - Endangered

The VEGP Site

The relict trillium (Trillium reliquum) was listed as Federally endangered in 1988. Relict trillium

is known to occur in Aiken County, South Carolina. Known populations in Aiken County are

more than 16 km (10 mi) from the VEGP site (SCDNR 2007).

The relict trillium was not observed during the 2005 or 2007 threatened and endangered

species onsite surveys, and it has not been recorded by either the FWS or the GDNR in Burke

County, Georgia (TRC 2006; FWS 2004c; GDNR 2007; Patrick 2007). Therefore, there would

be no impacts to this species from construction at the VEGP site.

August 2008 4-35 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way

The relict trillium has not been recorded within any of the counties that may be crossed by the

transmission line, and the nearest known location is more than 122 km (76 mi) away in Jones

County, Georgia. No impact to this species is expected from transmission line construction

activities.

Georgia Aster - Candidate

The VEGP Site

The Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) is a candidate for Federal listing. However, it

has not been recorded within Burke County, Georgia, and was not observed during the 2005

threatened and endangered onsite species survey (TRC 2006). Therefore, no impact to this

species is expected from VEGP Units 3 and 4 construction activities.

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way

Georgia aster is known to occur in McDuffie County, Georgia about 9 km (5.5 mi) from the RDC

(FWS 2004c; GDNR 2007). Impacts to Georgia aster are likely to be negligible provided that

adequate surveys are conducted prior to commencement of transmission line construction,

consultation with FWS is initiated as needed, and appropriate mitigation is implemented.

However, without proper surveys, consultation, and appropriate mitigation, the impact could be

greater than negligible.

Terrestrial Threatened and Endangered Species Summary

Based on the threatened and endangered species surveys, historical records, life history

information, known threatened and endangered species locations, and information provided by

Southern in its ER and Request for Additional Information (RAI) responses, the staff concludes

the impacts on terrestrial Federally listed threatened and endangered species from construction

activities on the VEGP site would be SMALL.

The GPC would site the new 500-kV transmission line in accordance with Georgia Code

Title 22, Section 22-3-161. GPC procedures for implementing this code include consultation

with FWS and an evaluation of impacts to special habitats and threatened and endangered

species. In addition, the GPC would comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit

requirements, and would use good engineering and construction practices (Southern 2008a).

Surveys for threatened and endangered species have not yet been conducted in the RDC. The

staff has determined that impacts to Federally protected species within the proposed 500-kV

transmission line right-of-way would likely be SMALL. However, without adequate surveys,

consultation, and appropriate mitigation, the impact to Federally protected species could be

MODERATE.

NUREG-1872 4-36 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

4.4.3.2 Aquatic Species

As described in Section 2.7.2.2 the only Federally listed aquatic species is the shortnose

sturgeon. The species was identified through correspondence with NMFS (NMFS 2006).

Construction of the proposed CWIS, discharge structure, and the barge slip would temporarily

disturb the river bank environment. This disturbance would include the potential for some

turbidity and river bottom alteration and noise from pile-driving activities. However, Southern

has committed to using BMPs to avoid increased turbidity (Southern 2008a), and noise impacts

would be transient.

As discussed in Section 2.7.2.2, the suspected spawning sites for shortnose sturgeon that have

been reported are at rkm 179to 190 (RM 111 to 118) and rkm 275 to 278 (RM 171 to 172)

(Hall et al. 1991) and rkm 179 to 228 (RM 111 to 142) (Collins and Smith 1993) (Figure 2-14).

The VEGP site is located at rkm 241 to 244 (RM 150 to 152). The spawning areas are

characterized by fast-flowing river bends that provide substrate suitable for attachment for the

highly adhesive sturgeon eggs. These areas include submerged timber, scoured sand, clay,

and gravel as a substrate. Hall et al. (1991) also reports that the spawning depth is considered

to be 6 to 9 m (20 to 30 ft). In contrast, the Savannah River adjacent to the VEGP site is

relatively straight with very few bends. The maximum depth of the water in the vicinity of the

proposed intake structure is approximately 3.7 to 4.0 m (12 to 13 ft) (Southern 2008a). The

substrate in the deep sections of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the site ranged from

"...brown poorly graded gravel with sand..." to "...poorly graded gravel .... (Southern 2006a).

As mentioned previously, the USACE, as authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act, has the

responsibility for maintaining a channel in the Savannah River for navigational purposes. The

impacts on the shortnose sturgeon from the potential dredging of the navigation canal are

identified in Chapter 7, Cumulative Impacts.

Based on the staffs review, it appears highly unlikely that shortnose sturgeon would spawn in

the vicinity of the VEGP site. It is most probable that sturgeon moving through the area would

avoid the construction on their way upstream as spawning adults or downstream as larvae, and

would not be impacted by construction activities. As a result, the staff concludes that the overall

impact of construction-related activities at the VEGP site, on the shortnose sturgeon would be

SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

Construction activities can affect individual communities, the surrounding region, and minority

and low-income populations. This evaluation assesses the impacts of construction-related

activities and of the construction workforce on the region. Unless otherwise specified, the

primary source of information for this section is the ER (Southern 2008a).

August 2008 4-37 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

The planned onsite construction-related activities would differ significantly from those activities

required to construct VEGP Units 1 and 2.(a) Although many activities would be similar, VEGP

Units 1 and 2 were constructed almost entirely onsite. For VEGP Units 3 and 4, many of the

components of the Westinghouse AP 1000 nuclear units would be made at dedicated

fabrication facilities outside the VEGP site region and would be delivered to the ESP site ready

to assemble, thus reducing onsite construction labor requirements. The peak workforce for

VEGP Units 1 and 2 was around 14,000 construction workers.(b) Southern estimates the peak

onsite construction requirements for VEGP Units 3 and 4 to be 3500 workers (specific

assumptions discussed in following sections). Because approximately 75 percent fewer onsite

workers would be needed to construct VEGP Units 3 and 4 than were needed for VEGP Units 1

and 2, the staff expects the construction-related physical, social, and economic impacts on the

region, both beneficial and adverse, would be smaller than the impacts associated with the

construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 (Southern 2008b).

Although the staff considered the entire region within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the VEGP site

when assessing socioeconomic impacts, the primary region of interest for physical impacts is

the area within a 16-km (10-mi) radius. The region of interest with regard to social and

economic impacts encompasses the entire 80-km (50-mi) radius, but primarily includes Burke,

Columbia, and Richmond Counties in Georgia. Based on commuter patterns and the

distribution of residential communities in the area, the NRC staff found de minimis impacts on

other counties within the 80-km (50-mi) radius in Georgia and South Carolina. While Barnwell

County borders the VEGP site on the South Carolina side of the Savannah River, this county is

primarily occupied by the Savannah River Site, which has no permanent residents.

Furthermore, there are no bridges near the VEGP site for commuters to cross into South

Carolina. Consequently, South Carolina is more isolated from the proposed site than it appears

and has been excluded from much of the socioeconomic analysis pertaining to construction and

operation at the VEGP site.

4.5.1 Physical Impacts

Construction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise,

odors, vehicle exhaust, and dust. Vibration and shock impacts are not expected because of the

strict control of blasting and other shock-producing activities. This section addresses potential

construction impacts that may affect people, buildings, and roads.

(a) The construction on VEGP Unit 1 was completed in 1987, and Unit 2 was completed in 1989

(Southern Website at http://www.southerncompany.com/SouthernnuclearNogtIe.asp).

(b) Taken from The Blazer, which is a weekly newsletter serving the "Plant Vogtle Community." The

specific article is entitled "The Vogtle Report," June 7, 1986. Volume 5, Number 12.

NUREG-1872 4-38 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

4.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public

The VEGP site is located in an area used for industrial purposes and is bounded by agricultural

and forested land. No significant industrial or commercial facilities other than the VEGP site

exist or are planned in the vicinity. The recreational areas closest to the plant include the Yuchi

Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and the Crackerneck WMA, which are both adjacent to the

plant site (Figure 2-21). These recreational areas could be affected by construction on the

VEGP site because of an increase in traffic, noise, and dust from construction activities

(Southern 2008a). However, Crackerneck WMA is on the South Carolina side of the Savannah

River approximately 80 km (50 mi) from the VEGP site by road and would probably experience

little or no traffic-related effects.

All construction activities would occur within the VEGP site boundary and would be performed in

compliance with all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards, BMPs,

and other applicable regulatory and permit requirements. Offsite areas supporting construction

activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, and disposal sites) are already permitted and operational.

Therefore, the staff expects the incremental construction-related impacts on those facilities to be

small. While approximately 3500 people live within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP site (see

Section 2.8.1), the people most vulnerable to noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions

resulting from construction activities include construction workers and personnel working onsite,

people working or living immediately adjacent to the site, and transient populations such as

recreational visitors, tourists, or temporary employees (Southern 2008a):

Construction workers would have adequate training and personal protective equipment to

minimize the risk of potentially harmful exposures. Emergency first-aid care would be available

at the construction site, and regular health and safety monitoring would be conducted during

construction. People working onsite or living near the VEGP site would not experience any

construction-related physical impacts greater than those that would be considered an

annoyance or nuisance. Construction activities would be performed in compliance with Federal,

State, and local regulations, and site-specific permit conditions (Southern 2008a).

Burke County is part of the Augusta-Aiken Interstate Air Quality Control Region, which is

classified as in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(a) (40 CFR 81.114) for

all criteria pollutants. The nearest non-attainment area to the proposed site is in Columbia,

South Carolina, which is a non-attainment area under the 8-hour ozone standard. Columbia is

approximately 130 km (80 mi) northeast of the proposed VEGP site. Temporary and minor

effects on local ambient air quality may occur as a result of normal construction activities.

Emissions of fugitive dust and particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers (PM10) in size are

generated during earth-moving and material-handling activities. Construction equipment and

(a) Areas of the United States having air quality as good as or better than the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards are designated by the EPA as "in attainment areas."

August 2008 4-39 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

offsite vehicles also produce emissions during construction. The pollutants of primary concern

include PM10 fugitive dust, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and, to

a lesser extent, sulfur dioxides. Mitigation measures (e.g., paving or stabilizing disturbed areas,

water suppression, reduced material handling) would minimize such emissions. Odors could

result from exhaust emissions, but odors dissipate onsite and would have no discernible impact

on the local air quality. All equipment would be serviced regularly and all construction activities

would be conducted in accordance with Federal, State, and local emission requirements.

Construction activities are inherently noisy, but the VEGP site's relative isolation from populated

areas and the wooded areas surrounding the site would provide natural noise abatement. If

exceptionally noisy construction activities would be necessary, Southern would provide public

announcements or notifications. All construction activities would be subject to regulations

stemming from the Noise Control Act of 1972, Federal regulations for noise from construction

equipment (40 CFR Part 204), and OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.95).

Sportsmen using the Yuchi WMA and the GPC boat landing on the Savannah River would be

the transient population most affected by construction-related activities. Southern would inform

transient populations of such activities and potential impacts to recreational activities by posting

signs in the area.

Specific mitigation measures to control fugitive dust would be identified in a dust-control plan, or

a similar document, prepared prior to project construction in accordance with all applicable State

and Federal permits and regulations. These mitigation measures could include but are not

limited to the following:

" stabilizing construction roads and spoils piles

" limiting speeds on unpaved construction roads

* periodically watering unpaved construction roads to control dust

" performing housekeeping (e.g., remove dirt spilled onto paved roads)

" covering haul trucks when loaded or unloaded

" minimizing material handling (e.g., drop heights, double-handling)

* ceasing grading and excavation activities during high winds and during periods of extreme

air pollution

* phasing grading to minimize the area of disturbed soils

e re-vegetating road medians and slopes.

4.5.1.2 Buildings

Construction activities would not affect any offsite buildings. Onsite buildings have been

constructed to safely withstand any possible impact, including shock and vibration, from

activities associated with construction at the VEGP site (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A). Except

NUREG-1 872 4-40 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

for the existing structures on the VEGP site, no other industrial, commercial, or recreational

structures would be directly affected by the construction of the new facility.

4.5.1.3 Roads

Public roads and railways would transport construction materials and equipment. Burke County

has a well-developed transportation system and would not be significantly impacted as a result

of Southern's proposed construction activities. No significant alterations or construction of

roads would be needed, but some roads may need minor repairs or upgrades to allow safe

access to the plant site. Southern would repair any damage to public roads, markings, or signs

caused by construction activities to pre-existing conditions or better. Southern plans to build a

new private access road to the construction site, a heavy-haul route from the VEGP site barge

facility on the Savannah River, and a new road from the new intake structure to the construction

site. These roads would be fully contained within the existing site boundary. The railway spur

that connects the VEGP site to the main spur north of Waynesboro has recently been upgraded

and would be used to transfer heavy equipment to the site.

Construction workers would use a dedicated construction access road rather than the primary

VEGP site access road. This road would be marked clearly with signs and maintained clear of

debris. Southern would select hauling routes based on equipment accessibility, existing traffic

patterns, and noise restrictions, logistics, distance, costs, and safety. Impacts to the

surrounding region would be minimized by avoiding routes that could adversely affect sensitive

areas, such as residential neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, and retirement communities.

Southern also would restrict activities and delivery times as much as possible to daylight hours.

4.5.1.4 Aesthetics

Approximately 224 ha (555 ac) on the VEGP site would need to be cleared and excavated to

construct VEGP Units 3 and 4. Most of the clearing would be at the VEGP site; however,

approximately 5.06 ha (12.5 ac) of river shoreline would be cleared, excavated, and graded for

the CWIS, and approximately 4 ha (10 ac) would be cleared and graded for the barge facility

and discharge pipe. In addition, temporary roads and a barge facility would need be

constructed, and heavy equipment would have to be brought to the site. The two construction

sites would be approximately 460 m (1500 ft) apart. The clearing and excavation for the new

units and adjacent support facilities would not be visible from offsite roads. However, clearing

and construction activities for the river-front facilities would be visible from the river. Southern

would use BMPs to prevent erosion and sedimentation, including seeding bare earth, but the

affected river front would be exposed during construction of the barge dock and CWIS and

discharge structures.

August 2008 4-41 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

The proposed site is bounded by agricultural and forested land. Some construction activities

may be visible from the Savannah River and parts of River Road, but most of the construction

activity would be masked by woods and the bluff along the river. The VEGP site is already

aesthetically altered by its existing nuclear power plant and 180 m (600 ft) high cooling towers.

Because construction-related impacts would be temporary, the staff expects any constructionrelated adverse aesthetic impacts to the site and vicinity would also be temporary and SMALL.

The new transmission lines, however, would be constructed offsite and aesthetic impacts are

likely to be MODERATE.

4.5.1.5 Summary of Physical Impacts

The proposed footprint for VEGP Units 3 and 4 is in an industrial area, surrounded by forested

land. All construction activities would occur within the construction site boundary. Based on the

information provided by Southern in its ER (Southern 2008a) and the NRC's own independent

review, the staff concludes that the overall physical impacts of construction on workers and the

local public, buildings, roads, and aesthetics near the VEGP site would be SMALL as long as

the mitigative actions identified above are undertaken. Aesthetic impacts along the new

transmission line are likely to be MODERATE.

4.5.2 Demography

The following assessment of population impacts is based on Southern's estimated peak

construction workforce of 3500 workers.(a) The proposed construction schedule assumes

18 months for site preparation and 66 months of construction, for a total construction duration of

84 months. Southern estimates approximately 1000 workers already live within commuting

distance of the plant (Southern 2008a). From NRC's own interviews of local building trade

leaders, the staff believes it may be possible that the number of locally available skilled crafts

workers might be considerably greater. However, an assessment of negative impacts from inmigrating skilled crafts workers provides a more conservative (worst-case) scenario. The staff

assumes 2500 workers would likely in-migrate to the region (PNNL 2006). Of these, 2000 jobs

would last two or more years and the remainder would be for less than two years (Southern

2008a).

Based on information collected by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in 2003 related to the

construction workforce in-migrant patterns at the Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant, the staff

estimated the in-migrating workers who stay for more than two years would bring families,

increasing the number of in-migrants by approximately 3000, for a total increase of the

(a) This estimate was based on Bechtel historical construction data for a proposed construction schedule

for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, considering total estimated net generation output and total

number of job hours necessary to install and start up the two units (Southern 2007b). These numbers

were further refined based on information provided by Westinghouse and NUSTART (Southern

2008b; 2008c).

NUREG-1 872 4-42 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

population of approximately 5500. Of the additional 3000 in-migrating workforce dependants,

approximately 1100 would be school-age children (Southern 2006a).(a)

To approximate the commuting patterns of the in-migrating workers, Southern assumed all

workers would find housing in the same proportions as the current operations and maintenance

workforce at the VEGP site. Therefore, the staff likewise assumes a residential distribution for

the long-term construction workers that resembles the residential distribution of the current

VEGP site workforce (see Table 2-14), and that over 90 percent of the in-migrating workers

would live in Columbia, Richmond, Burke, Screven, or Aiken County. Consequently, there

would be net population increases of approximately 1100 in Burke County, 1430 in Richmond

County, 1870 in Columbia County, 390 in Screven County, and 220 in Aiken County, and 500 in

all other counties in the 80-km (50-mi) radius. These numbers represent a 5 percent increase in

the year 2000 Census population of Burke County, a 3 percent increase in Screven County, a

2 percent increase in Columbia County, a 1 percent increase in Richmond County, and less

than 1 percent in Aiken County. Given the magnitude of the estimated population increases, the

staff determined the influx of workers because of VEGP construction activities would only

impose SMALL and temporary, unnoticeable demographic impacts to the more populous

counties. However, depending on where these workers choose to reside, Burke County would

likely experience MODERATE and temporary impacts because of the increases in population.

The staff expects any impacts to all other counties within 80 km (50 mi) of the VEGP site would

be SMALL and temporary.

4.5.3 Economic Impacts to the Community

This section evaluates the social and economic impacts on the area within 80 km (50 mi) of the

VEGP site as a result of constructing VEGP Units 3 and 4. The evaluation assesses the

impacts of construction and demands placed by the larger workforce on the surrounding region.

4.5.3.1 Economy

The impacts of construction on the local and regional economy depend on the region's current

and projected economy and population. The VEGP site, if approved, would be available for

20 years after approval, and construction could begin anytime in that 20 years assuming

issuance of a construction permit (CP) or combined license (COL). For this analysis, the staff

assumes site-preparation would be completed by 2010 and construction of the new reactors

would have a start date of 2010, with a commercial operation date of 2016 for VEGP Unit 3 and

2017 for VEGP Unit 4 (Southern 2008b).

(a) TVA assumes 65 to 85 percent of the long-term, in-migrating construction workers bring families, with

an average of 1.762 dependents per worker. Approximately half of the dependents are assumed to

be children, and 74 percent of the children are school age. Thus, 2000 x 0.85 x 1.762 = 2995 total

additional in-migrants and 2995 x 0.5 x 0.74 = 1108 school-age children.

August 2008 4-43 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

The in-migration of approximately 2500 workers would create new indirect jobs in the area

through a process called the spending/income multiplier effect, which explains how each dollar

spent on goods and services by one person becomes income to another, who saves some

money but re-spends the rest. In turn, this re-spending becomes income to someone else, who

in turn saves a portion and re-spends the rest, and so on. The percentage by which the sum of

all spending exceeds the initial dollar spent is called the "multiplier." The U.S. Department of

Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Economics and Statistics Division, provides

regional multipliers for industry jobs and earnings (BEA 2005). For every construction worker,

BEA estimates an additional 0.70 jobs would be created in the area near the VEGP site.

Considering this multiplier effect, the construction activities at the VEGP site could create

approximately 3400 additional (direct plus indirect) jobs in the 80-km (50-mi) region during the

construction phase.(a)

The employment of such a large workforce over a 7-year period would have positive economic

impacts on the surrounding region. Even if these workers earned no more than average

construction wage rates, this large pool of jobs would inject millions of dollars into the regional

economy, thus reducing unemployment and creating business opportunities for housing and

service-related industries. The largest economic impacts would most likely be felt in Burke

County, particularly in the town of Waynesboro, Georgia, since it may house the largest

percentage of permanent and temporary employees. Although the staff expects a relatively

small population increase in Screven County, relative to its small base population and economy;

this increase could produce a noticeable upsurge in the local economy.

The NRC staff concludes that beneficial economic impacts could be experienced throughout the

region. In Burke County and possibly Screven County, MODERATE potentially beneficial

economic impacts would occur as a result of construction activities at the VEGP site. Economic

impacts elsewhere would be SMALL.

4.5.3.2 Taxes

Several tax revenue categories would be affected by the construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4.

These include taxes on wages, salaries, and corporate profits; sales and use taxes on

construction-related purchases; workforce expenditures; property taxes related to the new units;

and personal property taxes on owned real property.

(a) Only the in-migrating workers that are expected to work over 2 years at the site are considered here

(2000 total). With the multiplier effect, the total number of direct and indirect jobs would be

approximately 3400 (2000 + (2000 x 0.70) = 3400).

NUREG-1872 4-44 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Personal and Corporate Income Taxes

Georgia has personal and corporate income taxes. Construction workers would pay taxes to

the State of Georgia on their wages and salaries if their residence is in Georgia or if they are

nonresidents working in Georgia and have Georgia income that exceeds 5 percent of income

from all sources. The staff considers the wages of Georgia residents who would work at the

proposed site to be a net transfer with no analytical worth. For in-migrating workers, the staff

considers the full value of their VEGP-based earnings as applicable to this analysis. While the

exact amount of income taxes the project would generate for the State of Georgia cannot be

known, assuming in-migrating workers earn a representative annual construction salary of

approximately $64,000 per year,(a) the income from in-migrating workers could generate millions

of dollars of additional revenue over the 7-year pre-construction and construction period.(b)

However, this revenue would be paid into the general fund to the State of Georgia. Therefore,

the impact of additional income tax revenues would be relatively small for the counties within

80 km (50 mi) of the proposed site (Southern 2008a). Similarly, contractors building the new

units at the VEGP site would pay corporate income taxes on the net income earned from the

construction activity, which would be paid to the State general fund.

Sales and Use Taxes

The area around the proposed site would experience an increase in sales and use taxes

generated by retail expenditures (e.g., restaurants, hotels, merchant sales, food, etc.) by the

construction workforce. The region would also experience an increase in the sales and use

taxes collected from construction materials and supplies purchased for the project. Given its

proximity to the proposed site and relatively small population and economic base, Burke County

would probably receive the largest benefit from sales tax revenues. Columbia and Richmond

Counties may also experience an increase in sales and use tax revenues; however, it would

likely be a much smaller percentage because of the larger sales and use tax base in these

counties. Screven County has limited services and shopping; thus, any impact on sales and

use tax revenues would likely be small.

Property Taxes

The VEGP site's current property tax payments represent approximately 80 percent of Burke

County's total county property tax revenues (see Table 2-16). Although an exact property tax

revenue estimate is not available, during construction the new units would be assessed at some

negotiated valuation that would likely range from $1.2 to $2.6 million, based on net electrical

output of 1117 MW(e)(Southern 2006a). It is likely that this negotiated value would be no more

(a) Personal communication with Charles Hardegree, Business Manager, Plumbers and Steamfitters

Local Union #150, Augusta, GA. June 20, 2007. (Accession No. ML072290212)

(b) Impact and sensitivity analysis provided by Southern in RAI response letter (Southern 2006a).

August 2008 4-45 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

than 50 percent of the invested capital each year. VEGP would pay Burke County some taxes

on VEGP Units 3 and 4 during the 5-year construction period.

A second source of revenue from property taxes would be housing purchased by the long-term

construction workforce. In-migrating workers may construct new housing, which would add to

the counties taxable property base, or these workers could purchase existing houses, which

would drive housing demand and housing prices up, thus slightly increasing values (and

property taxes levied). The increased housing demand would have little effect on tax revenues

in the more heavily populated jurisdictions.

Summary of Tax Impacts

The amount of income taxes collected over a potential 7-year preconstruction/construction

period could be large in absolute terms, but small when compared to the total amount of taxes

that Georgia collects in any given year or in a 7-year period. In absolute terms, the amount of

sales and use taxes collected over a potential 7-year construction period could be large, but

small when compared to the total amount of taxes collected by Georgia, South Carolina, and the

governmental jurisdictions within the region. However, given the smaller economic bases, sales

and use tax impacts in Burke County could be MODERATE. The construction site-related

property taxes collected and distributed to Burke County would likely be MODERATE when

compared to the total amount of taxes Burke County collects in any given year over the 7-year

construction term, depending on the terms of the ad valorem tax revenue payments made for

VEGP Units 3 and 4. Burke, Richmond, Columbia, and Screven Counties may also benefit from

small property tax revenue increases stemming from changes in house values and increased

inventory from the influx of the long-term construction workforce.

4.5.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts to the Community

Based on the information provided by Southern, NRC staff interviews with local public officials,

and NRC's own independent review of data on the regional economy and taxes, the staff

concludes that, for most of the region within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the proposed site, the

revenue-derived impacts on the regional economy from constructing VEGP Units 3 and 4 would

be SMALL, with a possible MODERATE beneficial impact on Burke County.

4.5.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts

Infrastructure and community services include transportation, recreation, housing, public

services, and education.

4.5.4.1 Transportation

Impacts of the proposed construction on transportation and traffic would be most obvious on the

rural roads of Burke County, particularly River Road, a two-lane highway that provides the only

NUREG-1 872 4-46 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

access to VEGP's main gate and the proposed new access road for construction personnel.

Construction-related impacts on traffic are determined by five elements:

1. the number and timing of construction worker vehicles on the roads per shift

2. the number of shift changes for the construction workforce per day

3. the number and timing of truck deliveries to the construction site per day

4. the projected population growth rate in Burke County

5. the capacity and usage of the roads.

Southern's analysis assumed four construction shifts, with each comprising 25 percent of the

total construction workforce(a) made up of two shifts working 10-hour days Monday through

Thursday (day shift and swing shift), and two additional crews working 12-hour days Friday

through Sunday (day shift and graveyard shift). To assess the maximum impact on the local

road network, Southern assumed one worker per vehicle and no staggered shifts, so

construction and operations schedules would overlap. Southern also estimated 100 truck

deliveries would be made daily to the construction site. Truck deliveries and construction

worker vehicles would enter the site via the construction access road. The construction and

operations workforces would access the VEGP site via River Road. Beyond River Road,

construction traffic from the VEGP site is dispersed in several directions, and road capacities

increase as the roads approach Richmond and Columbia Counties. Therefore, the focus of the

staffs impact analysis is on River Road.

The Georgia Department of Transportation estimates road capacity on two lane highways at

1700 cars per hour for one direction and 3200 cars per hour for both directions. The 2004

Average Annual Daily Traffic report measured traffic on River Road north of the VEGP as

1277 cars per day in one direction. Because theAverage Annual Daily Traffic does not

consider hourly traffic volume, Southern estimated maximum peak hourly traffic on River Road

by assuming the peak would occur during the afternoon shift change, and that the majority of

traffic on the road results from plant employees commuting to and from work. Based on these

assumptions, Southern's ER estimated hourly peak traffic on River Road at about 1200 cars per

hour in both directions (Southern 2008a). The current capacity of River Road is 3200 cars per

hour. Therefore, Southern determined River Road has sufficient capacity for an additional

2000 cars per hour beyond its current rate.

Given the construction schedule presented in Southern's ER, and assuming approximately

1200 cars per hour as the current peak hourly traffic, congestion on River Road would increase

considerably during the second year of construction and continue through year 5; however, the

(a) This analysis Uses simplified, conservative assumptions. In reality, Southern already employs

staggered operations shifts and would employ varied and staggered construction shifts to mitigate

congestion (Southern 2006a).

August 2008 4-47 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

traffic on River Road appears to remain within the road's designed capacity.(a) Table 4-4

presents the analysis of traffic impacts to River Road. More detail regarding the assumptions

and calculations made to complete this analysis can be found in Section 4.4 of Southern's ER

(Southern 2008a).

In addition to the construction workforce analyzed above, Southern employs an average

outage(b) workforce of approximately 800 workers for approximately 1 month during every

refueling outage. During outages most of the plant staff and outage workforce are on 12-hour

shifts, 2 shifts per day, 7-days a week. Their additional pressure on River Road could

conceivably push hourly traffic counts over its capacity for I or 2 months each year from years

1 through 5 of the construction period.

Traditionally, traffic not associated with VEGP activities along River Road consists of a small

number of local commuters, local school buses, and sports hunters and fishermen seeking

access to the Savannah River or nearby hunting lands. Southern determined the impact of

construction worker traffic on these groups can be mitigated in several ways. Considering that

River Road is not the only access to major highways for the area, to the extent possible,

Southern could try to reroute non-VEGP traffic to other traffic corridors (Southern 2008a).

The staff concludes construction workers would impose a SMALL to MODERATE impact on the

two-lane highways in Burke County, particularly River Road and the highways that feed into it.

Traffic impacts could also be felt to a lesser degree on other rural roads and major commuter

routes to Columbia and Richmond Counties. To mitigate these impacts, it may be necessary to

accommodate the additional vehicles on Burke County roads, particularly River Road, by

developing a traffic management plan prior to the start of construction. The traffic management

plan should include such mitigating measures as installing turn lanes at the construction

entrance, establishing a centralized parking area away from the site, and shuttling construction

workers to the site in buses or vans, using incentive programs to encourage car-pooling, and

staggering construction shifts so they do not coincide with operational shifts. Southern could

also establish a shuttle service from the central Augusta area or another area where a

concentration of construction workers reside.

(a) table 4-4 is based on the traffic analysis presented in Southern's ER (Southern 2008a) and adjusted

for changes in construction workforce estimates as provided by Southern (Southern 2008c).

(b) Each of the current VEGP units undergoes a scheduled refueling outage every 18 months. A typical

outage consists of fuel reloading activities, equipment maintenance, and special projects, such as

major equipment replacements and refurbishment (Southern 2006a).

NUREG-1872 4-48 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 4-4. Number of Construction Workforce Cars per Hour on River Road during Peak

Shift Changes

Number of "Current"

Construction assumed

Workforce cars on hourly traffic

Number of River Road during peak plus River

Construction shift changes, both construction Road

Construction Phase Workers directions impact Capacity

First month of "preconstruction"/ 64 32 1232 3200

(18 months before Year I of

"Construction Phase")

Final month of "preconstruction"/ 1740 870 2070 3200

(1 month before Year 1 of

"Construction Phase")

Year 1/Month 5 2436 1218 2418 3200

Year 2/Month 17 3200 1600 1800 3200

Year 3/Month 28-36 3500 1750 2950 3200

Year 5/Month 49-50 3200 1600 2800 3200

Year 6/Month 62 2400 1200 2400 3200

Month 64 1600 800 2000 3200

Month 65 800 400 1600 3200

Month 66 400 200 1400 3200

Source: Southern 2008a, 2007c

Rail and Waterways

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) and Norfolk Southern Corp. operate the two primary freight rail

carriers servicing Burke, Richmond, and Columbia Counties. From Augusta, CSX has three

lines leading to Atlanta, Georgia; Greenwood, South Carolina, and Savannah, Georgia. The

line to Savannah runs through South Carolina and comes to within 6.9 km (4.3 mi) of the VEGP

site at its closest point. Each line runs approximately 12 to 20 freight trains a day. Also from

Augusta, Norfolk Southern has a rail line that goes through Waynesboro, Georgia, to points

south and west, running approximately 12 to 20 freight trains a day. Both rail lines have the

capacity to run additional trains. A 32-km (20-mi) rail spur runs from the VEGP site to the

Norfolk Southern line, connecting north of Waynesboro. Southern recently upgraded the spur to

support the transfer of heavy equipment to the VEGP site, and it is likely that this spur would be

used to transfer equipment during the construction of Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site. Since a

number of new residential subdivisions have been developed near the rail spur in Waynesboro,

it may be necessary to upgrade rail crossings with additional safety features.

August 2008 4-49 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Southern plans to use the Savannah River navigation channel to support delivery of large

components and modules for construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4. A barge slip was installed

approximately 90 m (100 yd) downstream of the CWIS for VEGP Units 1 and 2 to support the

unloading of major equipment. The Savannah River navigation channel is operated and

maintained by the Savannah District of the USACE. Southern has contacted the USACE and

would work with them to develop a strategic plan to support the transport of equipment on the

Savannah River.

Based on the information provided by Southern, interviews with local planners and officials, and

the NRC's own independent review, the staff concludes that the offsite impacts of construction

of VEGP Units 3 and 4 on transportation could be MODERATE during the peak construction

period, particularly during outage periods; however, mitigating activities such as those

discussed above could reduce impacts to a SMALL level when implemented.

4.5.4.2 Recreation

Construction of the reactors would require a 76-m (250-ft)-tall crane tower that may be visible

from River Road and the Savannah River. There is very little recreational boating or fishing

near the VEGP site. Hunters or fishers seeking access to the- Savannah River or nearby

hunting or fishing areas may be impacted by the construction worker traffic to the site.

However, Southern would attempt to mitigate these impacts by posting signs and re-routing

traffic. Because the aesthetic impacts of construction would be localized and only limited

recreational boating takes place on this reach of the river near the site, the staff anticipates that

the impacts on local recreation from construction activities would be SMALL.

4.5.4.3 Housing

The assumptions behind the NRC staffs estimated in-migration of workers were established in

Section 4.5.2 of this chapter. If the entire construction workforce required to construct VEGP

Units 3 and 4 originated within a reasonable commuting distance of the VEGP site, there would

be no impact on housing demand. However, the NRC staff expects that approximately

2500 construction workers would migrate into the region; 2000 of these workers would reside in

the area for two or more years and would require long-term housing, and 500 workers would

need temporary housing (e.g., hotels, motels, rooms in private home) or they would live in their

own campers or mobile homes.

Although rental properties are limited in Burke and Screven Counties, they are in plentiful supply

in the larger municipalities such as Augusta, Martinez, and Evans in Georgia; and Aiken and

North Augusta in South Carolina. Table 2-18 provides information on housing in Burke,

Columbia, Richmond, and Screven Counties in Georgia, and Aiken County in South Carolina.

NUREG-1872 4-50 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

The staffs assumptions in Section 4.5.2 indicate long-term workers would require

approximately 400 housing units in Burke County, 520 in Richmond County, 680 in Columbia

County, 140 in Screven County, and 80 in Aiken County. All of these counties have enough

housing units available to absorb the influx of workers. For example, Richmond County had

over 10,000 vacant housing units in 2005. Therefore, the staff expects housing impacts would

be SMALL.

Some relocating construction workers might bring campers or mobile homes for the duration of

their employment. There are a limited number of recreational vehicle (RV) parks available near

the VEGP site. When VEGP Units 1 and 2 were constructed, numerous mobile home parks

operated on private property throughout Burke and Screven Counties to support the influx of

workers. There were no zoning restrictions in place at the time in either county. By the time

construction begins for VEGP Units 3 and 4, Burke County would have established zoning

regulations to restrict RV and trailer park developments in the county.(a) However, temporary

RV parks would likely provide housing to a number of construction workers during the

construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4.

Based on the information provided by Southern, interviews with local real estate agents and city

and county planners, and NRC's own independent review, the staff expects the housing-related

impacts of construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be SMALL.

4.5.4.4 Public Services

This section describes the public services available and discusses the impacts of construction

at the VEGP site on water supply and waste treatment, police, fire and medical services,

education, and social services in the region.

Water Supply Facilities

A detailed description of construction-related water requirements and its impact is presented in

Section 4.3 of this document. The VEGP site does not use water from a municipal system.

Onsite wells provide potable water, and would provide the water for the construction project as

well. Therefore, water usage by the workforce, while onsite, would not impact municipal water

suppliers. Southern estimated the total daily groundwater usage at the VEGP site during

construction to be approximately 6.8 million L/d (1.8 million gpd), which is well within Southern's

permitted limits and, therefore, the construction-related impacts to the VEGP site groundwater

use would likely be SMALL.

(a) Interview on October 18, 2006 with Bill Owens, Building Official, Department of Planning, Permits,

and Inspections, Burke County, Georgia. Part of meeting with Burke County officials held in

Waynesboro, Georgia.

August 2008 4-51 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Municipal water suppliers in the region have excess capacity (see Table 2-20; 2-21). The

impact to the local water supply systems from construction-related population growth can be

estimated by calculating the amount of water that would be required by total population

increase. According to a 2003 EPA report on potable water usage, the average person in the

United States uses about 340 L/d (90 gpd) (EPA 2003). For an assumed construction-related

population increase of 5500 people, the estimated 1.90 million Lid (495,000 gpd) increase in

water consumption amounts to about 13 percent of Burke County's excess capacity. Therefore,

the staff expects construction-related impacts on municipal water supplies would be SMALL.

Wastewater Treatment Facilities

The VEGP site has a private wastewater treatment facility sized for VEGP Units 1 and 2. As

part of the construction project, the facility would be expanded to support the increased capacity

that would be needed for VEGP Units 3 and 4. During construction, temporary office and

warehouse facilities would be tied to the existing facility. In addition, portable toilets would be

provided in the construction area. Therefore, additional wastewater associated with

construction activities would not impact the existing the VEGP site wastewater treatment facility.

Section 2.8.2.6 describes the public wastewater treatment systems in Burke, Richmond, and

Columbia Counties, their permitted capacities, and current demands. Wastewater treatment

facilities in the three counties have excess capacity. Assuming that 100 percent of the

water consumed by in-migrating workers would be disposed of through the wastewater

treatment facilities, the construction-related population increase of 5500 people could require

1.90 million L/d (495,000 gpd) of additional wastewater treatment capacity. Given a reported

excess treatment capacity of over 60 million L/d (16 million gpd) in Burke, Richmond, and

Columbia counties the staff expects the impacts on wastewater treatment from the in-migrating

construction workforce in the region would be SMALL.

Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

A temporary increase in population from the construction workforce for a new nuclear facility

can increase the burdens on local fire and police departments, but this increase is transitory in

nature. Once the project has been completed, many of the construction workers would leave

the area, relieving those burdens. During construction, the temporary increase in demand for

community resources could be mitigated in several ways. Larger communities would have an

easier time assimilating the influx of new people because the additional new population

comprise a smaller percentage of the communities' base populations. Likewise, the more

communities that host new workers, the less pressure each community would experience on its

infrastructure. Consequently, any incentives Southern can provide its employees to move into

the area in a planned manner would mitigate (but not remove) this short-term demand. Next,

communities can avoid the long-term commitment to the maintenance and operation of

infrastructure purchases to fulfill short-term demand increases. Instead of purchasing new fire

NUREG-1 872 4-52 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

or police equipment, affected communities could lease vehicles or building space. Additional

tax revenues from the influx of construction workers would help offset the cost to expand local

police and fire departments.

In 2001, the citizen-to-police-officer ratios in Burke, Richmond, and Columbia Counties were

271:1, 998:1, and 992:1, respectively (Southern 2008a). Burke County has the largest police

force relative to the size of its population. According to a 2005 draft planning report produced

by the Central Savannah River Area Regional Development Center, planning officials consider

police and fire protection adequate in the region (Southern 2008a). Southern would retain its

own security force at the VEGP site during construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4.

Assuming current staffing levels, the assumed population increases in Burke (1100), Richmond

(1430), and Columbia (1870) Counties would increase the citizen-to-police-officer ratio to 284:1

(a 5 percent increase) in Burke County, 1005:1 (a 1 percent increase) in Richmond County, and

1013:1 (a 2 percent increase) in Columbia County. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the

potential impacts of construction on police services in Richmond and Columbia Counties would

be SMALL.

Burke County, Georgia, was the county most affected during construction of VEGP Units 1 and

2. Consequently, it has three distinct advantages over other affected counties when responding

to construction-related effects.

1. Southern has a history of working closely with Burke County and the city of Waynesboro on

many safety and security issues, and already shares certain assets with these governments

(e.g., buses for public transport). Consequently, Burke County and the city of Waynesboro

have sufficient excess capacity in their existing programs to accommodate a much greater

increase in demand for services than the staff has assumed for its analysis.

2. Burke County and the city of Waynesboro have the benefit of experience. During the

construction of the VEGP Units 1 and 2, Waynesboro and Burke County incurred the

greatest impact from the construction workforce. That experience has compelled community

leaders to plan ahead and mitigate anticipated problems to a much greater extent than a

similar community could without such historic lessons to rely upon.

3. Burke County is the beneficiary of the tax revenue stream that flows from the VEGP site.

Consequently, it has an excellent bond rating and has existing excess capacity in many of

its community services.

Therefore, despite the much larger anticipated effect on its police and fire infrastructure in Burke

County, the NRC staff has determined that the construction-related impact on these services for

Burke County would also be SMALL.

August 2008 4-53 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

The region is well supplied with hospitals and medical services, as Richmond County serves as

a regional medical hub, with four general hospitals, one military hospital, one mental and

psychiatric hospital, one rehabilitation hospital, and two Federal hospitals. Burke County also

has one general hospital. The extensive medical complex in the city of Augusta could treat

most any injury. Southern expects minor construction-related injuries incurred during the

construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be treated onsite. More serious injuries would be

treated at one of the hospitals in the region. Based on the size and availability of medical

services in the region, temporary construction workers would not overburden existing medical

services and the staff expects the adverse impact on medical services near the proposed site

would be SMALL.

Social Services

Social services in Georgia are overseen by the Georgia Department of Human Resources

through four main divisions: (1) Aging Services; (2) Public Health; (3) Mental Health,

Developmental Disabilities, and Addictive Diseases; and (4) Family and Children Services. In

addition to government-provided services, there are a number of private, philanthropic, and

religious organizations who provide social services within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the VEGP

site. To the extent Southern's contractors hire individuals who use the services provided by the

Department of Human Resources or nonprofit organizations, construction of VEGP Units 3 and

4 could reduce the burden on social service providers. However, new families moving into a

community would bring new demand for both state-provided and privately provided social

services. Overall, while the counterbalancing effects of new jobs and new families cannot be

fully quantified, the staff believes the overall impact of construction on social services should be

SMALL.

Summary of Impacts to Public Services

Assuming 1000 of the 3500 construction workers already reside in the region and most of the inmigrating workers would choose to live in the larger cities of the region, the impacts on public

services from construction activities would be dispersed and SMALL. The NRC staff expects no

demand beyond capacity limits for regional water and wastewater treatment systems; police, fire

and medical services; or social services. Although Burke County would experience some of the

largest impacts on a per capita basis, its cooperative relationship with Southern would mitigate

adverse impacts, and therefore, the staff expects the adverse impact in Burke County would

also be SMALL.

4.5.4.5 Education

The staff expects a net construction-related increase of about 1100 school-age children

(see Section 4.5.2) distributed throughout the region. Approximately 220 would reside in

Burke County, 290 in Richmond County, and 510 in Columbia County. The remaining

NUREG-1872 4-54 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

220 school-age children would be distributed throughout the remaining counties in the region

but in such small numbers that they are not considered in this analysis.

The Burke County School District currently operates with an excess capacity of about

800 students.(a) In addition, the Burke County School District plans on expanding school

facilities to accommodate any possible construction-related influx of students (PNNL 2006).

Although Richmond and Columbia County school districts do not operate with excess capacity,

the expected number of additional students at each school is relatively small. In Columbia

County, school capacity issues are driven by the rapid residential growth in the area. Between

2004 and 2006, enrollment in Columbia County schools increased by more than 800 students

each year. The additional school-aged children that might move to the area as a result of

construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be'absorbed as part of the rapid growth in this

area.(b) Although the Richmond School District has not experienced a high growth rate in recent

years, it is the-largest of the three district school districts, and the total number of students

expected to enroll in the Richmond School District would constitute less than 1 percent increase

in total enrollment. Thus, the impacts on the Richmond School District would be expected to be

SMALL.

4.5.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Services Impacts

Based on the information provided by Southern, interviews with city and county planners, social

service providers, and school district officials in Burke, Columbia, Screven, and Richmond

Counties, the NRC staff concludes that the overall construction impacts on regional

infrastructure and community services would be SMALL. The estimated workforce of 3500

would have a MODERATE temporary impact on traffic on River Road next to the plant;

however, these impacts could be reduced with proper planning and mitigation measures. The

impact on other road networks in the region would be dispersed and SMALL. The site is

relatively isolated, industrial in nature, and well masked by forest in most directions; therefore

adverse recreational impacts would also be SMALL. The impacts on public service

infrastructure would be SMALL throughout the region, unless less populated counties draw a

substantial share of the in-migrating construction workforce, which is not expected. In that case,

the impacts on housing and public services in these counties may be MODERATE.

These conclusions are predicated on the specific assumptions about the size, composition, and

behavior of the construction workforce discussed in detail in Section 4.5.2 of this EIS.

(a) Data provided by Burke County School District office in e-mail from Wilbert Roberts, Assistant District

Superintendent, March 6, 2007 (Burke County School District 2007). (Accession No. ML072290177)

(b) Data provided by Columbia County School District office in e-mail from Pam Zgutowicz, March 5,

2007 (Columbia County Schools 2007). (Accession No. ML072290140)

August 2008 4-55 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

4.5.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts

Based on information supplied by Southern, staff interviews conducted with public officials in

Burke, Screven, and Richmond Counties, and the current availability of services and additional

taxes that would likely compensate the need for additional services, the staff concludes the

construction impacts on the affected local economies would be beneficial and SMALL in the

80-km (50-mi) radius region centered on the proposed site. The effect on tax revenues would

be beneficial and SMALL, except for property tax receipts in Burke County, which would be

beneficial and MODERATE. The temporary (7-year) impact on transportation could be

MODERATE on River Road next to the VEGP site, but likely SMALL elsewhere. The site is

relatively isolated, industrial in nature, and well masked by forest in most directions so the

construction-related aesthetic and recreational impacts near the VEGP site would be SMALL,

but aesthetic impacts along the new transmission line could be MODERATE. The impacts on

public services would be SMALL throughout the region. The staff expects the overall impact on

infrastructure and community services would be SMALL.

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to take into

account the potential effects of their undertakings on the cultural environment, which includes

archaeological sites, historic buildings, and traditional places important to local populations.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended through 2000, also

requires Federal agencies to consider impacts to those resources if they are eligible for listing

on the National Register of Historic Places (such resources are referred to as "Historic

Properties" in NHPA). As outlined in 36 CFR 800.8(c), "Coordination with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969," the NRC coordinated NHPA Section 106 compliance with

NEPA compliance.

Construction, operation, and decommissioning of new power units can affect either known or

undiscovered cultural resources. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of NHPA and

NEPA, the NRC is required to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic

properties in the area of potential effect (APE) and, if present, determine if any significant

impacts are likely to occur. Identification is to occur in consultation with the State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO), American Indian Tribes, interested parties, and the public. If

significant impacts are possible, efforts should be made to mitigate them. As part of the

NEPA/NHPA integration, if no historic properties (i.e., places eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places) are present or affected, the NRC is required to notify the SHPO

before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present, the NRC is required to

assess and resolve adverse effects of the undertaking.

For specific historic and cultural information on the VEGP site, see Section 2.9.2. As explained

in Section 2.9.2, previous cultural resource identification efforts indicated the presence of

NUREG-1872 4-56 August-2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

17 archaeological sites. Two are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Two other sites are potentially eligible (9BK419 and 9BK420). The two eligible sites (9BK416

and 9BK423) are located adjacent to the proposed facilities. Southern has been in consultation

with the Georgia SHPO concerning protective actions to be taken for 9BK423 and agreement

has been reached (GDNR 2006; Southern 2007a). Because 9BK416 would be impacted by

construction of utilities associated with the water intake structure, New South Associates (NSA)

conducted a Phase 1 archaeological survey in the proposed construction area. The results of

this survey support the original findings that site 9BK416 is a multicomponent prehistoric site

that is eligible to be listed in the NRHP (NSA 2007). Site 9BK416 has the potential to yield

significant information on prehistory for the area (NSA 2007).

Southern determined that it would not be possible to avoid disturbing site 9BK416 when the

water pipeline is constructed. As a result, the Georgia SHPO requested that Southern conduct

additional work to establish the character and integrity of subsurface archaeological deposits

(GDNR 2008a). In response, Southern contracted with NSA to conduct additional investigations

within the waterline corridor. Three 2-m by 2-m test units were excavated in February 2008

within the proposed intake water line corridor (NSA 2008). Based on the results of the

excavation, the Georgia SHPO determined that the proposed project will affect, but not

adversely affect, site 9BK416 (GDNR 2008b). Southern and the Georgia SHPO will enter into a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to preserve the balance of site 9BK416 from

disturbance and to conduct further investigations as directed by Georgia SHPO (Southern

2008d).

There will be no activity in the areas where sites 9BK419 and 9BK420 are located, and

therefore there will be no effect to these resources (GDNR 2006).

During construction, Southern would implement procedures that identify the actions that should

be taken if archaeological or historical materials are encountered. Southern has agreed to

follow these procedures. Procedures that would be in place prior to construction would identify

measures that need to be taken if historic or cultural resources are discovered during

construction (Southern 2008a).

Archaeological surveys of the new transmission line right-of-way that would be needed were not

conducted. However, an analysis of potential impacts in historic and cultural resources was

conducted for possible transmission line rights-of-way (GPC 2007). The full extent of impacts

cannot be determined until a specific route is defined. Once this process is completed, the

appropriate cultural resource studies would be undertaken to ensure that resources are

identified and addressed before construction. In addition, consultation by Southern with the

State of Georgia would establish requirements to follow should archaeological, historical, or

other cultural resources be uncovered during construction (Southern 2008a).

August 2008 4-57 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Based on (1) the effect that the construction of the water intake structure and supporting

infrastructure likely would have on the integrity of 9BK416, (2) the increased risk of inadvertent

discoveries and impacts to archaeological deposits of 9BK416 and possibly 9BK423 during

construction, (3) the preconstruction and construction measures that Southern would take to

mitigate adverse impacts to significant cultural resources as outlined in the MOU, and (4) the

staffs cultural resource analysis and consultation, it is the staffs conclusion that the potential

impacts on historic and cultural resources would be MODERATE.

4.6.1 Cultural Resource Monitoring During Construction

Cultural resource monitoring may be required during construction, depending on the outcome of

ongoing consultation between with the Georgia SHPO and Southern concerning impacts to

9BK416. As called for in plant procedures, construction workers would be given cultural

resource training so they would be aware of the types of artifacts that might be encountered. If

archaeological materials are discovered during construction, work would stop while an

assessment is conducted, following plant procedures.

4.7 Environmental Justice Impacts

The staff evaluated whether the health or welfare of minority and low-income populations at

those census blocks identified in Section 2.10 of this EIS could be disproportionately affected by

the potential impacts of constructing VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the proposed site. To perform this

assessment, the staff (1) identified all potentially significant pathways for human health and

welfare effects, (2) determined the impact of each pathway for individuals within the identified

census blocks, and (3) determined whether or not the characteristics of the pathway or special

circumstances of the minority and low-income populations would result in a disproportionate

impact on minority or low-income people within each census block.

4.7.1 Health and Environmental Impacts

Construction of a nuclear power plant is very similar in environmental effects to the construction

of any other large-scale industrial project. There are three primary exposure media in the

environment: soil, water, and air. Discussions of the potential impacts to each of these

pathways follow.

4.7.1.1 Soil

Construction activities at the VEGP site represent the largest source of soil-related

environmental impacts. However, while construction activities would disrupt large volumes

of soil, the effects are primarily localized and have little migratory ability. Furthermore, BMPs

at the construction site and a new construction strategy would mitigate these effects

(Southern 2008a). Because Southern plans to ship in prefabricated pieces and assemble them

NUREG-1 872 4-58 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

onsite, proposed construction activities would involve roughly a third of the peak number of

workers employed during construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 .(") Therefore, the disruption of

soils during construction would be mitigated by smaller workforces and a lower level of onsite

activity, relative to historic levels. In addition, the soil disruption within those communities that

would host in-migrating workers and their families would also be reduced, relative to historic

levels. The staff interviewed community leaders in towns surrounding the proposed site and

discovered there is a much greater state of preparedness now than in the past. Old problems of

overcrowded trailer parks and vehicle dust have been addressed through local legislation, and

sewer and septic systems now must meet stricter environmental standards.(b) Given these

mitigating factors, the staff concludes soil-related environmental impacts during the construction

of Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site would pose little or no impacts on any populations within the

region of interest (Southern 2008a).

4.7.1.2. Water

Water-related environmental impacts include erosion-related surface-water degradation and the

introduction of anthropogenic substances into surface and groundwater. The staff expects no

impact on the Savannah River from sediments and contaminants because of Southern's

commitment to implementing BMPs at the construction site (Southern 2008a).

As described in Section 4.3, the staff expects construction-related impacts on the Water Table

aquifer would be completely mitigated at a distance equal to that of the nearest person to the

proposed site (about 1.6 km [1 mi]). Construction-related activities are not of sufficient magnitude

to impact the Cretaceous or Tertiary aquifers beneath the proposed site. Therefore, the staff

determined the potential negative environmental effects from impacts to water sources would be

small; and, consequently, there are no water-related impacts on minority and low-income

populations to consider.

4.7.1.3 Air

Based on the findings in Section 4.2, motor vehicle exhaust and construction dust would cause

minor and localized adverse impacts to air quality but would not extend as far as the site

boundary. Therefore, the staff determined the negative environmental effects from constructionrelated reductions in air quality would be small, localized, and short-lived for any population in

the region of interest. Consequently, the staff found no disproportionate and adverse impacts

on minority and low-income populations because of changes in air quality.

(a) Taken from The Blazer newsletter - a weekly newsletter serving the "Plant Vogtle Community." The

specific article is entitled "The Vogtle Report," June 7, 1986, Volume 5, Number 12.

(b) Interview on October 18, 2006 with Bill Owens, Building Official, Department of Planning, Permits,

and Inspections, Burke County, Georgia. Part of meeting with Burke County officials held in

Waynesboro, Georgia.

August 2008 4-59 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

4.7.1.4 Noise

Noise levels during construction may be as high as 110 dBA within the construction site, but

noise levels diminish according to the inverse square rule, which says that if you double the

distance from the source, the noise level diminishes by a factor of four. Because the loudest

construction noise would register 60 to 80 dBA 120 m (400 ft) from the source and the VEGP

site exclusion area boundary is more than a half mile from the construction site in all directions,

the staff determined impacts from the noise of construction activities would be small and not

require mitigation.

4.7.2 Socioeconomic Impacts

As described in Section 4.5.4, the staff expects traffic to increase beyond the capacity of River

Road during the construction phase. However, Southern plans to mitigate any negative impacts

from such increases by encouraging car pooling, providing van pools, and/or staggering work

shifts (Southern 2008a). The staff finds no disproportionate adverse impacts on minority and

low-income populations because of changes in traffic and other community services.

4.7.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions

NRC's environmental justice methodology includes an assessment of populations of particular

interest or unusual circumstances, such as minority communities exceptionally dependent on

subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations, such as Native American

settlements.

Subsistence

The presence of subsistence fishing practices along the Savannah River adjacent to the

proposed site has been well documented in the literature (Burger et al. 1999). The primary

contaminant of concern for the Savannah River is mercury, which among other heavy metals

contaminating the waters of the Savannah River, has been traced to activities at the Savannah

River Site and not to the VEGP site (Burger et al. 2001; Makhijani and Boyd 2004). Because

they are not a by-product of any construction activities related to the proposed two new

reactors, heavy metals cannot be considered a source of any environmental degradation

attributable to the proposed VEGP site. Therefore, the staff determined there are no

disproportionate adverse impacts on the subsistence activities of minority and low-income

populations along the Savannah River that can be linked to the construction of Units 3 and 4 at

the proposed VEGP site.

High-Density Communities

There are no Native American communities within the area of interest, and while some existing

communities within the area exhibit disproportionately high percentages of minority (primarily

NUREG-1 872 4-60 August 2008,
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Black races) and low-income populations, most of the higher percentages of minority and lowincome populations can be attributed to the sparseness of the rural population in general. This

was reinforced for the staff through a series of interviews with minority leaders and social

service agency representatives in the affected counties, all of whom described the lower income

and minority communities as "scattered" throughout the counties with no heavy concentrations

in any one particular area.(a) Therefore, the staff determined there were no environmental

justice effects to consider with respect to densely populated minority or low-income peoples.

4.7.4 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts

The staff expects the impacts of plant construction on minority and low-income populations in

the region of interest would be SMALL because no environmental pathways or preconditions

exist that can lead to adverse and disproportionate impacts. The adverse socioeconomic

impacts on minority and low-income populations are also expected to be in proportion with the

impacts discussed in Section 4.5 and SMALL because of the mitigation strategies employed by

nearby communities. Depending on how each community participates in the distribution of

construction-generated income and tax revenues, the impacts on minority and low-income

communities would likely be beneficial impacts. There is no evidence that any particular

demographic group would be excluded or limited in its access to those benefits. Therefore,

based on the underlying assumptions of its analysis, the staff concludes that the adverse

impacts on minority and low-income populations resulting from construction of Units 3 and 4 at

the VEGP site would be SMALL.

4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

The area around the VEGP site is predominantly rural with a population of approximately

3560 people within 16 km (10 mi) of the site (Southern 2008a). The following sections discuss

the results of the staffs assessment of nonradiological health impacts for the VEGP site.

Southern (2008a) indicated that the physical impacts of construction, including public health,

occupational health, and noise, would be small and were discussed qualitatively by the

applicant in Sections 4.4 and 4.7 of the ER (Southern 2008a).

4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health

This section includes a discussion of public health impacts from construction and sitepreparation (construction) worker health.

(a) Personal communication (phone interview) on October 9, 2006 with Reverend Robert Lynch, pastor

of Bethel Apostolic Church, Waynesboro, Georgia, and head of the Burke County Citizens Hunger

Action Committee (affiliated with the Golden Harvest Food Bank). Also confirmed in interviews with

Screven County Family Services (with Mr. Bill Hillis), October 18, 2006, and Burke County Family

Services (with Ms. Alane Hickman), October 19, 2006.

August 2008 4-61 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

I 4.8.1.1 Air Quality

Southern stated in its ER that the physical impacts to the public from construction at the VEGP

site might include dust and vehicle exhaust as sources of air pollution during site preparation

and construction (Southern 2008a). Southern stated that operational controls would be

imposed to mitigate dust emissions, employing such methods as stabilizing construction roads

and spoils piles, periodically watering unpaved roads, and re-vegetating road medians and

slopes (Southern 2008a).

Engine exhaust would be minimized by maintaining fuel-burning equipment in good mechanical

order. Southern (2008a) stated that applicable Federal, State, and local emission requirements

would be adhered to as they relate to open burning or the operation of fuel-burning equipment.

The appropriate Federal, State, and local permits and operating certificates would be obtained

as required.

The public would not be close to the construction site. The nearest accessible area is greater

than 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from the construction site for VEGP Units 3 and 4, and the nearest

residence is approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) from the construction site (Southern 2008a). Based on

the mitigation measures identified by Southern in its ER, the permits and authorizations required

by State and local agencies, and NRC's own independent review, the staff concludes that the

nonradiological health impacts to the public from construction activities would be SMALL and

that additional mitigation beyond the actions identified above is not warranted.

4.8.1.2 Site Preparation and Construction Worker Health

In general, human health risks for construction workers and personnel working onsite are

expected to be dominated by occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electrocution, asphyxiation) to

workers engaged in activities such as construction, maintenance, and excavation. Historically,

actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the average

U.S. industrial rates. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS), injury rates

drop significantly for large construction projects such as nuclear power plants (e.g., for the years

2003 to 2005 the overall injury-only rate for utility system construction ranged from 5.4 to

6.7 percent compared to 2.0 to 3.0 percent for similar projects with 1000 or more workers)

(USBLS 2007a). Southern (2008a) reports the average construction workforce for proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be 3152 during an 84-month period.

Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict adherence to NRC and OSHA safety

standards, practices, and procedures. Appropriate State and local statutes must also be

considered when assessing the occupational hazards and health risks associated with

construction. The staff assumes that the applicant would adhere to NRC, OSHA, and State

safety standards, practices, and procedures during construction activities.

NUREG-1872 4-62 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

The USBLS reports occupational injuries and illnesses as total recordable cases, which includes

those that result in death, loss of consciousness, days away from work, restricted Work activity

or job transfer, or medical treatment beyond first aid. Southern (2008a) provided a range of

estimates for the annual number of total recordable cases (154 to 271) that might be expected

to occur during construction of proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. These estimates for the annual

number of recordable cases are based on U.S. and State of Georgia total recordable case rates

for the year 2003 (6.9 and 4.9 percent, respectively) and the actual rates experienced during

construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 in 1984 and 1985 (10.5 and 6.7 percent, respectively). The

VEGP total recordable case rates for construction during 1984 and 1985 appear high; however,

rates for the construction industry have been decreasing steadily and rates from the 1980s are

not comparable to rates from the 2000s. A review of total recordable cases reported for the

United States from 1994 to 2005 for heavy construction indicated a steady decline from

10.2 percent in 1994 to a low of 5.6 percent in 2005 (USBLS 2007b). Similarly, total recordable

cases reported for the State of Georgia for heavy construction declined from 9.8 percent in 1996

to a low of 4.4 percent in 2005 (USBLS 2007c). A review of data published by the USBLS

(2007a) for the period from 2003 to 2005 indicates the rate of total recordable cases for utility

system construction is similar to that for heavy construction. Year 2003 was the first with

separate results reported by the USBLS for utility system construction.

Other nonradiological impacts to construction workers discussed in this section include noise,

fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions resulting from construction activities. Mitigation measures

discussed throughout Section 4.8.1 for the public would also help limit exposure to construction

workers. Onsite impacts to construction workers would also be mitigated through training and

use of personal protective equipment to minimize the risk of potentially harmful exposures.

Emergency first-aid care and regular health and safety monitoring of construction personnel

could also be undertaken.

Based on mitigation measures identified by Southern in its ER, on permits and authorizations

required by State and local agencies, and on the staff's independent review, the staff concludes

that the nonradiological health impacts to workers from construction activities would be SMALL

and additional mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

4.8.1.3 Noise Impacts

Construction of a nuclear power plant is similar to other large construction projects. It involves

many noise-generating activities. Regulations governing noise from construction activities are

generally limited to worker health. Federal regulations governing construction noise are found

in 29 CFR Part 1910 and 40 CFR Part 204. The regulations in 29 CFR Part 1910 deal with

noise exposure in the construction environment, and the regulations in 40 CFR Part 204

generally govern the noise levels of compressors. Neither the State of Georgia nor Burke

County has specific noise regulations.

August 2008 4-63 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

I The ER (Southern 2008a) indicates that activities associated with construction of a new unit at

the VEGP site would have peak noise levels in the 100- to 110-dBA range. A 10-dBA decrease

in noise level is generally perceived as cutting the loudness in half. At a distance of 15 m (50 ft)

from the source these noise levels would generally decrease to the 80- to 95-dBA range and at

distance of 120 m (400 ft), the noise levels would generally be in the 60- to 80-dBA range. For

context, Tipler (1982) lists the sound intensity of a quiet office as 50 dBA, normal conversation

as 60 dBA, busy traffic as 70 dBA, and a noisy office with machines or an average factory as

80 dBA. Construction noise (at 3 m [10 ft]) is listed as 110 dBA, and the pain threshold is

120 dBA.

The ER (Southern 2008a) states that the exclusion area boundary of the VEGP site would be

greater than 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from construction activities for new units. A 100-dBA noise level at

15 m (50 ft) from an activity would be expected to decrease to about 65 dBA at the exclusion

area boundary. There are no major roads, public buildings, or residences within the exclusion

area. Similarly, a 100-dBA noise level would be expected to decrease to less than 60 dBA at

the nearest residence, which is approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) from the construction area. These

estimates do not include the noise attenuation associated with vegetation and topography.

Construction activities would be expected to take place 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

However, the ER (Southern 2008a) lists a number of measures that could be taken to mitigate

the potential adverse effects of construction noise. Among the mitigation measures are

compliance with Federal and State regulations, use of hearing protection, inspection and

maintenance of equipment, restriction of noise-related activities to daylight hours, and restriction

of delivery times to daylight hours.

According to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), noise levels below 60 to 65 dBA are considered to be

of small significance. More recently, the impacts of noise were considered in NUREG-0586,

Supplement 1 (NRC 2002). The criterion for assessing the level of significance was not

expressed in terms of sound levels but based on the effect of noise on human activities and on

threatened and endangered species. The criterion in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, is stated as

follows:

The noise impacts...are considered detectable if sound levels are sufficiently high

to disrupt normal human activities on a regular basis. The noise impacts.. .are

considered destabilizing if sound levels are sufficiently high that the affected area

is essentially unsuitable for normal human activities, or if the behavior or

breeding of a threatened and endangered species is affected.

Considering the temporary nature of construction activities and the location and characteristics

of the VEGP site, the staff concludes that the noise impacts on human health from construction

would be SMALL and that further mitigation beyond that discussed above is not warranted.

NUREG-1872 4-64 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

4.8.2 Impacts of Transporting Construction Materials and Construction

Personnel to the VEGP Site

The general approach used to calculate nonradiological impacts to human health of fuel and

waste shipments is the same as that used for transportation of construction materials and

construction personnel to and from the VEGP site. However, preliminary estimates are the only

data available to estimate the demand for these transportation services. The assumptions

made to fill in reasonable estimates of the data needed to calculate nonradiological impacts are

discussed below.

Construction material requirements are based on information taken from the ER

(Southern 2008a) and a previous ESP applicant's ER (Dominion 2006). Dominion (2006) stated

that constructing a new 1000-MW(e) unit requires up to 150,000 m3 (200,000 yd3) of concrete

and 14,000 MT (15,000 tons) of structural steel. These quantities would be doubled to account

for a two-unit plant. Southern's ER estimates that an additional 1.98 million m (6.5 million lineal

ft) of cable for a single unit and up to 83,800 lineal m (275,000 lineal ft) of piping greater than 5

cm (2.5 in.) in diameter per unit would be required.

* It was assumed that shipment capacities are 10 m3 (-13 yd3) of concrete per shipment,

10 MT (11 tons) of structural steel, and 300 lineal m (1000 lineal ft) of piping and cable per

shipment.

* The number of construction workers was estimated to peak at 3500 (Southern 2008a).

This value represents the peak workforce for construction of two units simultaneously. At

an average of 1.8 persons/vehicle, there would be about 980 vehicles per day per unit

(NRC 2006). Each person was assumed to travel to and from the VEGP site 250 days per

year, A 6.5-year construction period for each unit was assumed in the ER

(Southern 2008a).

" Average shipping distances for construction materials were assumed to be 80 km (50 mi)

one way. The average commute distance for construction workers was assumed to be

32 km (20 mi) one way.

* Accident, injury, and fatality rates for construction materials were taken from Table 4 in

ANL/ESD/TM-1 50 State-level Accident Rates for Surface Freight Transportation: A

Reexamination (Saricks and Tompkins 1999). Rates for the State of Georgia were used for

construction material shipments, typically conducted in heavy-combination trucks. The data

in Saricks and Tompkins (1999) are representative of heavy-truck accident rates and do not

specifically address the impacts associated with commuter traffic (i.e., workers traveling to

and from the site). However, a single source that provided all three rates to estimate the

impacts from worker transportation to/from the site was not available. To develop

representative commuter traffic impacts, a source was located that provided a GeorgiaAugust 2008 4-65 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

specific fatality rate for all traffic for the years 2001 to 2006 (DOT 2008). The average

fatality rate for the 2001 to 2006 period in Georgia was used as the base for estimating

Georgia-specific injury and accident rates. Adjustment factors were developed using

national-level traffic accident statistics in National Transportation Statistics 2007

(DOT 2007). The adjustment factors are the ratio of the national injury rate to the national

fatality rate and the ratio of the national accident rate to the national fatality rate. These

adjustment factors were multiplied by the Georgia-specific fatality rate to approximate the

injury and accident rates for commuters in the State of Georgia.

The estimated nonradiological impacts of transporting construction materials to the proposed

VEGP site and of transporting construction workers to/from the site are shown in Table 4-5.

The estimates would be doubled for construction of 2 units at the VEGP site. Note that the

nonradiological impacts are dominated by transport of construction workers to/from the VEGP

site. The total annual construction fatalities represents about a 2 percent increase above the 12

traffic fatalities that occurred in Burke County in 2006 (DOT 2008). This represents a small

increase relative to the current traffic fatality risks in the area surrounding the proposed VEGP

site. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of transporting construction and personnel

to the VEGP site would be SMALL, and no mitigation is warranted.

Table 4-5. Impacts of Transporting Workers and Construction Materials to/from the VEGP Site

Accidents per Year Injuries per Year Fatalities per Year

Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit

Workers 2.1 x 10' 9.5 x 10u 1.4 x 10'

Materials

Concrete 2.5 x 10-' 1.7 x 10-' 7.3 x 10-3

Rebar 2.2 x 10-2 1,5 x 10-2 6.5 x 10- 4

Cable 3.3 x 10-2 2.2 x 10-2 9.5 x 10-4

Piping 1.4 x 10-3 9.5 x 10-4 4.0 x 10-5

Total - Construction 2.1 x 101 9.7 x 100 1.5 x 10-1

4.8.3 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

The staff reviewed the information provided by Southern (Southern 2008a and 2007c) and

concludes that nonradiological health impacts to construction workers at the VEGP site, workers

at the VEGP site, and the local population from fugitive dust, occupational injuries, noise, and

transport of materials and personnel would be SMALL, and additional mitigation is not

warranted.

4.9 Radiological Health Impacts

The sources of radiation exposure for construction workers include direct radiation exposure,

exposure from liquid radioactive waste discharges, and exposure from gaseous radioactive

NUREG-1872 4-66 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

effluents from the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 during the site-preparation and construction

phase. For the purposes of this discussion, construction and site-preparation workers are

assumed to be members of the public; therefore, the dose estimates are compared to the dose

limits for the public, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D. Southern (2008a) noted that all

major construction activities are expected to occur outside the VEGP site protected area

boundary, but inside the restricted area boundary.

4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures

In its ER (Southern 2008a), Southern identified two sources of direct radiation exposure from

the VEGP site: (1) the current reactor buildings for VEGP Units 1 and 2, and (2) the planned

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). In addition, Southern identified the

proposed VEGP Unit 3 as a source of direct radiation exposure to proposed VEGP Unit 4

construction workers. The planned ISFSI is identified as a source of direct radiation exposure

only to proposed VEGP Unit 3 construction workers. Southern identified a low-level waste

storage facility to be constructed east of the existing cooling towers (Southern 2007c). The

staff did not identify any additional sources of direct radiation during the site visit or during

document reviews.

Southern used fenceline thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and environmental TLDs to

measure direct radiation levels at locations in and around the VEGP protected area

(Southern 2004a). Sixteen fenceline TLDs are located along the protected area fence.

Environmental TLDs are located in two rings around the VEGP site, an inner ring near the site

boundary, and an outer ring about 8 km (5 mi) from the plant (Southern 2004a). Environmental

TLDs are read quarterly and fenceline TLDs are read semiannually and measure the

contribution to dose from any source, either natural or anthropogenic, including the current

reactor buildings and planned ISFSI.

The average annual reading for the environmental TLDs was 0.49 mSv (49 mrem)

(Southern 2008a). Southern concluded that these results were not significantly different from

control locations and showed no increase in environmental gamma radiation levels resulting

from plant operations at the VEGP site. Similar results were observed for the past several years

(Southern 2002, 2003b, 2004b, 2005).

Southern estimated direct radiation exposure to construction workers by using protected area

fenceline TLD measurements (Southern 2008a). The average annual readings for the six

fenceline TLDs nearest the proposed construction site was 1.159 mSv (115.9 mrem) with a

95 percent plant capacity factor (Southern 2007a). Subtracting the average annual result for the

environmental TLDs and scaling up to assume a 100 percent plant capacity factor yields 0.704

mSv (70.4 mrem), the annual dose at the VEGP Unit 3 and 4 construction site attributable to

operating VEGP Units 1 and 2. Southern (2008a) estimated the annual direct radiation

contribution at the construction site from the planned ISFSI to be 0.15 mSv (15 mrem),

August 2008 4-67 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

applicable for the VEGP Unit 3 construction workforce and negligible for the VEGP Unit 4

workforce. This corresponds to an annual dose rate at the VEGP Unit 3 construction site of

0.854 mSv (85.4 mrem) per year. Southern (2007a) also estimated that, in addition to the 0.704

mSv (70.4 mrem) per year contribution from VEGP Units 1 and 2, that VEGP Unit 4 construction

site would receive an additional 0.352 mSv (35.2 mrem) from operation of VEGP Unit 3. This

corresponds to an annual dose rate at the VEGP Unit 4 construction site of 1.056 mSv (105.6

mrem). This higher dose rate (i.e., 105.61 mrem) corresponds to a dose rate of about 0.121

pSv/hr (12.1 prem/hr). A construction worker present for 2080 hours per year in a dose rate

field of about 0.121 pSv/hr (12.1 prem/hr) would receive an annual dose of 0.251 mSv (25.1

mrem).

4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents

The VEGP site releases gaseous effluents via the common station heating, ventilating, and air

conditioning stack; the condenser air injector; the steam packing exhaust system; the Radwaste

Processing Facility; and the Dry Active Waste Building. Releases from the waste gas decay

tanks are through the VEGP Unit 1 plant vent, and containment purges are released through the

VEGP Unit 1 and 2 plant vents (Southern 2008a). Southern estimated construction worker dose

from gaseous effluents using release data for the year 2002, which resulted in the highest public

exposure for the period from 2001 to 2004 (Southern 2008a). The annual total effective dose

equivalent to a construction worker from gaseous effluents was 0.0116 mSv (1.16 mrem)

(based on an occupancy of 2000 hr/yr) (Southern 2008a). Adjusting this dose for the expected

occupancy of a construction worker (i.e., 2080 hours per year), the annual dose from gaseous

effluent releases becomes 0.0121 mSv (1.21 mrem). A review of annual effluent release

reports for the past several years showed this dose to be typical (Southern 2002, 2003b, 2004b,

2005). The dose to construction workers from the gaseous effluent releases would be negligible

compared to the dose from direct radiation exposure.

4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents

Southern confirmed radiation exposures from liquid effluents to be a negligible contribution to

construction-worker dose (Southern 2008a). Southern estimated the annual dose to a

construction worker from liquid effluents to be 0.00034 mSv (0.034 mrem) (Southern 2008a).

This estimate was based on an occupancy of 2000 hr/yr and assumed that construction workers

would consume locally caught fish and drink surface water. Adjusting this dose for the expected

occupancy of a construction worker (i.e., 2080 hr/yr) and assuming a 100 percent plant capacity

factor yields an annual dose of 0.00037 mSv (0.037 mrem) per year. Using liquid effluents

release data for the year 2001 (Southern 2002) resulted in the highest public exposure for the

period from 2001 to 2004. A review of radioactive effluent release reports for the past several

years confirmed these releases to be typical (Southern 2002; 2003b; 2004b; 2005). The dose

to construction workers from the liquid effluent releases would be negligible compared to the

dose from direct radiation exposure.

NUREG-1872 4-68 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

4.9.4 Total Dose to Site-Preparation Workers

Southern (2007a) estimated an annual dose to a site-preparation worker of 0.229 mSv

(22.9 mrem) from the direct radiation pathway assuming an occupancy of 2000 hr/yr and a

95 percent plant capacity factor. Doses from liquid and gaseous effluent releases add an

additional 0.0119 mSv (1.19 mrem) per year. The total annual dose estimate for the sitepreparation workers, based on an occupancy of 2000 hr/yr, would be approximately 0.241 mSv

(24.1 mrem) (Southern 2008a). Adjusting this dose for the expected occupancy of a

construction worker (i.e., 2080 hr/yr) and assuming a 100 percent plant capacity factor yields an

annual dose of 0.263 mSv (26.3 mrem), which is less than the 1 mSv (100 mrem) annual

exposure limit for an individual member of the public found in 10 CFR 20.1301. If the dose

estimate had exceeded 100 mrem annually, the site-preparation workers would need to be

treated as radiological workers and would be subject to monitoring requirements and the annual

occupational dose limit of 0.05 Sv (5 rem) found in 10 CFR 20.1201.

The maximum estimated annual collective dose to site-preparation workers, based on an annual

individual dose of 0.263 mSv (26.3 mrem) and an estimated workforce of 3500 workers, is

0.92 person-Sv (92 person-rem).

4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts

Having reviewed the Southern estimate of dose to site-preparation workers during construction

activities, the staff found the doses to be well within NRC annual exposure limits (i.e., 1 mSv

[100 mrem]) designed to protect the public health, even if workers exceeded an occupancy rate

of 2080 hr/yr. Assuming the proposed location of VEGP Units 3 and 4 does not change, the

staff concludes that the impacts of radiological exposures to site-preparation workers would be

SMALL.

4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts

During Site-Preparation Activities and Construction

The following measures and controls would limit adverse environmental impacts:

" compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations

intended to prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g., solid waste

management, erosion and sediment control, air emissions, noise control, stormwater

management, spill response and cleanup, hazardous material management)

* compliance with applicable requirements of existing permits and licenses (e.g., the NPDES

permit and the operating license) for the existing units and other permits or licenses required

for construction of the new units (e.g., USACE Section 404 Permit)

August 2008 4-69 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

* compliance with existing Southern processes and/or procedures applicable to construction

environmental compliance activities for the VEGP site (e.g., solid waste management,

hazardous waste management, and spill prevention and response)

" incorporation of environmental requirements into construction contracts.

" identification of environmental resources and potential impacts during the development of

the ER and during the ESP process.

Table 4-6 lists a summary of measures and controls proposed by Southern to limit adverse

impacts during construction of Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site (Southern 2008a).

Table 4-6.

I

Summary of Measures and Controls Proposed by Southern to Limit Adverse

Impacts during Construction of Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP Site (Southern 2008a)

Impact Category

Land-Use Impacts

The Site and Vicinity

Transmission Line Right-ofWay and Offsite Areas

Air Quality

Historic Properties and

Cultural Resources

Specific Measures and Control

* Conduct ground-disturbing activities in accordance with regulatory

and permit requirements. Use adequate erosion controls and

stabilization measures to minimize impacts.

* Limit vegetation removal to the area within the site designated for

construction activities.

* Minimize potential impacts to wetlands through avoidance and

compliance with applicable permitting requirements.

* Restrict soil stockpiling and reuse to designated areas on the site.

" Restrict construction activities to the VEGP site.

" Site new right-of-way to avoid critical or sensitive habitats/species as

much as possible.

* Restrict sites of access of construction equipment to the right-ofway.

" Minimize potential impacts through impact avoidance and

compliance with permitting requirements and BMPs.

" Develop a dust mitigation plan prior to the start of construction to

minimize fugitive dust emissions from plant construction.

* Develop a traffic management plan prior to the start of construction

to mitigate vehicular emissions associated with plant construction.

" Follow established Southem procedures to stop work if a potential

historic or cultural or paleontological resource is discovered.

* Follow established Southern procedure to contact appropriate

regulatory agencies if a potential historic or cultural or

paleontological resource is discovered.

NUREG-1872 4-70 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 4-6. (contd)

Impact Category Specific Measures and Control

Water-Related Impacts

Hydrologic Alterations

Water-Use Impacts

Water-Quality Impacts

Ecological Impacts

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Aquatic Ecosystems

* Adhere to applicable regulations and permits.

* Install drainage controls to direct dewatering runoff.

" Wells in area are in deep aquifer that should not be affected by

construction.

Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

" Install cofferdams in Savannah River.

" Install stormwater drainage system at construction sites and stabilize

disturbed soils.

" Use BMPs to minimize erosion and sedimentation.

" Use good construction practices to maintain equipment, and prevent

spills and leaks.

" Invoke Southem's existing Spill Prevention Control and

Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) for construction activities

Southern did not propose any additional mitigation or controls.

" Develop and implement a construction Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

" Invoke the existing Southern SPCC plan for construction activities.

" Implement erosion and sediment control plans that incorporates.

recognized BMPs.

" Install appropriate barriers in river prior to construction.

" Train and appropriately protect Southern employees and

construction workers to reduce the risk of potential exposure to

noise, dust, and exhaust emissions.

" Provide onsite services for emergency first aid, and conduct regular

health and safety monitoring.

* Provide appropriate job training to construction workers.

* Make public announcements or prior notification of atypically loud

construction activities.

" Use dust-control measures (such as watering, stabilizing disturbed

areas, covering trucks).

* Manage concerns from adjacent residents or visitors on a case-bycase basis through a Southern Concerns Resolution Program.

" Post signs near construction entrances and exits to make the public

aware of potentially high construction traffic areas.

" Develop traffic control mitigation plan.

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical Impacts

August 2008 4-71 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 4-6. (contd)

Impact Category

Social and Economic

Impacts

Environmental Justice

Impacts

Radiation Exposure to

Construction Workers

Nonradiological Health

Impacts

Specific Measures and Control

" Stagger shifts, encourage car or van pooling; time deliveries to avoid

shift change or commute times.

" Erect signs alerting drivers of the construction and the potential for

increased construction traffic.

" Mitigation of any housing shortage would be through new

construction in anticipation of arrival of construction workforce.

" Increased tax revenues as a result of the large construction project

would fund additional community services.

Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls beyond

those listed above.

Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

" Provide job-training and implement procedures to ensure a safe

working environment.

" Provide first-aid capabilities at the construction site.

4.11 Site Redress Plan

In October 2007, after publication of the draft EIS, NRC issued its'final rule covering limited

work authorizations (LWAs) for nuclear power plants (72 FR 57416). The final rule modified the

scope of activities that are considered construction for which an LWA is necessary. In response

to NRC's October 2007 rule, Southern submitted a revised site redress plan that is part of its

current ESP application (Southern 2008a). This section of the EIS has been revised to reflect

NRC's October 2007 LWA rule and Southern's revised site redress plan.

Southern requested that it be allowed to conduct site-preparation activities at the VEGP site as

authorized by 10 CFR 52.17(c) and 10 CFR 50.10. If granted an LWA, Southern stated that it

might choose to perform some or all of the activities described in Section 1.4 of the site redress

plan (Southern 2008a). The objective of the site redress plan is to ensure that the VEGP site

would be returned to an environmentally stable and aesthetically acceptable condition if the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 were not fully developed to provide new nuclear power

generation. Under the site redress plan, areas that were permanently disturbed by construction

activities would be stabilized and contoured to conform to surrounding areas. Re-vegetation of

disturbed lands would be conducted.

Prerequisites to LWA activities that must be fulfilled before performing such activities include:

* Documentation of existing site conditions within the VEGP site by way of photographs,

surveys, listings of existing facilities and structures, or other documentation. This record

NUREG-1872 4-72 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

would serve as the baseline for redressing the site in the event LWA activities were

terminated as a result of project cancellation or expiration of the ESP.

" Coordination of agreements between the site's co-owners and Southern. This agreement

would allow Southern to carry out LWA activities.

" Coordination of the movement of the existing VEGP site protected area boundary, as

required. These activities would be coordinated with the current VEGP units to accomplish

the movement of structures reflected in the VEGP licensing basis in a manner consistent

with its operating license and the applicable regulations governing that license.

" Movement, demolition, or ownership transfer of existing VEGP site buildings and structures

Within the VEGP site. These activities would be coordinated with VEGP to accomplish the

movement, demolition, or ownership transfer of structures reflected in the VEGP licensing

basis in a manner consistent with its operating license and the applicable regulations

governing that license.

* Obtaining the necessary permits to perform preconstruction activities, such as local building

permits, NPDES permit, Clean Water Act permit, General Stormwater Permit, etc.

* Obtaining the necessary permits to perform LWA activities, such as local building permits,

and any permits required under the Clean Water Act

After these prerequisites were completed, planned LWA activities could proceed and might

include some or all of the activities allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(d)(1). In Section 1.4 of its site

redress plan included in the ESP application, Southern stated that if granted an LWA it might

undertake any of the following activities at the VEGP site, any of which may be for a structure,

system, or component for which a CP or COL would otherwise be required (Southern 2008a):

" Driving of piles

" Subsurface preparation

" Placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining walls within an excavation

" Installation of a foundation, including placement of concrete

" Installation of engineered backfill

" Installation of retaining walls (mechanically stabilized earth walls)

* Installation of lean concrete backfill

" Installation of mudmats

* Installation of waterproof membrane

* Installation of formwork for the nuclear island base slab

" Installation of reinforcing steel and embedments for the nuclear island base slab.

August 2008 4-73 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

During site redress activities Southern would implement various controls to mitigate adverse

impacts including noise control; traffic control; erosion and sediment controls; air quality

controls; and best management practices to ensure protection of soils, groundwater, and

surface water from accidental spills or releases of pollutants.

The staff considers the environmental impacts of LWA activities allowed pursuant to

10 CFR 50.10(d,e) to be bounded by environmental impacts for construction of the proposed.

new API 000 reactors at the VEGP site. In many cases, the impacts of LWA activities and

construction may be similar, but the impacts resulting solely from LWA activities would be of a

shorter duration. In the preceding sections in this chapter, the staff has presented impacts of

construction that bound the impacts of LWA activities. If the ESP expires or the project is

cancelled before an application for a CP or COL is received under 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart C,

the site redress plan would be activated to return the VEGP site to an environmentally stable

and aesthetically acceptable condition suitable for future alternative use (presumably nonnuclear) that conforms to local zoning laws, thus minimizing the long-term environmental

impacts.

Southern provided a site redress plan as part of its ESP application in the event that sitepreparation work did not proceed to full construction (Southern 2008a). The plan identifies the

overall objective as to "...reverse, mitigate or stabilize environmental impacts incurred during

LWA activities." In its plan, Southern states that redress activities would reflect applicable landuse and zoning requirements and identifies the following two general redress activities for

consideration:

" topographic approaches that accomplish the objective and preserve the potential of the site

for future industrial use.

" completion or addition of site development features that enhance the value of the site for

potential future industrial use.

The staff reviewed the list of Southern's proposed LWA activities in the event that the ESP and

LWA are granted and reviewed the full site redress plan submitted by Southern. As a result of

NRC's own independent review, the staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.10(e), concludes that

the potential LWA activities described in Southern's site redress plan would not result in any

significant adverse environmental impacts that could not be redressed.

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.10(g), if construction is terminated by Southern or its successor,

the underlying ESP or COL application is withdrawn by Southern or denied by the NRC, or the

LWA is revoked by the NRC, Southern would need to begin implementation of the redress plan

in a reasonable time and complete the redress of the site within 18 months of the action

triggering the need for redress.

NUREG-1872 4-74 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts

Impact level categories are denoted in Table 4-7 as SMALL, MODERATE, orý LARGE as a

measure of their expected adverse environmental impacts, if any. A brief statement explains

the basis for the impact level. Some impacts, such as the addition of tax revenue from Southern

for the local economies, are likely to be beneficial impacts to the community.

Table 4-7. Characterization of Impacts from Construction of New Units at the VEGP Site

Category Comments Impact Level

Land-Use Impacts

Site and Vicinity

Transmission Line and Offsite Areas

Air-Quality Impacts

Construction Activities

Transportation

Water-Related Impacts

Hydrological Alterations

Water Use

Construction activities would take place within existing site

boundaries.

New right-of-way would be developed.

Construction activities would be conducted in accordance

with applicable State requirements. Dust emissions would

be minimized through a dust-control plan.

A traffic management plan will be developed to mitigate

vehicular emissions associated with construction. Air

quality would not be degraded sufficiently to be noticeable

beyond the immediate vicinity.

Impacts localized and temporary. CWA Section 401 and

other permit processes would be adequate to ensure

impacts would be SMALL.

Dewatering may cause localized temporary declines in the

water table.

Construction would be conducted using BMPs to control

spills and stormwater runoff.

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

Water Quality

Ecological Impacts

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Site Cc

ter

th

Transmission Line Rights-of-Way Im

lin.

Aquatic Ecosystems Cc

aq

Threatened and Endangered Species

Site Cc

ex

Transmission Line Rights-of-Way Im

)nstruction activities would have minimal impact to

restrial ecological resources and habitat in the vicinity of

e VEGP site.

pact would depend on specific routing of transmission

e right-of-way.

nstruction activities would have minimal impact to

uatic ecological resources and habitat.

instruction impacts to Federally listed species are

pected to be negligible.

pact would depend on specific routing of transmission

e right-of-way.

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

August 2008 4-75 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 4-7. (contd)

Category Comments Impact Level

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical Impacts

Workers/Local Public

Buildings

Roads

Aesthetics

Demography

Economic Impacts to Community

Economy

Taxes

Impacts to Community - Infrastructure

Transportation

Recreation

Housing

Public Services

Construction would take place within existing site

boundaries, so impact on the public would be minimal.

Impact on workers would be mitigated with training and

protective equipment.

Construction would not affect any offsite buildings, and

onsite buildings were constructed to withstand vibration

from construction activities.

Growth would put pressure on local road systems, but

traffic control and management measures would protect

any local roads during construction.

Construction activities would be temporary and would

occur on a site already occupied by a nuclear power

facility, resulting in SMALL onsite aesthetic impacts.

Construction of the new transmission line will likely result in

MODERATE impacts.

Percentage of construction workers relocating to the region

likely would be SMALL relative to the existing population

base except in Burke County where the impact could be

MODERATE.

Economic impact of construction overall would be

beneficial to local economies. In Burke County beneficial

impacts would likely be MODERATE while impacts

elsewhere would be SMALL.

Degree of impact depends on the distribution of tax

revenues to county or state; generally impact is beneficial,

especially for property taxes. Under current tax laws, the

beneficial impact of additional taxes would be MODERATE

in Burke County.

and Community

Traffic impacts on River Road could be MODERATE

during peak construction period and during outage periods

for Units 1 and 2; however if properly planned and

managed, impacts could be reduced with specified

mitigation measures to deal with temporary construction

impacts.

Visual impact of construction would be limited to those

boating on the Savannah River. Congestion during peak

construction could interfere with hunting and fishing in

area.

Adequate housing is available in the greater Augusta area

to handle construction workers. If workers concentrate in

Burke County, the impact could be moderate.

Public services are adequate for any temporary influx of

workers resulting from construction at the VEGP site.

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Beneficial

SMALL to

MODERATE

Beneficial

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

NUREG-1872 4-76 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 4-7. (contd)

Category Comments

Education

Historic and Cultural Resources

Environmental Justice

Nonradiological Health Impacts

Radiological Health Impacts

Excess capacity in Burke County School District ensures

adequate infrastructure exists to support the temporary

influx of workers.

Adverse effects were expected at one site (9BK416) and

Southern worked with Georgia SHPO to address these

impacts and to effect protective measures for another site

(9BK423). Southern has committed to develop procedures

to manage cultural resources in the event of an inadvertent

discovery.

Physical impacts would be SMALL. Economic impacts

would likely be beneficial.

Emission controls and remote location of the VEGP site

would keep nonradiological health impacts small.

Adherence to Federal and State Regulations assumed to

protect occupational workers.

Exposures would be below NRC annual occupational and

public dose limits.

Impact Level

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

4.13 References

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal

Protection against Radiation."

Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

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 Regulation's for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses,

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."

29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, "Occupational

Safety and Health Standards."

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties."

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 204. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 204,

"Noise Emission Standards for Construction Equipment."

August 2008 4-77 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

51 FR 6690. February 25, 1986. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:

Determination of Oxypolis Canbyi (Canby's Dropwort) To Be an Endangered Species." Federal

Register, U.S. Department of the Interior.

52 FR 21059. June 4, 1987. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Reclassification

of the American Alligator to Threatened Status Due to Similarity of Appearance Throughout the

Remainder of its Range." Federal Register, U.S. Department of the Interior.

58 FR 63214. November 30, 1993. "Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to

State or Federal Implementation Plans." Federal Register, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

72 FR 57416. November 8, 2007. "Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants."

Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Burger J., W.L. Stephens, Jr., C.S. Boring, M. Kuklinski, J.W. Gibbons, and M. Gochfeld. 1999.

"Factors in Exposure Assessment: Ethnic and Socioeconomic Differences in Fishing and

Consumption of Fish Caught along the Savannah River." Risk Analysis 19(3):427-438.

Burger J. M., Gochfield, C.W Powers, L. Waishwell, C. Warren, and B.C. Goldstein. 2001.

"Science, Policy, Stakeholders, and Fish Consumption Advisories: Developing a Fish Fact

Sheet for the Savannah River." Environmental Management 27(4): 501-514.

Burke County School District. 2007. Email from Burke County School District to Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory, "Re: Upcoming Visit," March 6, 2007. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML072290177.

Clean Water Act (CWA). 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also called the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act [FWPCA]).

Collins M.R. and T.I.J. Smith. 1993. "Characteristics of the Adult Segment of the Savannah

River Population of Shortnose Sturgeon." In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Conference of

Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47:485-491.

Columbia County Schools. 2007. Email from Columbia County Schools to Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory, "Vogtle Projections for Columbia County Schools from Pam Zgutowicz,"

March 5, 2007. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accession No.

ML072290140.

Cooper H.H., Jr. and C.E. Jacob. 1946. "A Generalized Graphical Method for Evaluation

Formation Constants and Summarizing Well Field History." Transactions of the American

Geophysical Union 27:526-534.

NUREG-1 872 4-78 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Dominion Nuclear North Anna LLC (Dominion). 2006. Dominion Nuclear North Anna LLC

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Revision 9. Serial No. 06-790, Docket No. 52-008.

Glen Allen, Virginia.

Dooling R. 2002. Avian Hearing and the Avoidance of Wind Turbines. NREL/TP-500-30844,

National Renwable Energy laboroatory, Golden Colorado. Accessed at

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/30844.pdf.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1993. Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility

Structures. International Workshop. September 13-16, 1992, Miami, Florida. EPRI TR103268, Palo-Alto, California.

Falls, W.F. and D.C. Powell. 2001. Stratigraphy and Depositional Environments of Sediments

from Five Cores from Screven and Burke Counties, Georgia, U.S. Geological Survey

Professional Paper 1603-A, p A.3.

Forman R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. "Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects." Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231.

Georgia Code. Title 12. Conservation and Natural Resources. Chapter 2. Department of

Natural Resources. Article 1. General Provisions.

Georgia Code. Title 22. Eminent Domain.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 1999. A Conservation Plan for RedCockaded Woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) on Private Land in Georgia. Accessed August 7,

2007 at http://www.jonesctr.org/conservation/monitoringmapping/Gahcpl 1 a.pdf.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2000. Southeastern Pocket Gopher,

Geomys pinetis. Accessed July 2, 2007 at

http://dromus.nhm.uga.edu/-GMNH/gawildlife/index.php?page=speciespages/species-page&ke

y=gpinetis.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2004. Rules and Regulations for Water

Quality Control: Chapter 391-3-6, Section 391-3-6-03, Water Use Classifications and Water

Quality Standards Amended. Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, Georgia.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2006. Letter from Georgia Department of

Natural Resources to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., "Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant Expansion, Burk County, Georgia, HP-060428-001." October 4, 2006. Accession No.

ML063000219.

August 2008 4-79 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007. E-mail from Greg Krakow (Georgia

Department of Natural Resources) to Amanda Stegen (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,

Terrestrial Ecology Scientist), regarding Digital Rare Element Data for Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory. January 19, 2007. Accession No. ML070851855.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2008a. Letter from Georgia Department of

Natural Resources to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., "Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant Expansion, Burk County, Georgia, HP-060428-001." January 28, 2008. Accession No.

ML080370283.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2008b. Letter from Georgia Department of

National Resources to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. "Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant Expansion, Burke County Georgia HP-060428-001. June 10, 2008. Accession No.

ML081720197.

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2007. Corridor Study. Thomson-Vogtle 500-kV Transmission

Project. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML070460368.

Golden J., R.P. Ouellette, S.Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data

Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Grabowski T.B. and J.J. Isley. 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 135(5): 1145-1155.

Hall J.W., T.I.J. Smith, and S.D. Lamprecht. 1991. "Movements and Habitats of Shortnose

Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Savannah River." Copeia 1991(3):695-702.

Larkin R.P. 1996. Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. Technical Report

96/21, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois. Accessed at

http://nhsbig.inhs.uiuc.edu/bioacoustics/noiseandwildlife.txt.

Makhijani A. and B. Boyd. 2004. Nuclear Dumps by the Riverside: Threats to the Savannah

River from Radioactive Contamination at the Savannah River Site. Institute for Energy and

Environmental Research, March 11, 2004, Tacoma Park, Maryland.

Mitchell W.A. 1999. Species Profile: Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) on Military Installations

in the Southeastern United States. Technical Report SERDP-99-2, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

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

NUREG-1872 4-80 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006. Letter from Walt Wilson, Fisheries Biologist,

to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, regarding submitting a List of Federally Protected

Species Under the Jurisdiction of NMFS for the States of Alabama and Georgia. October 24,

2006. Accession No. ML063200127.

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.

New South Associates (NSA).- 2008. Phase II Testing of Archaeological Site 9BK416 within

Proposed Water Line and Intake Structure Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Burke County,

Georgia. New South Associated Technical Report 1585, Revised May 9, 2008, Stone

Mountain, Georgia.

Noise Control Act of 1972. 42 USC 4901-4918, et seq.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). 2006. Letter from Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding Vogtle Early Site Permit Audit

Trip Report. October 17-19, 2006. Accession No. ML071020317.

Patrick T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected Plants of Georgia. An Information

Manual on Plants Designated by the State of Georgia as Endangered, Threatened, Rare or

Unusual. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia

Natural Heritage Program. Accessed August 7, 2007 at

http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/trilre.pdf.

Patrick T.S. 2007. Plant Vogtle Rare Plant Survey. Georgia Department of Natural Resources,

Wildlife Resources Division, Social Circle, Georgia. June 14, 2007. Accession No.

ML072080264.

Price J. 2007. Federal Threatened and Endangered Species in the Vicinity of the Vogtle

Electric Generating Station. Email from J. Price, South Carolina Department of Natural

Resources to Rebekah Krieg, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, July 24, 2007. Accession

No. ML0721400380.

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1889. 33 U.S.C. 403, Section 10.

Saricks C.L. and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates for Surface Freight

Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-1 50, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne,

Illinois.

August 2008 4-81 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2007. E-mail from Julie Holling

(South Carolina Department of Natural Resources) to Amanda Stegen (Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory, Terrestrial Ecology Scientist) "Federal Threatened and Endangered

Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant," April 18, 2007. South Carolina

Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML071230462.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2002. Annual Radioactive Effluent

Release Report for January 1 2001 to December 31, 2001. 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. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2003a. Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant Updated Final Units 1 and 2, Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 11. May 2003, VEGP-FSAR-2.

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2003b. Annual Radioactive Effluent

Release Report for January 1 2002 to December 31, 2002. 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. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2004a. Offsite Dose Calculation

Manual for Southern Nuclear Operating Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Version 22.

June 25, 2004, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2004b. Annual Radioactive Effluent

Release Report for January 1 2003 to December 31, 2003. 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. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2005. Annual Radioactive Effluent

Release Report for January 1 2004 to December 31, 2004. 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. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2006a. Letter from JA Miller, Senior

Vice President to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Vogtle Early Site Permit Application

Environmental Site Audit Information Needs." Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

December 11, 2006. Accession No. ML0704603260.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2006b. 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

NUREG-1872 4-82 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

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 No.ML070460323.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007a. Vogtle Early Site Permit

Application Environmental Site Audit Information Needs - 2nd Round. Letter Report AR-07-0924

from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (Washington, D.C.), May 10, 2007. Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama. Accession No. ML071510102.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007b. 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.), January 31, 2007. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession

No. ML070460323.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007c. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Comments on Draft Environmental Impact

Statement. Letter from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington D.C.), December 26, 2007. Southern

Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML073620401.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008a. Southern Nuclear

Operating Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Revision 4. Southern Company,

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008b. Southern Nuclear

Operating Company Vogtle Early Site Permit Application Response to Request for

Additional Information Regarding Comments Provided on Draft Environmental Impact

Statement. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham,

Alabama) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington D.C.), April 4, 2008.

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML080990410.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008c. Southern Nuclear

Operating Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to NRC Questions from

April 23, 2008 Environmental Conference Call. Letter report from Southern Nuclear

Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(Washington, D.C.), June 26, 2008. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession

No. ML081790598.

August 2008 4-83 NUREG-1872
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008d. Letter from Southern

Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., to Historical Preservation Division of Georgia Department

of Natural Resources, "Vogtle Electric Generating Plant - Early Site Permit Application

Phase II Testing at Archaeological Site 9BK416 Within Proposed Water Line and Intake

Structure (HP-060428-001)," May 14, 2008. Accession No. ML082070066.

The Catena Group. 2007. Freshwater Mussel Surveys, The Savannah River from Augusta to

Savannah: South Carolina & Georgia. The Catena Group, Hillsborough, North Carolina.

Third Rock Consultants, LLC (TRC). 2006. Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Final

Report. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and Associated Transmission Corridors. Prepared for

Tetra Tech NUS, Inc by Third Rock Consultants, LLC, Lexington, Kentucky. Accession No.

ML071710037.

Theis C.V. 1935. "The Relation Between the Lowering of the Piezometric Surface and the Rate

and Duration of Discharge of a Well Using Groundwater Storage." Transactions of the

American Geophysical Union 2:519-524.

Tipler P.A. 1982. Physics. Worth Publishers, New York.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2005. "Re: TIMS II Multipliers for the Augusta, GA

Region," Regional Economic Analysis Division, Economics and Statistics Administration,

August 8, 2005.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2007a. Industry Injury and Illness Data, Table I for

years 1994 to 2005. Accessed June 11, 2007 at http:/lwww.bls.govliif/oshsum.htm.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2007b. Industry Injury and Illness Data, Table Q6 for

Years 2003 to 2005. Accessed June 11, 2007 at http:llwww.bls.gov/iif/oshsum.htm.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2007c. State Occupational Injuries, Illnesses, and

Fatalities, Table 6 for State of Georgia for Years 1996 to 2005. Accessed June 11, 2007 at

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshstate.htm#GA.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2007. National Transportation Statistics 2007.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://www.bts.gov/publications/nationaltransportation statistics/.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2008. Georgia Toll of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2006.

National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Washington, D.C. Accessed at http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/1 3_GA/2006/13_GA_2006.htm.

NUREG-1 872 4-84 August 2008
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Water on Tap: What you Need to Know.

EPA 815-K-03-007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1990. Canby's Dropwort Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1999. Federally Listed Species in South Carolina

Counties. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed April 25, 2007 at

http://www.fws.govlsoutheast/es/SCarolina.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004a. Georgia GIS Clearinghouse. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. Accessed December 11, 2006 at https://gisl.state.ga.us/index.asp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. USFWS Wetlands Open GIS Consortium (OGC)

Web Map Services (WMS). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed May 8, 2007 at

http://wetlandswms.er.usgs.gov/imf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004c. Listed Species in Georgia Counties. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. Accessed April 20, 2007 at

http://www.fws.gov/athens/endangered/counties-endangered.html.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2007 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/srl437/v1/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1 Regarding the Decommissioning of

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vol. 1, Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollectionslnuregs/staffisr0586/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Memorandum dated August 2, 2007, from

M.D. Notich, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to W.F. Burton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, "Conference Call - June 20, 2007; Discussion with Southern Nuclear Operating

Company Concerning Inconsistencies Between Request for Additional Information Responses

and the Environmental Report for the Plant Vogtle Early Site Permit," August 2, 2007. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML0711840243.

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, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.

August 2008 4-85 NUREG-1872

5.0 Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

This chapter examines environmental issues associated with operation of the proposed new

nuclear Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generation Plant (VEGP) site for an initial 40-year

period as described by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). As part of this

application, Southern submitted an Environmental Report (ER) that discussed the environmental impacts of station operation (Southern 2008a). The ER provides information used as the

basis for the environmental review. The parameters included in design documents for the

Westinghouse AP1 000 advanced light-water reactors at the VEGP site and the values for these

parameters are listed in Appendix I of this environmental impact statement (EIS).

The design parameter values that the staff formally evaluated in its EIS for the VEGP ESP are

those drawn from Revision 15 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) (Westinghouse

2005); these are the values proposed in Southern's application (including the ER) and

documented in Appendix I of this EIS. However, Southern has indicated that in its combined

license (COL) application, it may seek to reference Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD

(Westinghouse 2007), which has been submitted as a proposed design certification amendment

for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review. Accordingly, Southern has indicated

that some design parameter values may change as part of the design certification amendment.

For instances where those values diverge, the staff has discussed in the final EIS how those

changes would affect its conclusions, if at all.

This chapter is divided into 13 sections. Sections 5.1 through 5.11 discuss the potential

operational impacts on land use, meteorology and air quality, water, terrestrial and aquatic

ecosystems, socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, environmental justice,

nonradiological and radiological health effects, postulated accidents, and applicable measures

and controls that would limit the adverse impacts of station operation during the 40-year

operating period. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51,

impacts have been analyzed and a significance level of potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL,

MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to each analysis. In the area of socioeconomics

related to taxes, the impacts may be considered beneficial and are stated as-such. The staffs

determination of significance levels is based on the assumption that the mitigation measures

identified in the ER or activities planned by various State and county governments, such as

infrastructure upgrades, as discussed throughout this chapter, are implemented. Failure to

implement these upgrades might result in a change in significance level. Possible mitigation of

adverse impacts is also presented, where appropriate. A summary of these impacts is

presented in Section 5.12. The references cited in this chapter are listed in Section 5.13.

August 2008 5-1 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.1 Land-Use Impacts

Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 contain information regarding land-use impacts associated with

operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site. Section 5.1.1 discusses landuse impacts at the site and in the vicinity of the site. Section 5.1.2 discusses land-use impacts

with respect to transmission line rights-of-way and offsite areas.

5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

Some offsite land-use changes can be expected as a result of operational activities. Possible

changes include the conversion of some land in surrounding areas to housing developments

(e.g., recreational vehicles, apartment buildings, single-family condominiums and homes, and

manufactured home parks) and retail development to serve plant workers. Property tax revenue

from the addition of two new units could also lead to additional growth and land conversions in

Burke County as a result of infrastructure improvements (e.g., new roads and utility services).

Additional information on operational-related infrastructure impacts is in Section 5.5.4.

However, the staff assumes that any growth would be managed because all Georgia counties

surrounding the VEGP site have comprehensive land-use plans in place as required by the

Georgia Planning Act of 1989.

The principal land-use impact resulting from operation of the cooling towers would be salt

deposition. Some leaf damage can occur when salt deposition exceeds 10 kg/ha/mo

(8.9 lbs/ac/mo) (NRC 2000a). Salt deposition is discussed in Section 5.4.1.1 of the EIS. The

maximum estimated cumulative deposition rate is below 8.9 lbs/ac/mo.

Based on the existence and projected implementation of land-use plans, the information

provided by Southern, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) own independent

review, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts of operation would be SMALL, and further

mitigation is not warranted.

5.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas

Most land-use impacts would occur during construction of the planned new 500-kV transmission

line. Georgia Power Company (GPC) provides easements to allow agricultural activities under

its transmission lines. Therefore, impacts are expected to be SMALL and no mitigation would

be required. Transmission line right-of-way management practices are discussed in

Section 5.4.1.5.

5.2 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts

The primary impacts of operation of two new units on local meteorology and air quality would be

from releases to the environment of heat and moisture from the primary cooling system (cooling

NUREG-1872 5-2 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

towers), operation of auxiliary equipment (generators and boilers), and emissions from workers'

vehicles. The potential impacts of releases from operation of the cooling system are discussed

in Section 5.2.1. Section 5.2.2 covers potential air-quality impacts from nonradioactive effluent

releases at the VEGP site, and Section 5.2.3 covers the potential air-quality impacts of

transmission line rights-of-way during plant operation.

5.2.1 Cooling Tower Impacts

The cooling system for the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site is a natural draft cooling

tower. A total of two cooling towers would be constructed-one for each new nuclear unit.

Natural draft cooling towers remove excess heat by evaporating water. Upon exiting the cooling

tower, water vapor mixes with the surrounding air and this process can lead to condensation

and the formation of a visible plume. Aesthetic impacts from the visible plume as well as landuse impacts from cloud shadowing, fogging, icing, increased humidity, and drift from dissolved

salts and chemicals found in the cooling water can result.

The SACTI (Seasonal and Annual Cooling Tower Impacts) computer code was used by

Southern to estimate impacts associated with operating the cooling towers. Select engineering

data for Revision 15 of the Westinghouse AP1000 DCD (Westinghouse 2005) and 1 year of

onsite meteorological data from 1999 were used as input to the SACTI model. Results from the

analysis are presented in the ER (Southern 2008a) and are summarized below. NRC staff

reviewed the input and output files used in the SACTI analysis and concurs with the results.

Southern has since updated the original analysis using Revision 16 of the Westinghouse

AP1000 DCD (Westinghouse 2007), which includes revised evaporation and drift rates that are

about 4 percent higher than previously analyzed (Southern 2008b). Because the impact level

for the Revision 15 values the staff analyzed for was not near a known impact level, the NRC

staff does not expect that the 4 percent increase in drift or evaporation rates will appreciably

affect results from the SACTI analysis or conclusions.

Results from the SACTI analysis, as reported in the ER (Southern 2008a), indicate that on

average the longest plume lengths would occur during the winter and the shortest plume lengths

would occur during the summer. For both seasons, the predominant plume direction is to the

north, followed by northeast during the winter and north-northeast during the summer. The

longest plume length is 9.7 km (6.0 mi), with a frequency of 3.9 percent in the winter and

0.5 percent in the summer. Ground-level fogging or icing is likely to be infrequent because of

the height of the cooling towers. Deposition of salts from cooling tower drift would occur in all

directions from the towers. The maximum estimated solids deposition rate for each tower is

4.0 kg/ha/mo (3.6 lbs/ac/mo) and occurs 490 m (1600 ft) north of the towers.

An existing pair of cooling towers for VEGP Units 1 and 2 operate at the VEGP site. These

cooling towers are located approximately 1219 m (4000 ft) to the east-northeast of the proposed

cooling towers for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2008a). This separation

August 2008 5-3 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

distance is greater than the distance to the modeled locations of the maximum deposition rate at

490 m (1600 ft) predicted for the new cooling towers (Southern 2008a). Moreover, given the

location and orientation of the proposed cooling towers with respect to the existing cooling

towers, it is unlikely that plumes would interact appreciably for any extended period of time.

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant combined impacts from the

cooling towers on air quality.

Diesel generators and boilers currently operate at VEGP for limited periods; generators and

boilers that would be associated with the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would similarly operate

for limited periods. Interaction between pollutants emitted from these sources and the cooling

tower plumes would be intermittent and would not have a significant impact on air quality.

Based on the above considerations and the assumption that cooling towers associated with the

new units would be similar to existing cooling towers used at nuclear sites, the staff concludes

the cooling tower impacts on air quality would be SMALL and that additional mitigation of airquality impacts would not be warranted.

5.2.2 Air-Quality Impacts

Additional standby diesel generators and auxiliary power systems would be used for emergency

power and auxiliary steam purposes. These systems would be used on an infrequent basis and

pollutants discharged (e.g., particulates, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and

nitrogen oxides) would be permitted in accordance with the Georgia Department of Natural

Resources (GDNR) and Federal regulatory requirements (Southern 2008a). Because these

systems would be used on an infrequent basis (i.e., typically a few hours per month), the staff

concludes that the environmental impact of pollutants from these sources would be SMALL and

that additional mitigation would not be warranted.

5.2.3 Transmission Line Impacts

Impacts of existing transmission lines on air quality are addressed in the Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for License Renewal (GELS) (NRC 1996). Small amounts of ozone and even

smaller amounts of oxides of nitrogen are produced by transmission lines. The production of

these gases was found to be insignificant for 745-kV transmission lines (the largest lines in

operation) and for a prototype 1200-kV transmission line. In addition, it was determined that

potential mitigation measures, such as burying transmission lines, would be very costly and

would not be warranted.

One new 500-kV transmission line would be constructed to accommodate the new power

generating capacity (Southern 2008a). This size is well within the range of transmission lines

provided in the GElS and the staff therefore concludes that air-quality impacts from transmission

lines would be SMALL.

NUREG-1872 5-4 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.3 Water-Related Impacts

This section discusses water-related impacts to the surrounding environment from operation of

the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. Details of the operational modes and cooling water systems

associated with operation of the plant can be found in Section 3.2.2 of this EIS.

Managing water resources requires understanding and balancing the tradeoffs between various,

often conflicting, objectives. At the VEGP site, these objectives include navigation, recreation,

visual aesthetics, a fishery, and a variety of beneficial consumptive domestic, farming, and

industrial uses of water. The responsibility for regulating water use and water quality is

delegated to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the GDNR through Federal and

State of Georgia laws, respectively.

Water-use and water-quality impacts involved with operation of a nuclear plant are similar to the

impacts associated with any large thermoelectric power generation facility. Accordingly,

Southern must obtain the same water-related permits and certifications as any other large

industrial facility. These would include:

" Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification. This certification would be issued by the GDNR

and would ensure that operation of the plant would not conflict with State water-qualitymanagement programs.

• Clean Water Act Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

Discharge Permit. This permit would be issued by the GDNR and would regulate limits of

pollutants in liquid discharges to surface water.

" Clean Water Act Section 316(a). This section regulates the cooling water discharges to

protect the health of the aquatic environment.

" Clean Water Act Section 316(b). This section regulates cooling water intake structures to

minimize environmental impacts associated with location, design, construction, and capacity

of those structures.

" Surface-Water Withdrawal Permit. This GDNR permit limits the quantity of water withdrawn

from surface waterbodies, such as the Savannah River (Georgia Code Title 12, Chapter 5,

Article 2).

" Groundwater Water Use Act. This GDNR permit limits the quantity of groundwater

withdrawal on the VEGP site (Georgia Code Title 12, Chapter 5, Article 3).

This section discusses the hydrological alterations and the resulting impacts from operation of

the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. The combined impacts of operating the proposed VEGP

Units 3 and 4 along with VEGP Units 1 and 2, as well as other activities in the surrounding

environment are discussed in Chapter 7 (Cumulative Effects) of this EIS.

August 2008 5-5 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.3.1 Hydrological Alterations

Southern states in its ER (Southern 2008a) that water pumped from the Savannah River would

be used to makeup water lost by the circulating water system (CWS) to evaporation, blowdown,

and drift. Water pumped from groundwater would be used to makeup water lost by the service

water system (SWS) to evaporation, blowdown and drift and to satisfy operational demands for

demineralized, potable, and fire protection water systems.

Effluent discharge from the plant would be collected into a common sump before being

discharged to the river. The arithmetic difference between Savannah River withdrawals and

blowdown is not equivalent to the consumptive water use of Savannah River water because

systems fed by groundwater would also contribute to the common sump. The maximum

consumptive use of Savannah River water was reported by Southern to be 1824 Us

(28,904 gpm) (Southern 2008a). Therefore, approximately 94 percent of the maximum effluent

discharge is expected to be composed of water originating from the Savannah River, with the

remaining 6 percent originating from groundwater.

Hydrogeological alterations to operate the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be:

" Groundwater would be withdrawn to provide the water needed for operation of the proposed

new units.

• Surface infiltration in the vicinity of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be altered by

the construction of facilities, including a stormwater drainage system, buildings, and parking

lots, and maintaining large, vegetation-free graveled areas.

The expected maximum surface-water rates for operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4

are as follows:

" The normal and maximum Savannah River withdrawal is 2348 Us (37,224 gpm) and 3646

LUs (57,784 gpm), respectively (Southern 2008a)

" The normal and maximum Savannah River effluent discharge is 606 Us (9608 gpm) and

1941 [is (30,761 gpm), respectively (Southern 2008b)

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised the staff (Southern 2007f) that based

on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, the surface water

withdrawal and discharge rates would increase. However, the groundwater use values would

decrease, and therefore, the staff determined that the description of hydrogeological

alterations set forth above did not change. As revised, the expected maximum surface water

rates for operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be as follows:

* The normal and maximum Savannah River withdrawal is 2449 Us (38,825 gpm) and 3858

L/s (61,145 gpm), respectively (Southern 2007f)

NUREG-1872 5-6 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

* The normal and maximum Savannah River effluent discharge would be 606 L/s (9608 gpm)

and 2000 [Is (31, 695 gpm), respectively (Southern 2007f)

Accordingly, in the following sections the staff has also discussed what effect these changes

would have on the staffs conclusions concerning impact levels.

5.3.2 Water-Use Impacts

The existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 are among the largest water users in the region. Likewise, the

proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site would also become major users of surface water and

groundwater. Most of the proposed water demands associated with operation of the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be satisfied through the use of surface water originating from the

Savannah River. The ratio of total groundwater withdrawals to surface-water (consumptive) use

would be approximately 9 percent. Groundwater would primarily be used to meet operational

water demands associated with systems requiring/producing relatively pure water, such as

demineralized and potable water systems (Southern 2008a).

5.3.2.1 Surface Water

J. Strom Thurmond Dam, which lies 113.8 river kilometers (rkm) (70.7 river miles [RM])

upstream of the VEGP site, regulates Savannah River discharge in the vicinity. Discharges

released from the dam are a function of Drought Level, which is defined by the USACE to be a

function of the water volume impounded at Thurmond Dam and the cascade of upstream

reservoirs. The drought conditions of 2002 resulted in a new drought of record for the

Savannah River Basin (USACE 2006). Following this period of drought, modifications to the

Drought Contingency Plan for the basin were proposed. The releases from Thurmond Dam at

each Drought Level in the proposed plan are currently as follows (see Table 2-2 and

USACE 2006):

" Level 1: Maximum weekly-average release discharge of 119 m3/s (4200 cfs)

* Level 2: Maximum weekly-average release discharge of 113 m3/s (4000 cfs)

" Level 3: Maximum daily-average release discharge of 108 m3/s (3800 cfs)

" Level 4: Inflow to Thurmond Dam equals release discharge.

The Drought Contingency Plan has not been finalized at the time of the writing this EIS.

However, the staff has presented the reservoir release policies described in the draft Drought

Plan in this EIS, as it represents the most current understanding of future operation. 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 102 m3/s (3600 cfs) and not the 108 m3/s (3800 cfs) minimum currently

prescribed in the draft plan. Based on the draft plan, the Savannah River Basin is at Drought

Level 2 and has never reached Drought Level 3 or 4. However, in recent consultation the Corps

August 2008 5-7 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

stated that without a reprieve in the drought, Drought Level 3 is likely during the summer of

2008. Additionally, the Corps is considering revising the minimum releases in the December to

April period downward to 88 m3/s (3100 cfs).

The magnitude of the impact of surface-water withdrawals associated with operating the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would fluctuate with discharge in the Savannah River. The staff

evaluated the magnitude of the surface-water withdrawals against a range of river discharges.

Results presented in Table 5-1 show that at the normal withdrawal rate of 2.35 m3/s (83 cfs,

37,224 gpm), the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would withdraw 1 percent of the average river

discharge. At the maximum withdrawal rate of 3.65 m3/s (129 cfs, 57,784 gpm), the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4 would withdraw between 1.5 and 3.4 percent of the total flow of the

Savannah River as the river fluctuates between average and Drought Level 3.

A water surface elevation versus discharge relationship was developed by the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) to monitor discharge near the VEGP site (USGS 2007). Using this relationship

and the maximum withdrawal rate of 3.65 m3

/s (129 cfs), the resulting decrease in river stage as

a result of operating the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be approximately 5 cm (2 in.) at

Drought Level 3 and approximately 2.5 cm (1 in.) under average discharge conditions.

Approximately 150 m (500 ft) downstream of the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 intake, an outfall

pipe discharges effluent from Units 1 and 2 to the Savannah River. Approximately 120 m

(400 ft) downstream of this outfall pipe, the proposed outfall pipe would discharge additional

effluent from operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. The magnitude of the surfacewater withdrawals associated with operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 downstream

of the site was evaluated by staff by comparing consumptive use relative to Savannah River

discharge. Results presented in Table 5-2 show that at normal river discharge, the maximum

consumptive use of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would represent less than 1 percent of

Table 5-1. Savannah River Discharge and Surface-Water Withdrawals for Units 3 and 4

River Discharge Normal Withdrawal Maximum Withdrawal

as % of as % of

Case m3I/s (cfs) m3

1s (cfs) river m 3

/s (cfs) river

Average Conditions 250 8830 2.35 83 0.9 3.65 129 1.5

Drought Level 1 119 4200 2.35 83 2.0 3.65 129 3.1

Drought Level 2 113 4000 2.35 83 2.1 3.65 129 3.2

Drought Level 3 108 3800 2.35 83 2.2 3.65 129 3.4

Withdrawal source: Southern 2008a

NUREG-1872 5-8 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-2. Consumptive Use of Savannah River Water for Units 3 and 4

Normal Maximum

River. Discharge Consumptive Use Consumptive Use

as % of as % of

Case m3

/s (cfs) m3

1s (cfs) river m3/s (cfs) river

Average Conditions 250 8830 1.76 62 0.7 1.81 64 0.7

Drought Level 1 119 4200 1.76 62 1.5 1.81 64 1.5

Drought Level 2 113 4000 1.76 62 1.6 1.81 64 1.6

Drought Level 3 108 3800 1.76 62 1.6 1.81 64 1.7

Withdrawal source: Southern 2008a

the river discharge. During periods when the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be

consuming the maximum quantity of water, the consumptive use of the proposed units would

increase to 1.7 percent of the total flow in the Savannah River.

The implementation of Drought Level 4 in the draft Drought Contingency Plan currently does not

provide explicit flows. 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 the likelihood that any such flow levels would change based on the ongoing

development of the Draft 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. However, to provide additional context for its conclusions, the

staff did evaluate the fractional decline in the river discharge resulting from normal consumptive

use at the lower flowrates of 85 m3/s (3000 cfs) and 57 m3/s (2000 cfs), beyond the 108 m3/s

(3800 cfs) minimum for Drought Levels 1, 2, and 3 in the current draft Drought Contingency

Plan. The staff determined that the maximum consumptive use at 85 m3/s (3000 cfs) and 57

m3/s (2000 cfs) would be 2.1 % and 3.2 % of river flow, respectively.

Values in Table 5-2 represent Savannah River water consumed by the cooling water system

only; all other plant operation system demands are satisfied from groundwater. Blowdown from

these groundwater systems is commingled with cooling water system blowdown before being

discharged to the Savannah River. Therefore, from a mass balance perspective relative to the

Savannah River, the values shown in the table are conservative, because under normal

operations, 0.02 m3/s (0.7 cfs) of additional effluent would be added from groundwater-fed

systems. This additional effluent lowers the normal consumptive use by 0.02 percent of the

river discharge at Drought Level 3.

As noted in Chapter 2, the accuracy of the Savannah River stream gages ranges from

approximately 5 to 10 percent of true. Since the maximum withdrawal and consumptive use

values are less than 5 percent, the staff concludes that surface-water-use impacts of the

August 2008 5-9 NUREG-1 872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be difficult to detect. In any event, the staff considers the

maximum consumptive use of 1.7 percent of the river flow would not have the potential to

destabilize the resource. Even under lower flow conditions, which would likely be only

temporary, maximum consumptive use would not exceed 3.2 percent of the river flow, which the

staff similarly considers would not destabilize the resource. Therefore, the staff concludes the

impacts would be SMALL, and mitigation not warranted.

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised the NRC staff (Southern 2007f) that,

based on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, the maximum

surface water consumptive use for Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would increase by approximately 0.11

m3s (4 cfs). The staff evaluated the effect of this change on the staff analysis presented above,

which uses the DCD Revision 15 surface water withdrawal values currently in Southern's ER

(Southern 2008a). The staff determined that this change would result in an increase in the

maximum surface water consumptive use from approximately 1.7 percent in the present

analysis to 1.8 percent of the river flow at Drought Level 3. Because the change identified by

Southern would result in only a 0.1 percent increase in the maximum consumptive water use

under Drought Level 3 conditions, the staff determined that these changes would not affect the

staff's conclusion that surface water use impacts would be SMALL.

Even assuming the lower river flows of 3000 cfs and 2000 cfs that the staff analyzed, maximum

surface water consumptive use would increase from 2.1 % to 2.3 % and from 3.2 % to 3.4 %,

respectively. Thus, the changes identified by Southern would result in a 0.2 percent increase in

consumptive water use under low flow conditions of 3000 cfs, or a 0.2 percent increase in

consumptive water use even under conditions of 2000 cfs. Because the impacts previously

analyzed were not near any known impact threshold, the staff determined that these changes

would not affect the staffs conclusion that surface water use impacts would be SMALL.

5.3.2.2 Groundwater

The potential impacts from groundwater use are described in Section 5.2.2.2 of the ER

(Southern 2008a) and in Southern's response to Requests for Additional Information

(Southern 2007a,b). The existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 are among the largest users of

groundwater in the region. The proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site would use

groundwater to supply make-up water for the SWS, the fire protection system, the plant

demineralized water system, the potable water supply, and other miscellaneous water uses.

Wells at the VEGP site are permitted currently by the State of Georgia Environmental Protection

Division to withdraw an annual average rate of 20,800 m3/d (5.5 MGD, 3819 gpm) with a

maximum monthly average of 22,700 m3/d (6 MGD, 4167 gpm). Records for 2005

(Southern 2008a) indicate that only 0.245 Us (3.89 gpm) was withdrawn from the Tertiary

aquifer while 36.72 Us (582 gpm) was withdrawn from the Cretaceous aquifer. Thus, the

NUREG-1872 5-10 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

majority of the groundwater resource used by the VEGP site is withdrawn from the Cretaceous

aquifer, and the rate of withdrawal is well below the permitted level.

Three of the VEGP site's existing nine groundwater wells at the VEGP site are completed in the

confined Cretaceous aquifer and are used now to supply make-up water for the operation of

Units 1 and 2. The six additional wells are completed in the confined Tertiary aquifer and

provide water for site-specific operations.

A potential offsite impact during the operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 from

projected water use is related to the water budget of the aquifer system. Impacts are the

withdrawal of groundwater that would not be available to others, as well as the physical

drawdown of the hydraulic head of the confined aquifer that implies pumping cost increases for

neighboring groundwater users.

Projected annual average groundwater resource use for the operation of the existing and

proposed units at normal and maximum operating conditions are shown in Table 5-3.

Groundwater use under normal long-term demand for the operation of the proposed VEGP

Units 3 and 4 is 47.4 Us (752 gpm). This demand flow rate compares to a deep aquifer

baseflow estimated to range from 5210 to 9550 Us (119 to 218 MGD) (see Section 2.6.1.2).

Because at the VEGP location the deep aquifer flows toward erosional windows that permit

discharge to the Savannah River, any use of deep aquifer groundwater acts to decrease

discharge to the river. The normal demand of 47.4 Us represents at most 0.9 percent of the

baseflow of the deep aquifer.

The normal operating groundwater demand for both existing and proposed units would be

93.5 LUs (1482 gpm) and the maximum operating groundwater demand would be 343.2 Us

(5440 gpm). Six cases of groundwater withdrawal are presented in Table 5-3. They quantify

aquifer drawdown in the year 2025 and 2045 for normal operation, drawdown after 30 days for

several maximum water withdrawal examples, and a drawdown after 2 days for the maximum

withdrawal case.

To evaluate the potential offsite impacts of groundwater use by the proposed units, drawdown

calculations have been completed using conservative analysis methods. The existing

Cretaceous aquifer well closest to the VEGP site property boundary has been selected as a

representative location for water withdrawal, and the shortest distance to the boundary has

been chosen as the distance to the nearest future offsite groundwater user. Analyses by

Southern employed a well 1740 m (5700 ft) from the facility boundary; however, Southern also

identifies proposed locations for new wells and one is approximately 1070 m (3500 ft) from the

boundary. The staff has analyzed both cases.

August 2008 5-11 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-3. Drawdown Resulting from Groundwater Withdrawal During Operation of the

Proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4

Drawdown at Drawdown at

Time Pumping Rate 1740 m (5700') 1070 m (3500')

Water Withdrawal Scenario Period L/s (gpm) m (ft) m (ft)

Aquifer response 2025

Units 1 and 2 normal 39 yr 46.1 (730) 1.80 (5.89) 1.95 (6.40)

Units 3 and 4 normal 11 yr 47.4 (752) 1.64 (5.37) 1.80 (5.91)

93.5 (1482) 3.44 (11.26) 3.75 (12.31)

Aquifer response 2045

Units 1 and 2 normal 59 yr 46.1 (730) 1.86 (6.11) 2.02 (6.62)

Units 3 and 4 normal 31 yr 47.4 (752) 1.81 (5.94) 1.97 (6.47)

93.5 (1482) 3.67 (12.05) 3.99 (13.09)

Unit 1 or 2 maximum 30 days

Unit 1 or 2 max 72.5 (1150) 1.26 (4.13) 1.51 (4.94)

Unit 2 or 1 normal 23.1 (365) 0.40 (1.31) 0.48 (1.57)

Units 3 and 4 normal 30 d 47.4 (752) 0.83 (2.70) 0.99 (3.24)

2.49 (8.14) 2.98 (9.75)

Unit 3 or 4 maximum 30 days

Units 1 and 2 normal 46.1 (730) 0.80 (2.62) 0.96 (3.14)

Unit 3 or 4 normal 30 d 23.7 (376) 0.41 (1.35) 0.49 (1.62)

Unit 4 or 3 max 99.1 (1570) 1.72 (5.65) 2.06 (6.75)

2.93 (9.61) 3.51 (11.51)

Four units maximum 30 days

Units 1 and 2 max 145 (2300) 2.50 (8.19) 2.99 (9.80)

Units 3 and 4 max 30 d 198 (3140) 3.41 (11.19) 4.08 13.38)

343 (5440) 5.91 (19.38) 7.07 (23.19)

Four units maximum 2 days

Units 1 and 2 max 145 (2300) 1.16 (3.82) 1.63 (5.36)

Units 3 and 4 max 2 d 198 (3140) 1.59 (5.21) 2.23 (7.32)

343 (5440) 2.75 (9.03) 3.87 (12.69))

Conservative models are employed by Southern and the NRC staff to estimate drawdown in the

confined Cretaceous aquifer as a result of groundwater withdrawal from the Cretaceous aquifer.

A simplified form of the Theis equation for estimating drawdown in a confined aquifer

(Theis 1935; Cooper and Jacob 1946) was used to estimate drawdown in the Cretaceous

aquifer. This analysis assumes the aquifer is homogeneous, isotropic, has negligible recharge

and gradient, as well as negligible boundary impacts. The water is assumed to be released

from storage within the aquifer in response to declining hydraulic head. This is a conservative

representation because not all of the water withdrawn by pumping comes from storage because

there are recharge and gradients. The analysis is also conservative because it focuses the

cumulative withdrawal from multiple wells at one point nearest to a hypothetical offsite

groundwater user. Several groundwater wells completed in the Cretaceous aquifer would be

used to withdraw groundwater. Groundwater users of the Cretaceous aquifer are several miles

away.

NUREG-1872 5-12 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Cretaceous Aquifer

Data on the hydraulic properties of the Cretaceous aquifer are published in the Final Safety

Analysis Report for VEGP Units 1 and 2 (Southern 2003) and were gathered during the

installation and testing of the deep production wells. The transmissivity of 0.0227 m2

/s

(158,000 g/d/ft) is identified by Southern (2008a) as a mid-range value for use in analyses.

The storativity value of 3.1 x 10-4 (dimensionless) is the arithmetic mean of values reported in

the Final Safety Analysis Report.

Estimated drawdowns for the normal and maximum withdrawal rates are shown in Table 5-3.

The normal withdrawal case with a well-to-boundary distance of 1740 m (5700 ft) for all units

operating and a cumulative rate of 93.5 L/s (1482 gpm), yields approximately 3.44 m (11.3 ft) of

drawdown through 2025 (approximately 39 years of operation for Units 1 and 2, approximately

11 years of operation for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4). The same rates yield

approximately 3.67 m (12.1 ft) of drawdown through 2045 (approximately 59 years of operation

for VEGP Units 1 and 2, approximately 31 years of operation for the proposed VEGP Units 3

and 4). From VEGP Units 1 and 2 operation alone, these represent differences of

approximately 1.6 m (5.4 ft) and 1.8 m (5.9 ft) for the water withdrawal associated with proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4. If either Units 1 or 2 were to require maximum groundwater withdrawal,

the difference in drawdown after 30 days would be approximately 0.86 m (2.8 ft). If either of the

new units were to require maximum groundwater withdrawal, the difference in drawdown after

30 days would be approximately 1.3 m(4.3 ft). If all four units were to require maximum offnormal groundwater withdrawal, the difference in drawdown (i.e., maximum rate drawdown

minus normal rate drawdown) after 30 days would be less than 4.3 m (14 ft) at the property

boundary.

In a recent study undertaken for the USGS, Cherry and Clarke (2007) studied groundwater

pumping scenarios forthe proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. They simulated existing and potential

future conditions in the aquifer underlying the VEGP site using an existing USGS MODFLOW

groundwater model of a 11,538.4-km2 (4455-mi2) area (Cherry 2006). The model provides

estimates of drawdown as a result of long-term, steady-state stresses, including the incremental

increases proposed for VEGP Units 3 and 4. It simulates the response of a three-dimensional

system of aquifers comprised of six separate aquifers separated by confining units and overlain

by the Water Table aquifer. For the case examining the incremental increase of long-term

average pumping rate of 47.8 L/s (757 gpm, 1.09 MGD) for operation of proposed VEGP Units 3

and 4, the USGS model forecasts an incremental increase in drawdown of 0.61 m (-2 ft) in the

upper and lower Midville aquifers. Aquifers overlying the Midville aquifers in the deep regional

aquifer and the tertiary aquifer were found to exhibit lesser drawdown impacts. The drawdown

response of the shallower aquifers is a result of simulated leakage through confining zones in

response to deep aquifer pumping. This is a moderating influence neglected in the simplified

model of drawdown employed by Southern. The 0.61 m (-2 ft) forecast compares with the

August 2008 5-13 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

1.6-m (5.4-ft) and 1.8-m (5.9-ft) forecasts for the years 2025 and 2045 provided by the simplified

and conservative model described above.

In addition to confirming Southern's calculations of drawdown, the staff used the proposed well

locations that are approximately 1070 m (3500 ft) from the property boundary to calculate

drawdown. Estimates of drawdown increased roughly 10 percent for mulityear estimates for all

normal pumping rates and roughly 20 percent for 30-day estimates involving maximum pumping

rates.

The estimates above reflect the potential impact at the property boundary. The closest users of

the Cretaceous aquifer are a municipal well 23.3 km (14.5 mi) away, an industrial well 13.7 km

(8.5 mi) away and Savannah River Site wells located in D-Area 6.4 km (4 mi) away. At these

distances the change in drawdown resulting from the production of water during operation of the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 through 2045 (approximately 30 years after startup of the

proposed units) is estimated-as less than 1.5 m (5 ft) for these users.

The original water level of the Cretaceous aquifer prior to Units 1 and 2 operations was

approximately 56.1 m (184 ft) above mean sea level (MSL) in the vicinity of the VEGP site. The

base of the upper confining strata for the Cretaceous aquifer is at an elevation of approximately

-77.4 m (-254 ft) MSL; therefore, the original confining hydraulic head was approximately

133.5 m (438 ft) above the aquifer sediments. Based on recent submittals by Southern to the

State of Georgia (Southern 2006a), since VEGP Units 1 and 2 operations began in 1987 and

1989, the hydraulic head of the Cretaceous aquifer has dropped approximately 4.6 m (15 ft) in

the vicinity of well MU-1 and 7 m (23 ft) in the vicinity of MU-2A in 2004 (Southern 2003;

Southern 2007a, b). Clearly, the pumping stress to support the proposed Units 3 and 4 would

not dewater an aquifer with an excess of 120 m (400 ft) of confining hydraulic head, and does

not substantially alter drawdown at offsite well locations.

The proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would use 47.4 L/s (1.08 MGD, 752 gpm) for normal

operation and 198.1 LUs (4.52 MGD, 3140 gpm) for maximum operation demand (Southern

2008a). These groundwater use rates compare to the deep aquifer baseflow estimates of 5210

to 9570 L/s (119 to 218.4 MGD). Water requirements for the proposed plant represent 0.90

(normal) and 3.8 (maximum) percent of the lower estimate of deep aquifer baseflow. The

normal and maximum operational demands for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 are within the

groundwater-use permit held by Southern, provided existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 are operating

under normal demand. If both the existing two units and two new units (i.e., all four units) were

at maximum demand, the incremental increase in the groundwater-use permit for maximum

monthly average flow rate would be 80.2 [/s (1.83 MGD), or 1.5 percent of the lower estimate of

deep aquifer baseflow. Thus, the groundwater resource use at these rates for the proposed

plants could be sustained for the life of the facility. The average long-term demand 47.4 LUs

(752 gpm) also represents recharge to the regional groundwater system from an area

approximately 2.4 times the size of the VEGP site based on the 1.9 in./yr recharge rate

NUREG-1872 5-14 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

estimated by the USGS. Thus, groundwater resource use at rates required for the proposed

plants could be sustained for the life of the facility.

Tertiary Aquifer

A review of hydraulic head contour plots for the Tertiary aquifer during 1971 and 1984 (Southern

2003) and June 2005 to June 2006 (Southern 2008a) reveals a gradual decline in the hydraulic

head of the Tertiary aquifer during the period covering construction and operation of VEGP

Units 1 and 2. In the vicinity of VEGP Units 1 and 2, where the record is longer, the decline is

as much as 4.6 m (15 ft) since 1971 and 1.5 m (5 ft) since 1984, (i.e., hydraulic head of 35.1 m

[115 ft] in 1971, 32.0 m [105 ft] in 1984, and 30.5 m [100 ft] in June of 2006). Most of this

change occurred prior to Unit 1 coming online in 1987. Since 1971, the data set has undergone

substantial change in spatial coverage and temporal continuity; and, consequently, there is not

a long-term record of change in the immediate vicinity of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4.

However, the rate of pumping documented in 2005, 0.25 L/s (4 gpm), would result in a

undetectable drawdown in the Tertiary aquifer at the VEGP site boundary as a result of

groundwater withdrawals from the Tertiary aquifer.

The hydraulic heads of the Cretaceous aquifer and Tertiary aquifer in the vicinity of the VEGP

site are approximately 49 m (160 ft) and 37 m (120 ft) above MSL, respectively. Thus, there is

an upward gradient driving groundwater from the Cretaceous toward the Tertiary aquifer.

Further, records submitted by Southern to the State of Georgia reveal that pumping the

Cretaceous aquifer results in drawdowns less than 12 m (40 ft). Accordingly, an upward

gradient is maintained during pumping of the Cretaceous and negligible impact on the

Tertiary aquifer is anticipated.

Water Table Aquifer

The Water Table aquifer appears to be hydraulically isolated from the underlying confined

Tertiary aquifer by the Blue Bluff Marl; however, some isolated data suggest the potential for

local communication between the two aquifers. The hydraulic head of the Water Table aquifer

ranges from 50.3 to 43 m (165 to 140 ft) above MSL in the vicinity of the power block. The head

in the Tertiary aquifer ranges from 38.1 to 32 m (125 to 105 ft) above MSL in the same vicinity.

A downward gradient exists between these two aquifers, driving groundwater from the Water

Table.aquifer toward the Tertiary aquifer (Southern 2008a). In the vicinity of the VEGP site, the

Blue Bluff Marl separating these two aquifers is believed to be a high-integrity confining unit; this

is supported by the hydraulic head difference observed between the two aquifers at all but one

location. The anomalous data indicate a Water Table aquifer hydraulic head of 35.7 to 36.0 m

(117 to 118 ft) MSL in the vicinity of monitoring wells OW-1001 and B-1 004 at the eastern edge

of the power block. Thus, water from the Water Table aquifer could flow downward into the

Tertiary aquifer at this location. Hydraulic isolation of the Water Table aquifer from the

underlying confined aquifer systems implies no impact or a negligible impact to the Water Table

August 2008 5-15 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

aquifer from pumping the Tertiary or Cretaceous aquifers. If there is localized communication

between the Water Table and Tertiary aquifers, flow would occur from the Water Table aquifer

into the Tertiary aquifer, and hydraulic isolation of the Water Table aquifer would be maintained.

As a result of construction of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 the Water Table aquifer in the

vicinity of the VEGP site would experience a change in net infiltration (i.e., recharge from

precipitation) during operation of the units because of the construction of buildings, paving

parking lots, maintainance of a large area as vegetation free, and construction of a stormwater

discharge system. Data provided for wells in the immediate vicinity of VEGP Units 1 and 2

(Southern 2008a) illustrate water table change over the period of record is variable, but all

changes appear to range between 1.5 and 2.4 m (5 and 8 ft) in magnitude.

Summary

Groundwater supplies for normal and maximum operational scenarios have been evaluated

using a conservative conceptual model. Drawdown levels forecast for normal withdrawals are

less than 2.1 m (7 ft) after approximately 30 years of operation. Drawdown levels forecast for

maximum withdrawal for a period of 30 days are short-term impacts for which the aquifer would

recover. These short-term drawdowns are also less than 2.1 m (7 ft) at the site boundary for

single unit maximum demand. These incremental drawdown levels are small in comparison to

the 120 m (400 ft) of confining hydraulic head in the Cretaceous aquifer. In their study for the

U.S. Geological Survey using a regional groundwater model that accounts for the interactions

among the multiple aquifers underlying the VEGP site, Cherry and Clarke (2007) found the

incremental increase in drawdown for the deep aquifer was 0.61 m (2 ft).

A review of work by the U.S. Geological Survey revealed an estimated range of deep aquifer

baseflow from 5210 to 9550 L/s (119 to 218 MGD) (see Section 2.6.1.2). Long-term normal

demand for operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be 47.4 L/s (752 gpm). Using

the low estimate of baseflow, this represents less than 1 percent of the baseflow of the deep

aquifer.

Southern would not use Tertiary aquifer wells to supply groundwater for proposed VEGP Units 3

and 4. Data provided by Southern (2008a) when supplemented with regional data in

U.S. Geological Survey reports (Clarke and West 1997, 1998; Cherry 2006), indicate an upward

gradient is maintained between the Cretaceous and Tertiary aquifers. Thus, impacts to the

Tertiary aquifer from groundwater withdrawals from the Cretaceous aquifer are small. This was

confirmed by the regional groundwater model (Cherry and Clarke 2007). Southern would also

not use the Water Table aquifer to supply groundwater for proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. The

Water Table aquifer appears hydraulically isolated from both confined aquifers by the Blue Bluff

Marl. Hydraulic head in the Water Table aquifer is higher than that of the Tertiary aquifer.

During VEGP Unit 3 and 4 operation, recharge to the Water Table aquifer would be.altered

locally by the facility as constructed. However, alteration to hydraulic head in response to

changed recharge rates would be localized.

NUREG-1872 5-16 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that groundwater-use impacts of the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised NRC staff (Southern 2007f) that, based

on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, the maximum

groundwater demand for Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be expected to decrease by about 11

percent. Because the impacts of this decrease in groundwater demand are bounded by the

present analysis, the staff determined that its conclusions regarding groundwater use would not

change.

5.3.3 Water-Quality Impacts

5.3.3.1 Savannah River

The GDNR classified the Savannah River at the VEGP site for fishing water use (GDNR 2007a).

The water-quality standards for temperature are not to exceed 32.20C (90 0F), and at no time is

the temperature of the receiving waters to be increased more than 2.8°C (50F) above the intake

temperature. A provision is included that allows for use of a reasonable and limited mixing

zone; however, evidence must be provided that such a zone would not create an objectionable

or damaging pollution condition.

Southern states in its ER that the discharge outfall would enter the Savannah River 123.1 m

(404 ft) downstream from the existing outfall (Southern 2008a) and on the same (Georgia) bank

of the river (see Figure 5-1). The effluent from the proposed outfall would enter the river from a

single submerged port angled 70 degrees from the shoreline (pointing toward the center of the

channel and slightly downstream) (see Figures 3-6 and 3-7).

For purposes of determining the bounding water temperature impacts, the staff examined the

variable effluent and river discharge conditions. As noted by Southern in its ER, and

corroborated by the staffs analysis, the extent of the 2.80C (5°F) above ambient mixing zone

would be largest when the following conditions simultaneously occur: river discharge is the

lowest, the outfall discharge is the largest, and the maximum temperature difference exists

between the ambient river and the effluent. The independent assessment performed by the

staff assumed flow in the Savannah River was consistent with the Draft Drought Contingency

Plan (USACE 2006) releases in Drought Level 3. Thus, the the Savannah River discharge was

assumed to be 108 Us (3800 cfs) with a corresponding stage elevation of 23.59 m (77.4 ft)

above MSL. At the location of the discharge outfall, the Savannah River would be

approximately 95.1 m (312 ft) wide with an average depth of 2.50 m (8.2 ft) and have a crosssectional average velocity of 0.457 m/s (1.50 ft/s). The local water depth near the outfall, which

is located near the deepest point in the cross-section, is 3.05 m (10.0 ft).

The distance between the existing outfall and the proposed outfall was a factor in Southern's

analysis. A larger distance between the outfalls provides greater opportunity for the ambient

August 2008 5-17 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

river water to mix with effluent from VEGP Units 1 and 2 before encountering effluent from

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. Likewise, a shorter distance between the two outfalls would

raise the ambient river temperature, and a larger mixing zone for the downstream VEGP Units 3

and 4 would be produced.

The staff made a bounding assumption that discharge from VEGP Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 was

combined into a single discharge pipe instead of specifying a set distance between the two

outfalls. The diameter of the pipe governs the effluent velocity and mixing as the effluent leaves

the discharge pipe. It is important under this assumption to alter the diameter of the pipe so that

the exit velocity is equivalent when the effluents are combined. Southern states in its ER that at

the outfall terminus, the discharge pipe would be 0.6 m (2 ft) in diameter (Southern 2008a),

resulting in an effluent velocity of 6.64 m/s (21.8 ft/s) at the maximum design discharge of

1941 L/s (68.5 cfs, 30,761 gpm) from VEGP Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2008a). The effluent

discharge from VEGP Units 1 and 2 was 631.5 L/s (22.3 cfs or 10,000 gpm) based on an

average value at 4 cycles of concentration (Southern 2008a). The combined effluent used in

the analysis was 2572 L/s (90.8 cfs), and the modified pipe diameter was increased to 0.70 m

(2.3 ft) to maintain the VEGP Units 3 and 4 effluent velocity in the simulation. Although the

CWS blowdown mixes with SWS blowdown, sanitary waste, and other effluents in the common

sump before being discharged through the outfall, the staff made an assumption that all waste

issuing from the outfall was at the cooling water system maximum blowdown temperature of

32.8 0C (91 OF) (Southern 2008a).

The largest 2.80C (50F) above ambient mixing zone would occur when the temperature

difference is the greatest between the ambient river and the discharging effluent, assuming fixed

river and effluent discharge rates. Therefore, the maximum temperature difference would occur

when the ambient river temperature was a minimum. Monthly water temperature data collected

near Shell Bluff Landing were analyzed for the period between January 1973 and August 1996.

Minimum river temperatures were approximately 5oC (41 OF) on both February 1, 1977 and

January 31, 1978. The temperature difference between the ambient river and the discharge

effluent was therefore calculated to be 28°C (500F).

The staff performed an independent assessment of the effluent plume extent using CORMIX

version 5.0 (Jirka et al. 2004), and assumed the conservative river conditions described above

(e.g., minimum river temperatures, maximum discharge temperatures, and combining total

effluent from VEGP Units 1 through 4 into the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 discharge pipe).

The extent of the 50F above ambient isotherm is shown in Figure 5-1. The maximum

downstream extent of the 50F above ambient isotherm was 29.6 m (97 ft) downstream of the

outfall pipe. As shown in the figure, the plume curves after leaving the pipe and turns

downstream following the river flow. The maximum width of the curved isotherm was 4.6 m

(15 ft).

NUREG-1872 5-18 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5IIJSF (2,8'C) Above Ambient Feet 0 10 200') 400 U

pipe dMarnetef not to scale

Figure 5-1. Extent of the 2.8 0C (50F) Above Ambient Isotherm Created by the Proposed VEGP

Units 3 and 4 Discharge Pipe in the Combined Effluent Analysis

The staff performed a second analysis to identify the maximum downstream and lateral location

of the 90'F isotherm, which is I1 F below the effluent release temperature. The same release

conditions were assumed for this analysis (e.g., maximum discharge temperatures and

combining total effluent from VEGP Units 1 through 4 into the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4

discharge pipe). However, the maximum extent of the 90'F isotherm would occur whenever the

ambient river temperature is as close to the release temperature as possible, and maximum

river temperature near Shell Bluff Landing was approximately 81 OF.. As with the analysis above,

the river discharge was assumed to be at 108 m3/s (3800 cfs). Results generated by CORMIX

indicate the maximum downstream extent of the 90°F isotherm would occur at a distance of

0.9 m (3 ft) downstream of the outfall pipe. Because of the proximity of the 90°F isotherm to the

pipe terminus, the plume had not yet been significantly influenced by the river discharge, and

the lateral extent of the isotherm was greater than the downstream extent. The maximum

lateral extent of the 90°F isotherm from the outfall pipe terminus toward the river centerline was

2.21 m (7 ft).

August 2008 5-19 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

The analysis performed by Southern and described in the ER (Southern 2008a) investigated

two river discharge levels: 261 m3

/s (9229 cfs) (average discharge) and 112 m3

/s (3967 cfs)

(low-flow discharge). The largest 50F above ambient isotherm was computed for the scenario

with the lowest river discharge, largest effluent discharge, and the greatest temperature

difference between the effluent and the ambient river. However, unlike the staffs analysis,

Southern assumed that the outfall pipe for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 was located 123 m

(404 ft) downstream of the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 outfall pipe (note: the staff performed a

similar analysis, which is presented in Chapter 7, Cumulative Impacts, of this EIS). The

distance between the outfall pipes influences the size of the plume resulting from operation of

the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. To understand the change in ambient river conditions at the

VEGP Units 1 and 2 outfall, Southern first developed a CORMIX model of the VEGP Units 1

and 2 plume. Along the centerline of the plume path the water temperatures are the greatest,

and Southern applied the computed water temperatures 123 m (404 ft) downstream as the

ambient river temperatures for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 outfall analysis. The largest

50F above ambient isotherm resulting from the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 outfall extended

17.4 m (57 ft) downstream and 6.7 m (22 ft) laterally across the river from the proposed outfall

pipe terminus (Southern 2007a). The Savannah River would be approximately 95.1 m (312 ft)

wide at drought level 3 flow rate.

The staff extended its thermal impact assessment using the CORMIX model to consider the

potential impacts of chemical pollutants in the discharge to the Savannah River. Dilution was

defined as the ratio between the initial concentration at discharge to the concentration at some

given location away from the outfall. The calculations performed by Southern estimate dilution

ratios range between 60 and 120 during periods of average Savannah River discharge. For the

analysis performed by staff and at the edge of the 50F above ambient isotherm described

above, the dilution ratio was computed to be 10. For example, if the dilution ratio were 10 at the

edge of the mixing zone and the discharge concentration was 20 ppm, then the concentration at

the mixing zone edge would be 2 ppm. The dilution ratio was smaller under the more

conservative conditions used by the staff.

Discharge limits to the Savannah River for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be

established by GDNR through the NPDES permitting process. Based on the computed size of

the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 discharge plume, computed by both the staff and by

Southern, and the relatively high levels of dilution at the mixing zone boundary, the NRC staff

concludes that the impacts of the effluent plume on the Savannah River would be SMALL and

localized. The staff assumes that the types and concentrations of potential chemical pollutants

discharged from Units 3 and 4 would be similar to those from Units 1 and 2.

NUREG-1872 5-20 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.3.3.2 Groundwater

There are no potential impacts on groundwater quality from the operation of the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4. However, cumulative impacts to which the proposed VEGP operation may

contribute (i.e., salt water intrusion, tritium in the Water Table aquifer, and contaminants

underlying the Savannah River Site) are addressed in Chapter 7 of this EIS.

5.4 Ecological Impacts

This section describes the potential impacts to ecological resources from operation of two new

units at the VEGP site, transmission line operation, and transmission line right-of-way

maintenance. The impacts are discussed for terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems, and

threatened and endangered species.

5.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts

The proposed cooling system for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site is a

closed-cycle system that would employ natural draft cooling towers. The heat would be

transferred to the atmosphere in the form of water vapor and drift. Vapor plumes and drift may

affect crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants, and water losses could affect shoreline

habitat. In addition, bird collisions and noise-related impacts are possible with natural draft

cooling towers.

Electric transmission systems have the potential to affect terrestrial ecological resources

through right-of-way maintenance, bird collisions with transmission lines, and electromagnetic

fields (EMFs). Southern estimates that one additional 500-kV transmission line would be

required to distribute the additional generation from proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4

(Southern 2008a). The proposed new transmission line right-of-way would likely connect the

VEGP site with the Thomson-Vogtle substation west of Augusta. The transmission line would

cross Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie, and Warren Counties. It is anticipated it would be a 46-m

(1 50-ft)-wide right-of-way approximately 97 km (60 mi) long. Maintenance activities on the new

transmission right-of-way would be the responsibility of GPC (Southern 2008a). Each of these

topics is discussed in the following paragraphs.

5.4.1.1 Impacts on Vegetation

Impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants may result from cooling tower drift,

icing, fogging, or increased humidity. No row crop agricultural land exists on the VEGP site.

However, forests and forested wetlands occur both onsite and offsite in the vicinity of the

VEGP site.

August 2008 5-21 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Through the process of evaporation, the total dissolved solid concentration in the CWS

increases. A small percentage of the water in the CWS is released into the atmosphere as fine

droplets containing elevated levels of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) that can be deposited on

nearby vegetation. Operation of the CWS would be based on four-cycles of concentration,

which means the TDS in the make-up water would be concentrated approximately 4 times

before being released. CWS water losses from drift are minor in comparison to evaporation and

blowdown discharge losses, and the maximum drift rate reported by Southern is 1.5 L/s

(24 gpm) when both towers are operating (Southern 2008a).

Depending on the make-up source waterbody, the TDS concentration in the drift can contain

high levels of salts which under certain conditions and for certain species can be damaging.

Vegetation stress can be'caused from drift with high levels of TDS deposition, either directly by

deposition onto foliage or indirectly from the accumulation in the soils. Southern estimates a

single cooling tower's plume to have a maximum deposition rate of 4.0 kg/ha/mo (3.6 lbs/ac/mo)

(Southern 2008a), and that maximum deposition would occur 490 m (1600 ft) from the tower.

Regardless of the plume direction, maximum deposition would occur on the VEGP site. The

drift from the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 towers would overlap because the towers are only

340 m (1100 ft) apart. Therefore, the maximum estimated cumulative deposition rate is

8.0 kg/ha/mo (7.2 lbs/ac/mo) at 490 m (1600 ft) north of the towers (4.0 kg/ha/mo

[3.6 lbs/ac/mo] per tower). These estimates are based on a cooling tower characteristics

described in the ER (Southern 2008a). Southern (2008b) has since updated the original

analysis using Revision 16 of the Westinghouse AP1000 DCD (Westinghouse 2007), which

includes an increase in drift and evaporation rates of about 4 percent, thus resulting in increases

in the the maximum salt deposition by about 0.3 kg/ha/mo (0.2 lbs/ac/mo) for each tower. The

location of the maximum deposition rate is in the vicinity of the proposed Units 3 and 4

switchyard, more than 1.6 km (1 mi) from the northern site boundary. General guidelines for

predicting effects of drift deposition on plants suggest that many species have thresholds for

visible leaf damage in the range of 10 to 20 kg/ha/mo (9 to 18 lbs/ac/mo) on leaves during the

growing season (NRC 1996). Since the maximum deposition for the proposed VEGP Units 3

and 4 is below the level which could cause visible leaf damage in many common species, even

if the higher Revision 16 value is used the impacts would be negligible. The impact of drift on

crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants was evaluated for existing nuclear power plants

in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants NUREG1437 (GELS) and was found to be of minor significance (NRC 1996). This determination also

included existing nuclear power plants with more than one cooling tower.

Southern expects the longest vapor plume associated with the new towers would be 10 km

(6 mi), but would only occur 3.9 percent of the time (Southern 2008a). The longest plume

length would occur in the winter months and the shortest in the summer months. Ground-level

fogging and icing do not occur currently at the cooling towers for VEGP Units 1 and 2 and are

NUREG-1872 5-22 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

not expected to occur at the new cooling towers associated with proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4.

Therefore, impacts associated with fogging and icing would be negligible.

The potential impact on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants from the operation of

cooling towers for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site would be minimal and

mitigation would not be warranted.

5.4.1.2 Bird Collisions with Cooling Towers

The natural draft cooling towers associated with the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be

180 m (600 ft) high (Southern 2008a). The VEGP site is located adjacent to the Savannah

River, and though migratory birds pass through the vicinity of the VEGP site, it is not located on

a major American flyway. No formal bird collision surveys have been conducted at the VEGP

site. However, the Environmental Protection Plan for VEGP Units 1 and 2 stipulates that any

excessive bird-impact events be reported to NRC within 24 hours (Southern 1989). No

excessive bird-impact events have been reported onsite. Bird collision events that have been

investigated by Southern have been determined to be of no significance due to their infrequent

occurrence (Southern 2006b). The conclusion presented in the GElS for license renewal is that

bird collisions with natural draft cooling towers are of small significance at all operating nuclear

power plants, including those with multiple cooling towers (NRC 1996). Consequently, the

incremental number of bird collisions, if any, associated with the operation of the two new

natural draft cooling towers for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site, would be

minimal and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.4.1.3 Noise

The effects of noise on most wildlife species are poorly understood partly because noise

disturbance cannot be generalized across species or genera, and there may be response

differences among individuals or groups of individuals of the same species (Larkin et al 1996;

AMEC Americas Limited 2005). An animal's response to noise can depend on a variety of

factors including the noise level, frequency distribution, duration, existence of background noise,

time of year, animal activity, age, and sex (AMEC Americas Limited 2005). The potential effects

of noise on wildlife include acute or chronic physiological damage to the auditory system,

increased energy expenditure, physical injury incurred during panicked responses, and

interference with normal activities, such as feeding, impaired communication among individuals

and groups (AMEC Americas Limited 2005). The impacts of these effects might include habitat

loss through avoidance, reduced reproductive success, and mortality. Long term noise

thresholds are not established for wildlife, evidence for habituation is limited, long-term effects

are generally unknown, and how observed behavioral and physiological response might be

manifested ecologically and demographically are poorly understood (AMEC Americas Limited

2005).

August 2008 5-23 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

The noise levels from natural draft cooling tower operation and diesel generators are estimated

to be approximately 55 decibels (dBA) SPL (Sound Pressure Level) at 300 m (1000 ft)

(Southern 2008a). Researchers have found that dBA measurements contain frequencies out of

the hearing bandwidth of birds and some mammals and are not inclusive of the total hearing

range for other animals. Because of this, the dBA weighting system does not accurately

characterize sound exposure or hearing response for wildlife (Dooling 2002; AMEC Americas

Limited 2005). Natural-draft cooling towers emit broadband noise spectrally very similar to

environmental (wind) noise. In the case of relatively flat spectra, the spectrum level of cooling

tower and diesel generator noise given the estimated dBA SPL would be approximately 15 dB

SPL. Cooling tower noise does not change appreciably with time (steady state) and the

estimated noise level at 300m is well below the 80-85-dBA SPL threshold at which birds and

small mammals are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). Using the startle criterion

reported by Golden et a1.(1 980), the noise level expected to be generated by cooling tower and

diesel generator operations would only approach startle levels in the immediate vicinity (within

5m for noise with approximately 60 dBA SPL at 300 m) of the tower or generator. In addition,

birds and other animals show habituation to acoustic deterrents (complex sounds designed with

spectral components to be within the hearing band of the target animal). Thus, noise generated

by natural draft cooling towers would be unlikely to disturb transient wildlife beyond the VEGP

site perimeter fence, which is over 300 m (1000 ft) from the towers. Seasonally or long-term

resident wildlife could be expected to habituate to cooling tower and generator noise.

Wildlife may also be affected by noise "masking" hearing of important sounds to which the

animal would react if they were heard. The approach of a predator would be one such sound.

In general, masking of signals in the frequency range of greatest sensitivity of an animal is

probably more important to the well being of the animal than are sounds which evoke a

behavioral (startle) response causing the animal to move away from the sound source

(Dooling 2002).

Impacts (startle to avoidance) within the distance of the VEGP perimeter fence, if any, would be

considered negligible owing to the large expanses of open habitat available into which mobile

wildlife species could move if disturbed. In addition, the new towers would be near the current

VEGP Unit 1 and 2 facilities, where wildlife have likely acclimated to typical operating facility

noise levels. Consequently, the potential for startle and avoidance responses by wildlife posed

by the incremental noise resulting from the operation of the two new natural draft cooling towers

for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 and other facilities at the VEGP site would be minimal.

Less clear is the potential for masking of critical sounds within and external to the VEGP

perimeter fence. The potential for some level of masking, particularly at frequencies above 2 or

3 kHz, is likely within and external to the VEGP perimeter. Nevertheless, the loss of individuals

due to this phenomenon would be localized and would be expected to have a minimal impact on

overall population health.

NUREG-1872 5-24 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.4.1.4 Shoreline Habitat

Because of the small quantity of water withdrawn and discharged during operation relative to

the flow in the Savannah River, adverse impacts on the river shoreline are unlikely. Based on

NRC's own independent review (see Section 5.3.2.1), at the normal withdrawal rate of 2.35 m3/s

(83 cfs, 37,224 gpm), proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would withdraw up to 2.2 percent of the

total river flow at Drought Level 3. At the maximum withdrawal rate of 3.65 m3/s (129 cfs,

57,784 gpm), the Units 3 and 4 would withdraw between 1.5 and 3.4 percent of the total flow of

the Savannah River as the river fluctuates between the average flow rate and Drought Level 3.

A water surface elevation versus discharge relationship was developed by the USGS to monitor

discharge near the VEGP site (USGS 2007). Using this relationship and the maximum

withdrawal rate of 3.65 m3

/s (129 cfs), the resulting decrease in river stage as a result of

operating the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 is approximately 5 cm (2 in.) at Drought Level 3

and approximately 2.5 cm (1 in.) under average discharge conditions.

As described in Section 5.3.2, the staff determined that it was still conservative to base its

analysis in this EIS on Drought Level 3. However, the staff did evaluate the fractional decline in

the river discharge resulting from maximum withdrawal at the flow rates of 85 m3/s (3000 cfs)

and 57 m3/s (2000 cfs) in addition to the 108 m3/s (3800 cfs) minimum for Drought Level 1, 2

and 3 from the current Drought Contingency Plan. The fractional maximum withdrawal rates at

85 m3/s (3000 cfs) and 57 m3/s (2000 cfs) are 4.3 percent and 6.5 percent respectively. At

these flow levels and using the maximum withdrawal rate for both Units 3 and 4, the decrease in

river stage would only be a matter of inches. Shoreline habitat is preadapted to survive

fluctuations in river levels. River flows below Drought Level 3 are expected to occur infrequently

and would be temporary in duration. Consequently, the staff anticipates that impacts to

shoreline habitat would be minor even under these conditions. Nevertheless, changes in

shoreline habitat could occur if the flows in the river are maintained at extremely low levels for

an extended period of time, without any appreciable flow variation.

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised the NRC staff (Southern 2007f) that

based on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, the maximum

surface water withdrawal for Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would increase by approximately 0.21 m3/s

(7.5 cfs). The staff evaluated the effect of this change on the analysis presented above, which

uses DCD Revision 15 maximum surface water withdrawal values currently in Southern's ER

(Southern 2008a). The staff determined that this change would result in an increase in the

consumptive loss to the river of 0.2 percent at 3800 cfs. Such a change would result in an

insignificant reduction in river stage. Even assuming the lower river flow values of 85 m3/s

(3000 cfs) and 57 m3/s (2000 cfs),the water consumption between Revision 15 and 16 would be

from 4.3 percent (Rev 15) to 4.5 percent (Rev 16) for 85 m3/s (3000 cfs) and from 6.5 percent

(Rev 15) to 6.8 percent (Rev 16) for 57 m3/s (2000 cfs). Thus the changes identified by

Southern would result in a 0.2 to 0.3 percent increase in water consumption under low flow

August 2008 5-25 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

conditions. Because this is a very small increase in consumptive water loss, the staff

determined that the change in water withdrawal due to Revision 16 of the DCD would not affect

the staffs conclusion that surface water use impacts on shoreline habitat would be minor.

In summary, the staff analyzed the potential effects on terrestrial ecology from the drawdown of

the Savannah River at Drought Level 3 resulting from the maximum withdrawal rate due to the

operation of two additional natural draft cooling towers for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at

the VEGP site. The staff concluded that these effects would be negligible and mitigation would

not be warranted. Even at river flow rates of 85 m3/s (3000 cfs) and 57 m3/s (2000 cfs), any

impact to downstream shoreline habitat would result principally from the extremely low river

flows, and not the additional consumptive water loss due to Units 3 and 4. Furthermore, any

impact is expected to be infrequent, temporary, and largely reversible.

5.4.1.5 Transmission Line Right-of-Way Management (Cutting and Herbicide

Application)

Southern stated that the same vegetation management practices currently employed by GPC

for the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 transmission line rights-of-way (such as hand-cutting on an

as-needed basis) would be applied to the proposed new 500-kV transmission line right-of-way

(Southern 2008a).

GPC performs aerial inspections of the transmission corridors five times each year to support

routine maintenance activities. These surveys are normally conducted using a helicopter. The

noise may startle and temporarily displace wildlife. However, these impacts are short term and

occur in a very local area. Woody growth is cleared from transmission line rights-of-way on a

5-year maintenance cycle. This cycle may vary based on public concerns, local ordinances, line

maintenance or environmental considerations. Vegetation management includes using

herbicides, hand tools, and light equipment. Hand cutting or herbicides are used in areas that

cannot be mowed either because it is impractical or because of environmental concerns.

Herbicide use is conducted in accordance with manufacturer specifications an by licensed

applicators. Any spills of fuel and/or lubricants that occur as a result of equipment use in the

transmission line right-of-way are immediately cleaned up and reported. GPC cooperates with

the GDNR to manage known sites considered environmentally sensitive within the transmission

line rights-of way (Southern 2008a). GPC has developed recommendations for maintenance

practices for the protection of pitcher plants, caves, nests, rookeries, and habitat such as rock

outcrops that occur within GPC rights-of-way (Southern 2007b).

Transmission line right-of-way maintenance was evaluated in the GElS (NRC 1996), and the

impact was found to be of small significance at operating nuclear power plants with associated

transmission line rights-of-way of variable widths (NRC 1996). Consequently, the potential

effects on terrestrial ecology from transmission line maintenance in the new transmission line

rights-of-way would be negligible, and mitigation would not be warranted.

NUREG-1872 5-26 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.4.1.6 Bird Collisions with Transmission Lines

Section 4.1 of the Environmental Protection Plan for VEGP Units 1 and 2 stipulates that any

excessive bird-impact events be reported to NRC within 24 hours (Southern 1989).

Transmission line and right-of-way maintenance personnel have not reported dead birds from

collisions or contact with the Unit 1 and 2 transmission lines (Southern 2008a). GPC has an

Avian Protection Plan in place to monitor and address the impacts of transmission lines on

birds. Any impact events would be coordinated with GPC's Environmental Field Services and, if

necessary, coordination would also involve the FWS (GPC 2006). The conclusion presented in

the GElS is that bird collisions with transmission lines are of small significance at operating

nuclear power plants, including transmission line rights-of-way with variable numbers of

transmission lines (NRC 1996). Thus, the addition of the proposed transmission line would

likely present few new opportunities for bird collisions. The additional number of bird collisions,

if any, would not be expected to cause a measurable reduction in local bird populations.

Consequently, the incremental number of bird collisions posed by the operation of the new

transmission line for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site would be negligible

and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.4.1.7 Impact of EMFs on Flora and Fauna

EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing

radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they

exist, are subtle (NRC 1996). As discussed in the GElS for license renewal (NRC 1996), a

careful review of biological and physical studies of EMFs did not reveal consistent evidence

linking harmful effects with field exposures. Thus, the conclusion presented in the GElS for

license renewal (NRC 1996) was that the impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna were of

small significance at operating nuclear power plants, including transmission systems with

variable numbers of transmission lines. Since 1997, over a dozen studies have been published

that looked at cancer in animals that were exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives

(Moulder 2003). These studies have found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of

cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 2003). Therefore, the staff concludes that the incremental EMF

impact posed by the operation of the proposed transmission line at the VEGP site would be

minimal and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.4.1.8 Floodplains and Wetlands on Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

The effects of transmission line right-of-way maintenance on floodplains and wetlands was

evaluated in the GElS for license renewal (NRC 1996). The impacts were found to be of small

significance at operating nuclear power plants with transmission line rights-of-way of variable

widths. The incremental effects of transmission line right-of-way maintenance on floodplains

and wetlands posed by the addition of the proposed transmission line for the proposed VEGP

Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site would be negligible, and mitigation beyond use of best

management practices (BMPs) would not be warranted.

August 2008 5-27 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.4.1.9 State-Listed Species

The Georgia State-listed threatened bay star-vine (Schisandra glabra) is the only State-listed

plant species known to occur on the VEGP site. It was recorded on the wooded bluffs above

the floodplain in the vicinity of the proposed cooling water intake structure during the 2005

threatened and endangered species survey (TRC 2006). Its habitat preferences are such that it

could occur in the floodplain forest as well. In addition, mounds suggestive of the Southeastern

pocket gopher have been recorded just north of the VEGP site (Southern 2008a). Southern

would likely work with GDNR during operation to ensure species of concern are protected. No

other Georgia or South Carolina State-listed plant or animal species are known to occur within

3.2 km (2 mi) of the VEGP site (GDNR 2007b; SCDNR 2007). The potential impacts from

VEGP Units 3 and 4 operation on State-listed species at the VEGP site are considered

negligible.

Three State-listed species have been documented by the GDNR as occurring within the RDC:

the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), silky camellia (Stewartia malacodendron), and

sandhill rosemary (Ceratiola ericoides). A proposed 180-m (600- ft) buffer around the known

bald eagle nest site would minimize any potential impacts from transmission line construction

and maintenance. The impact on State-listed wildlife within the proposed transmission line

right-of-way, from noise, EMFs, and bird collisions is expected to be negligible. The impact on

State-listed species in the right-of-way due to of right-of-way maintenance activities is not known

due to the uncertainty of the final routing of the transmission line. However, based on

Southern's past performance and established maintenance practices and procedures, the staff

has determined the impacts to State-listed species would likely be minimal.

5.4.1.10 Summary of Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts

The potential impacts of operating the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 and two natural draft

cooling towers at the VEGP site on vegetation, birds, shoreline habitat, and any related impacts

on State-listed species are considered negligible. The potential impacts of transmission line

right-of-way maintenance (cutting and herbicide application) and similar impacts on floodplains

and wetlands, birds, and biota because of noise, EMFs, and bird collisions on State-listed

species are considered negligible, assuming BMPs are followed and State agencies are

consulted, as appropriate.

The staff reviewed the potential terrestrial ecological impacts of operating new generation

facilities at the VEGP site including the associated heat dissipation system, transmission lines,

and associated right-of-way maintenance. The staff concludes the impacts from operation of

the new facilities and associated transmission line right-of-way would be SMALL, and additional

mitigation beyond that mentioned in the text would not be warranted.

NUREG-1872 5-28 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts

This section discusses the potential impacts of the operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and

4 on the aquatic ecosystem in the Savannah River, onsite streams, and ponds, and water

courses crossed by the Thomson-Vogtle transmission rights-of-way.

5.4.2.1 Onsite Streams and Ponds

The only impacts to the onsite streams and ponds during the period of operation of the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would result from stormwater drainage. Southern has an

extensive stormwater drainage system and retention ponds for the VEGP site and this system

would be modified during construction of Units 3 and 4 to manage stormwater discharges prior

to discharge to the Savannah River (Southern 2008a). Southern would revise the existing

VEGP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to reflect the addition of new paved areas and

facilities and changes in drainage patterns (Southern 2008a). The staff concludes that, based

on the use of a stormwater system comparable to that currently used for the VEGP site the

impacts to onsite streams and ponds from operation of the additional VEGP Units 3 and 4 would

be minimal.

5.4.2.2 Savannah River

The potential impacts to the Savannah River from the operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3

and 4 would include the consumption of water from the Savannah River, the impingement and

entrainment of fish and aquatic organisms, the discharge of heated effluents, the discharge of

chemicals, and the physical impact of bottom scouring from the discharge.

Water Intake and Consumption

For aquatic resources, the primary concern related to water consumption is whether there is

ample water to operate the facility without a detrimental impact to the aquatic organisms living in

the Savannah River downstream of the facility. As shown in Table 5-2, at a normal consumptive

use rate for average conditions, the consumptive use of water by both Units 3 and 4 would

result in a reduction of 0.7 percent of the river flow. At the maximum consumptive use rate, the

two new units would consumptively use between 0.7 and 1.7 percent of the total flow of the

Savannah River depending on the drought level (average conditions to drought level 3) in the

Savannah River.

Potential impacts to aquatic organisms also are caused by impingement on the intake screens

or entrainment into the cooling water system. Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped

against the intake screens by the force of the water passing through the MWIS (66 FR 65256).

Impingement can result in starvation and exhaustion, asphyxiation (water velocity forces may

prevent proper gill movement or organisms may be removed from the water for prolonged

August 2008 5-29 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

periods of time), and descaling (66 FR 65256). Entrainment occurs when organisms are drawn

through the CWIS into the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 cooling system. Organisms that

become entrained are normally relatively small benthic, planktonic and nektonic (organisms in

the water column) forms, including early life stages of fish and shellfish, which often serve as

prey for larger organisms (66 FR 65256). As entrained organisms pass through a plant's

cooling system, they are subject to mechanical, thermal, and toxic stresses that are, in most

cases, lethal.

A number of factors, such as the type of cooling system, the design and location of the intake

structure, and the amount of water withdrawn from the source waterbody greatly influence the

degree to which impingement and entrainment affect the aquatic biota.

First, Southern stated in its ER that a closed-cycle wet cooling tower system would be used for

the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. The proposed cooling system would be similar to the one

employed by VEGP Units 1 and 2 (Southern 2008a). Closed-cycle recirculating cooling water

systems can, depending on the quality of the makeup water, reduce water withdrawals by 96 to

98 percent of the amount that the facility would use if it employed a once-through cooling

system (66 FR 65256). This significant reduction in water withdrawal rate results in a

corresponding reduction in impingement and entrainment.

A second factor, the intake design through-screen velocity, greatly influences the rate of

impingement of fish at a facility. The higher the through-screen velocity, the greater the number

of fish impinged. EPA has established a national standard for the maximum design throughscreen velocity of no more than 0.5 ft/sec (66 FR 65256). EPA determined that species and life

stages evaluated in various studies could endure a velocity of 1.0 ft/sec, and then applied a

safety factor of two to derive the threshold of 0.5 ft/sec. Southern has stated that the proposed

Unit 3 and 4 intake structure would have a design through-screen velocity of less than

15 cm/sec (0.5 ft/sec) at a minimum river water level of 23.8 m (78 ft) above MSL

(Southern 2008a).

Another factor affecting impingement and entrainment losses is the percentage of the flow of the

source waterbody past the site that is withdrawn by the station. EPA determined that limiting

withdrawal to 5 percent of the source water body mean flow was technically achievable and

economically practicable and that larger withdrawals may result in greater levels of entrainment

(66 FR 65256). At a normal withdrawal rate of 2.35 m3

/s (83 cfs), proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4

would withdraw between 0.9 and 2.2 percent of the river flow during conditions ranging from

average to drought level 3. At the maximum withdrawal rate of 3.65 m3/s (129 cfs) the two new

units would withdraw between 1.5 and 3.4 percent of the total flow of the Savannah River

depending on the drought level in the Savannah River. Thus, the planned design and operation

of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 CWIS meets the standard of withdrawing no greater than

5 percent of the source water body mean annual flow.

NUREG-1872 5-30 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

A fourth factor is the use of design and construction technologies for minimizing impingement

mortality and entrainment if specific conditions exist where the cooling water intake structure is

located. EPA indicated (66 FR 65256) that the optimal design for the intake location is to place

the inlet of the CWIS in an area of the source water body away from areas with the potential for

high productivity, where impingement and entrainment of organisms are minimized. As

discussed in Section 2.7.2.1, larval densities are significantly greater in the oxbows of the river,

indicating that these are areas of higher productivity, as opposed to the straighter stretches of

the river, such as in the vicinity of the VEGP site, where the CWIS would be located.

As discussed in Section 4.4.2, Southern has stated in its ER (Southern 2008a) that the intake

canal would be built so that the river flow is almost perpendicular to the intake canal flow.

Southern has also stated that, at the minimum river operating level (23.8 m [78 ft] above MSL),

the flow velocity along the intake canal would be about 3 cm/s (0.1 fps), based on the site

maximum make-up water demand of 3646 L/s (57,784 gpm, 129 cfs) (Southern 2008a). A weir

wall would extend upward approximately 0.3 m (1 ft) from the bottom of the intake canal near

its entrance. This would further serve to reduce entrainment mortality by selecting a portion of

the water column that could move into the intake canal.

As indicated in Section 2.7.2.3, entrainment monitoring was initiated in March 2008 at the VEGP

Units 1 and 2 CWIS to estimate the species composition and density of ichthyoplankton

entrained by the cooling water withdrawals (Southern 2008d). Background river samples are

being collected with plankton net tows upstream and beyond the influence of the intake in order

to develop site specific background ichthyoplankton values for comparison. The results of this

study will not be available until late 2008.

Because the data collection is ongoing, the staff analyzed two other assessments conducted in

the vicinity of VEGP Units 3 and 4. The first assessment was summarized in the Final

Environmental Statement (FES) for the licensing of VEGP Units 1 and 2, published in 1985

(NRC 1985). The second assessment was perfomed for the Department of Energy to estimate

the entrainment rates determined for the Savannah River Site facilities that are located across

the river from the VEGP site (Paller et al. 1986; Specht 1987).

The staffs evaluation of entrainment in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) (NRC 1985)

assumed a uniform distribution of drift organisms and a maximum of 2 percent of the river flow

passing through the plant in 1985. The NRC staff determined that under average flow

conditions (292 m3/s [10,300 cfs]) and maximum withdrawal (3.4 m3

/s [120 cfs]), the removal

rate would be 1 percent of the drift organisms, for a maximum of 2 percent for both units. The

staff concluded that this would have an insignificant effect on the drift organisms, aquatic

community, and resident fish in the vicinity of VEGP Units 1 and 2 (NRC 1985). A similar

estimate could be applied to entrainment for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 CWIS because

of the similarity in design for the CWISs. The assumption of a uniform distribution can be

compared to data from Paller et al. (1986), which found a uniform distribution of larvae in

August 2008 5-31 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

relation to depth in the Savannah River, although egg densities were higher at the bottom of the

water column than they were at the top. Because of the presence of a wier wall in the intake

canal, the assumptions of a uniform distribution of drift organisms and 100 percent mortality of

entrained biota are conservative and appropriate for Units 3 and 4. Based on the surface-water

withdrawals for only VEGP Units 3 and 4 given in Table 5-1, an estimate of 0.9 to 3.4 percent

removal would be appropriate depending on the flow conditions and removal rate.

Studies have been performed that looked at entrainment rates for reactor facilities at the

Savannah River Site. Between 1982 and 1985, ichthyoplankton studies occurred between

rkm 47.2 and 301.1 (RM 29.3 and 187.1) and in intake canals and mouths of three creeks along

the Savannah River Site (Paller et al. 1986). During these four years, it was estimated that

between 8.3 percent and 12.3 percent of the ichthyoplankton that drifted past the canals were

entrained. However, there are significant differences between the Savannah River Site intakes

and the existing and proposed intakes at the VEGP site. First, the volume of water withdrawn is

greater at the Savannah River Site, 11.2 m3/s (395 cfs) each for K-reactor and L-reactor intakes

at full power (Paller 1992). This is about three times the anticipated water withdrawal rate of the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. Second, the intake velocity at the Savannah River Site intakes

is calculated at 38 cm/s (1.25 ft/s) (McFarlane et al. 1978), which is 2.5 times as great as for the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4.

Based on the small percentage of water withdrawn, the design of the cooling intake canal and

structure, the significantly greater larval densities in the oxbows, as opposed to the straighter

part of the river at the location of the VEGP site, the typically high fecundity of most species

inhabiting rivers, and the high natural mortality rates of eggs and larvae, the staff finds that the

impacts to the fish of the Savannah River from entrainment due to the operation of the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be minor.

As indicated in Section 2.7.2.3, impingement studies are currently being conducted at the VEGP

Units 1 and 2 intake structures to qualitatively identify and enumerate fish impingement rates.

Impingement monitoring was initiated in March of 2008 at the VEGP Units 1 and 2 and is

anticipated to continue for a year. The study consists of sampling for two 12-hour sampling

periods (night and day) every two weeks. One hundred percent of the material washed from the

intake screens over one full day is examined. Preliminary results based on 6 days of sampling

of the impingement monitoring program for VEGP Units 1 and 2 collected a total of 25 aquatic

organisms, representing 15 species in 9 taxonomic families. The rate of impingement from this

small sample is approximately four aquatic organisms per day for the combined operation of

both units (Southern 2008c).

In addition, a site visit to the VEGP Units 1 and 2 on March 8, 2007 included an investigation of

the VEGP intake and involved an examination of the traveling screens, the screen wash system,

the debris trough that collects and channels debris washed from the screens, and the collection

debris basket as documented in a trip report (NRC 2007a). Southern staff indicated that the

NUREG-1872 5-32 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

screen wash collection basket had been cleaned about 2-3 times each of the past two years

and no fish were seen. 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, citing specifically fish kills or impingement events at the plant. To date, no such report

has been submitted for VEGP Units 1 and 2.

Based on the planned low-through-screen intake velocity, the use of closed-cycle cooling, the

design of the intake canal, and the preliminary data from the impingement study at VEGP Units

1 and 2, the staff concludes that impacts from impingement of fish for the proposed VEGP Units

3 and 4 would be minor.

5.4.2.3 Aquatic Thermal Impacts

The effluent discharge from the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be directly into the

Savannah River. Section 5.3.3.1 discusses the location and design of the discharge piping. It

also discusses the results of the staff's thermal impact assessment using 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 river conditions

(e.g., minimum river temperatures, maximum discharge temperatures), the maximum width of

the curved 2.8°C (50F) isotherm is 4.6 m (15 ft). At the location of the discharge outfall, the river

is approximately 95.1 m (312 ft) wide at Drought Level 3 flow rate. The maximum distance that

the 2.8 0C (50F) above ambient isotherm was estimated to occur was 29.6 m (97 ft) downstream

of the outfall pipe. Under average flow conditions, the plume is significantly smaller. Based on

the calculations, the staff has determined that the size of the thermal plume from the proposed

effluent discharge is small in comparison to the width of the Savannah River at the VEGP site

(see Figure 5-1). The location and design of the discharge would not impede fish passage up

and down the river. Fish and other organisms in the river would likely avoid the elevated

temperatures. They can move through this part of the river unencumbered by any structures or

physical features that would retain them in the plume.

Another factor related to thermal discharges that may affect aquatic biota is cold shock. Cold

shock occurs when aquatic organisms that have been acclimated to warm water, such as fish in

a power plant's discharge canal, are exposed to a sudden temperature decrease. This

sometimes occurs when single-unit power plants shut down suddenly-in winter. Cold shock

mortalities at U.S. nuclear power plants are relatively rare and typically involve small numbers of

fish (NRC 1996). It is less likely to occur at a multiple-unit plant, because the temperature

decrease from shutting down one unit is moderated by the heated discharge from the units that

continue to operate. It also is less of a factor when the discharge is to a river where the volume

of the discharge in comparison to the flow of the river is very small, as is the case at the

VEGP site.

August 2008 5-33 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Neither Asiatic clams (Corbicula fluminea), nor any other invasive species has been observed to

have increased in numbers in the vicinity of the thermal plume operated by VEGP Units 1 and 2.

Therefore, no large growths of invasive nuisance organisms are anticipated from the thermal

plume for the proposed units.

Based on this analysis of the potential for thermal impacts to the aquatic ecosystem of the

Savannah River, the staff has reviewed the impacts to the aquatic environment in the vicinity of

the site. The staff concludes that the impacts to aquatic organisms from thermal discharges

from the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be minor.

5.4.2.4 Chemical Impacts

Another discharge-related impact involves the chemical treatment of the cooling water. The ER

indicates that chemicals, including biocides, would be added to the cooling tower basins to

control scaling, corrosion and solids (Southern 2008a). Biocides would not be injected at the

intake structure (NRC 2007b). Biofouling would be controlled using chlorination and/or other

treatment methods in the cooling water system cooling tower basin. This decision was based

on the operational experience of the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 intake structure. The

biofouling control in the make-up water pipeline is handled by maintaining an appropriate

velocity to prevent the attachment of the biofouling species of concern to.the piping (Southern

2007a).

Operation of the cooling towers would be based on four cycles of concentration, which means

that the total dissolved solids in the make-up water would be concentrated four times before

being discharged. Thus, the levels of solids and organics in the cooling tower blowdown would

be approximately four times higher than ambient or upstream concentrations. The CWS

chemical treatment would be similar to that for the existing units. The final plant discharge from

the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be composed of circulating and service water

blowdown and other site wastewater streams, including sanitary waste, miscellaneous lowvolume waste, and treated liquid radwaste (Southern 2008a). Blowdown from the cooling

towers would be discharged to a common blowdown sump to provide retention time for settling

of solids or to be treated, if required to remove biocide residuals before the water is discharged

to the river (Southern 2008a). Calculations performed by Southern and confirmed by the staff

(Section 5.3.3.1) give an estimated in-river dilution factor of 60 to 120 during periods of average

Savannah River discharge, depending on the time of the year and river flow rate. The dilution

rate calculated by the staff under more conservative conditions for the edge of the 2.80C (50F)

above ambient isotherm was 10, as discussed in Section 5.3.3.1.

Table 5-4 provides a list of the water treatment chemicals, their use, the concentration that is

anticipated to be discharged from proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4, and the toxicity data from the

Material Safety Data Sheets for each of the chemicals that will be discharged to the Savannah

River. This list is the same as those present in the final discharge for VEGP Units 1 and 2.

NUREG-1872 5-34 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-4. Chemical discharges to the Savannah River from Proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4

Concentration at

Chemical(a) Usela) Discharge Point(a) Toxicity(b)

Nalco Sure-Cool 1336 Corrosion control for yellow metals 2 ppm 23.7 ppm LC50(c)

(hazardous substance -

sodium tolytriazole)

Nalco 3DT177 (polymer) Corrosion control for mild steel 10-11 ppm > 5000 ppm LC50 for

(hazardous substance - inland silverside

phosphoric acid) (Minidia beryllina)

Nalco 3DT190 (polymer) Dispersant 6-7 ppm 948 ppm LC50 for

fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

with similar product

Nalco 7905 Dechlorination agent 25% excess to halogen No toxicity studies have

(hazardous substance - radical, so max is been conducted. This

ammonium bisulfite) (0.75 ppm x 0.25) = product'is not a sensitizer

0.1875 ppm or listed as a carcinogen.

Oxidizing biocide as either Control algae and general Neutralized prior to Not applicable

" Liquid sodium hypochlorite biofouling (Asiatic clams) - Twice discharge -

" Liquid sodium bromide per week to achieve 0.2-0.75 ppm Concentration

activated with sodium free available oxidant and effectively is zero.

hypochlorite continuously over a period of 120

" Stabilized bromine hours at 0.5 ppm free available

oxidant to control Asiatic clams

Sodium hypochlorite (liquid) Sanitary waste disinfection Unknown (held in Not applicable

325,000 gallon

wastewater retention

basin prior to discharge

so that no chlorine

residual remains in the

final effluent).

(a) NRC 2007d

(b) Southern 2007c

(c) LC50 - Lethal Concentration 50 is the concentration of a chemical that kills 50% of the sample population.

These chemicals include those that are used in the cooling towers, the heat exchangers, cooling

systems, and sewage treatment. The concentrations in the discharge are significantly lower

than the LC50 (the concentration that kills 50% of the sample population) obtained from the

Material Safety Data Sheets (Southern 2007c). The water flow from the Savannah River would

further dilute the concentration of these chemicals.

The use of chemicals in the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 is regulated by the GDNR, as set forth

in an NPDES permit, which is granted by. The chemical concentrations at the outfall for the

existing units would meet the NPDES limits (Southern 2008a). No impacts to the aquatic

ecology of the Savannah River from these chemicals have been observed. Southern would be

required to obtain an NPDES permitfrom GDNR prior to operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4. The

NPDES permit will specify discharge limits for the various water treatment chemicals that are

August 2008 5-35 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

protective of the aquatic environment. The staff has determined that the impacts from the

chemical discharges to the Savannah River would be minimal.

5.4.2.5 Physical Impacts from Discharge

Some localized bottom scouring is anticipated in the immediate vicinity of the end of the

discharge pipe (Southern 2008a). A bathymetric study (Southern 2008a) demonstrated that

there was a 0.9- to 1.5-m- (3- to 5-ft)-deep trough immediately downstream of the existing

VEGP Units 1 and 2 discharge structure, which is presumed to have been caused by the

discharge scouring the river bottom. The bathymetric study shows no evidence of this

depression 22.9 m (75 ft) further downstream; thus indicating that the scouring is restricted to

asmall area. Southern assumed that the extent of bottom scouring associated with the

operation of the new discharge would be similar to that for the existing units, resulting in an area

of several hundred square feet that is unsuitable for benthic organisms such as larval aquatic

insects or mussels (Southern 2008a). Southern has committed to the placement of rip-rap

around the discharge point to reduce potential erosion from the discharge jet pipe (Southern

2008a). This would result in impacts to a very small fraction of the entire benthic habitat of the

Savannah River, thus there would be a minimal, if any, impact on benthic organisms.

Based on this analysis of the potential for physical impacts to the aquatic ecosystem from the

discharge of cooling water to the Savannah River, the staff reviewed the impacts to the aquatic

environment in the vicinity of the site. The staff concludes that the physical impacts from

thermal discharges from the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be minor.

5.4.2.6 State-Listed Species

Two Georgia State-listed species occur in the vicinity of the VEGP site. The robust redhorse

(Moxostoma robustum) is found in the Savannah River. Spawning areas for this species have

only been reported upstream of the VEGP site. The nearest known spawning area is at rkm

284 (RM 176) located about rkm 40 (25 RM) upstream of the VEGP site (Grabowski and Isely

2007). The description of the spawning area (a mid-channel gravel bar) discussed in Section

2.7.2.1 does not fit the description of the river bottom adjacent to the VEGP site. The eggs of

the robust redhorse develop within the gravel and the larval fish remain there for approximately

7 days after hatching. The adults are observed to stay primarily within the main channel as they

move upstream or downstream. High-water events were the only times that radio-tagged fish

were located outside the main river channel (Grabowski and Isely 2006). As a result, the

potential for impact to the State Listed robust redhorse from entrainment, impingement, and

thermal or chemical discharges would be minor.

NUREG-1872 5-36 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

The Georgia state endangered Atlantic pigtoe mussel (Fusconaia masont), tentatively identified

in surveys by the USFWS (The Catena Group 2007) as being in the Savannah River, were

located at a considerable distance upstream of the VEGP site (84 rkms (52 RMs) and thus,

would not be adversely affected by operational activities at the VEGP site.

The Savannah darter (Etheostoma fricksium), a Georgia species of concern with no legal

protected status may at times enter the Savannah River; however, its preferred habitat is

shallow creeks such as Beaverdam Creek. As a result, it is unlikely to be affected by operation

of VEGP Units 3 and 4.

Nine South Carolina mussel species of concern are known to occur in the Savannah River near

the VEGP site (Table 2-9). Potential impacts during operations could include entrainment of

glochidia (larval form), entrainment or impingement of the host fish larvae, and impact to

individuals that are in the discharge plume from thermal discharges or chemicals. A portion of

the glochidia along the stretch of the Savannah River near the VEGP site may be entrained

along with river water into the Units 3 and 4 intake structure. However, the glochidia of most

freshwater mussels are obligate parasites of fish, and once they attach to the gills or fins of a

fish they are less susceptible to the impacts of entrainment. As discussed in Section 5.3.3.1,

the thermal plume encompasses a small part of the river. Thus, the area of impact for thermal

or chemical discharges in the cooling water to any mussels in the vicinity of the intake is small in

comparison to the remainder of the river. The staff has determined that the impacts to the

mussels in the vicinity of the VEGP site as a result of entrainment, and of chemical and thermal

discharges would be minor.

5.4.2.7 Transmission Line Right-of-Way Maintenance Activities

Maintenance activities along the Thomson-Vogtle 500-kV transmission project could lead to

periodic temporary impacts on the waterways being crossed. However, it is assumed that the

same vegetation management practices currently employed by GPC for the existing VEGP

Units 1 and 2 facility transmission line rights-of-way would be applied to the proposed new

500-kV Thomson-Vogtle transmission line right-of-way (Southern 2008a). GPC practices and

procedures were developed to prevent impacts to surface waters and wetlands, so that impacts

to aquatic ecosystems from operation and maintenance of transmission lines would be small.

GPC's Routine Line Maintenance Procedures call for GPC personnel to check transmission line

rights-of-way at least three times a year for encroachment, erosion problems or evidence of

unauthorized logging or construction activity adjacent to the transmission lines. Identifying and

correcting these problems would benefit aquatic communities in down-gradient streams and

wetlands. GPC has also directed its maintenance crews to avoid environmentally sensitive

areas, including spawning areas and endangered species habitats (Southern 2008a). However,

no Federal or State-listed aquatic organisms are anticipated to be in the transmission line rightsof-way, thus there are no impacts anticipated to important aquatic species. The staff concludes

that the impacts of transmission line right-of-way maintenance activities on aquatic resources

August 2008 5-37 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

would not adversely impact aquatic ecosystems and that no mitigation beyond that described

above is warranted.

5.4.2.8 Aquatic Monitoring During Operation

Southern does not plan to perform any formal monitoring of the aquatic ecosystems during

operations. Its basis for this decision is that "...the operation of the new intake and discharge

structures would have small impacts on the water quantity or quality" (Southern 2007b).

5.4.2.9 Summary of Aquatic Impacts

Based on a number of factors given in Section 5.4.2.2, including the use of a closed-cycle

cooling system and an intake with a design velocity through the screens of less than 15 cm/s

(0.5 ft/s), the staff concludes that impacts on aquatic ecosystems due to impingement and

entrainment would likely be minor.

The staff concludes that the impacts to the aquatic ecosystem from the thermal discharge from

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 are also likely to be minor based on the size of the thermal plume

in relationship to the size of the Savannah River. The staff concludes that the chemical impacts

from the discharge would be minor based on the dilution factors and experience with VEGP

Units 1 and 2. The staff also concludes that the physical impacts of the discharge would be

minor based on experience with the existing units and Southern's commitment to place rip-rap

around the discharge point to reduce potential erosion from the discharge pipe. Impacts of

transmission line right-of-way maintenance activities on aquatic ecosystems would also be

minor.

For additional conservatism, the staff also considered the impacts to aquatic biota in the

Savannah River at two river flow rates below the Drought Level 3 values analyzed above. Even

assuming river flows of 3000 cfs and 2000 cfs, rather than the Drought Level 3 case of 3800 cfs

river flow, the percentage of water withdrawn based on the maximum withdrawal rate from the

Savannah River due to the operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be 4.3% at 3000 cfs and

6.5% at 2000 cfs.

At river flows of 3000 and 2000 cfs, the river stage and available habitat for aquatic organisms

would be reduced, which would concentrate aquatic biota populations, and through-screen

velocities at the intake would increase, likely resulting in some minimal increase in impingement.

The lower flows of 3000 and 2000 cfs would result in an increased fraction of water flowing past

the site being drawn into the cooling water system. Accordingly, entrainment would increase

proportionately for both the 3000 and 2000 cfs river flow cases. However, both the increased

percentage of organisms entrained and the possible increase in impingement mortality are

unlikely to have any persistent long term impacts on populations in the river, because the low

flow conditions would likely be temporary and the characteristics of the river in the vicinity of the

NUREG-1872 5-38 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

site are not biologically unique. Because of the small amount of water discharged in relation to

the river flow and the resulting dilution of the discharge plume, the effects on aquatic biota in the

river from the thermal and chemical discharges from VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the 3000 and 2000

cfs river flow rates, even at maximum withdrawal rates, would not result in impacts to aquatic

biota that are significantly different from those analyzed for VEGP operation at Drought Level 3.

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised the NRC staff (Southern 2007f) of

updates to its original analysis based on changes in flow rates between Revision 15 and

Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD. These changes included revised, increased estimates of

evaporative loss and make-up flow. The maximum surface water withdrawal for Vogtle Units 3

and 4 would increase by approximately 0.21 m3s (7.5 cfs).

The staff evaluated the effect of this change on the staffs analysis presented above, which uses

the DCD Revision 15 surface water withdrawal values currently in Southern's ER (Southern

2008a). The staff determined that this change would result in an increase in the maximum

withdrawal from approximately 3.4 percent in the present analysis to 3.6 percent of the river flow

at Drought Level 3. Similarly, at a river flow rate of 3000 cfs, the revised maximum withdrawal

rate would be 4.5 percent, and for 2000 cfs it would be 6.8 percent. Accordingly, because the

changes identified by Southern would result in only a minor increase in consumptive water use

under Drought Level 3 conditions - with only minor increases expected in the entrainment and

impingement rates, the size of the thermal plume, and chemical impacts - and because the

impact level analyzed for the Revision 15 values was not near a known impact threshold, the

staff determined that these changes would not adversely affect the aquatic community

inhabiting the Savannah River. Furthermore, even under low flow conditions of 3000 and 2000

cfs, the increased withdrawals identified by Southern in Revision 16 would result in sufficiently

'small increases in maximum water withdrawal and in associated thermal and chemical impacts,

that it similarly would not alter the staffs impact assessment.

Therefore, the staff determined that neither the low flows of 3000 and 2000 cfs, nor the potential

increased surface water withdrawals associated with Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, would

affect the staff's conclusion that impacts to aquatic biota from operation of proposed Units 3 and

4 would be minor.

Therefore, the staff concludes that the overall impact on aquatic resources of operating the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 and the new transmission line would be SMALL and that no

mitigation beyond that described above is warranted.

August 2008 5-39 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.4.3 Federally Listed Species

5.4.3.1 Terrestrial Species

The VEGP Site

No Federally listed threatened and endangered species are known to occur at the VEGP site,

with the exception of the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). There are no areas

designated as critical habitat for threatened and endangered species in the vicinity of the

VEGP site.

The American alligator is classified as "threatened based on the similarity of appearance" to the

American crocodile (52 FR 21059). The alligator is no longer biologically imperiled in Georgia.

Alligators appear to be relatively common in the Savannah River near the VEGP site and

currently occur onsite. The alligator population near the VEGP site is not expected to be

adversely affected by operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4.

The wood stork (Mycteria americana) has been seen within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the VEGP site in

the Savannah River Swamp. However, the closest wood stork colony is about 45 km (27 mi)

from the site. The wood stork may occasionally use suitable habitat on the VEGP site for

foraging or could use it for roosting. However, this species is highly mobile, and any impacts

associated with the operation of Units 3 and 4 on the VEGP site would be negligible.

The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), relict trillium (Trillium reliquum), and the

flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) are not known to occur within 16 km (10 mi) of

the VEGP site. Though suitable habitat may exist for these species on the VEGP site, this

habitat is not likely to be affected by operation activities. It is unlikely there is suitable habitat for

the smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) and Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) onsite.

Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts on these species associated with operation of the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4.

Operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4 would have minimal impacts on the red-cockaded

woodpecker, wood stork, relict trillium, smooth coneflower, Canby's dropwort, American

alligator, or the flatwoods salamander. Based on this review, the staff concluded the impacts on

terrestrial Federally listed threatened and endangered species from operation of the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be SMALL, and no mitigation is warranted.

Proposed 500-kV Transmission Line

The exact route of the proposed 500-kV transmission line has not yet been determined.

However, the proposed transmission line would be located within the RDC. Routing alternatives

within this right-of-way are currently being evaluated by GPC and Southern (GPC 2007). No

Federally listed species have been documented to occur within the RDC. Populations of

NUREG-1872 5-40 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Canby's dropwort and Georgia aster are within 16 km (10 mi) of the RDC. The wood stork,

red-cockaded woodpecker, relict trillium, smooth coneflower, and flatwoods salamander are not

known to occur within 16 km (10 mi) of RDC, but have the potential to occur in counties that

may be crossed by the transmission line. GPC maintenance practices include identifying all

red-cockaded woodpecker colony areas within 3.2 km (2 mi) of maintenance work around the

activity areas during non-breeding periods. GPC maintenance practices include identifying all

active nesting wood stork colony locations in the State with a focus on the rookeries that are

within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a transmission line. In areas within 230 m (750 ft) of an active rookery,

GPC conducts mowing during the non-nesting season (Southern 2007a).

Based on Southern's past performance and established maintenance practices and procedures,

the staff has determined the impacts to Federally listed species would be SMALL. Any additional

mitigative actions or BMPs would be dependent on the species, exact location and nature of the

environmental impacts associated with operation of the transmission line right-of-way.

5.4.3.2 Aquatic Federally Listed Species

This section describes the potential impacts that operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4

could have on the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), the only Federally listed aquatic

species occurring in the vicinity of the VEGP site. This species was identified through

correspondence with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (NMFS 2006). A Biological

Assessment describing the staffs findings was prepared and sent to the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Impacts

to shortnose sturgeon could occur as a result of entrainment, impingement, thermal discharges,

or chemical discharges.

As discussed in Section 2.7.2.2, shortnose sturgeon are known to be in the Savannah River in

the vicinity of the site. Suspected spawning grounds are located downstream of the VEGP site

at rkm 179 to 190 (RM 111 to 120) (Hall et al. 1991) and rkm 208 to 228 (RM 129 to 142)

(Collins and Smith 1993), or upstream of the site at rkm 275 to 278 (RM 171 to 173) (Hall et al.

1991). Twelve larval shortnose sturgeon were collected in the vicinity of the Savannah River

Site during ichthyoplankton surveys conducted between 1982 and 1985 (Paller et al. 1986),

indicating that they are present in the Savannah River adjacent to the VEGP site. However, the

only shortnose sturgeon eggs or larvae that potentially could be subject to entrainment at the

VEGP Units 3 and 4 intake are those from the upstream spawning location.

Because sturgeon eggs are demersal, and adhere to hard substrate such as rocks or

submerged logs (Dadswell et al. 1984), they are less likely to be entrained into the cooling water

system than eggs of other species. In addition, as discussed in Section 2.7.2.2, larvae and

early juveniles tend to initially stay near the bottom and seek cover. NMFS (1998) reported that

larvae collected in rivers were found in the deepest water, usually within the channel (NMFS

1998). These larvae would be less likely to enter the intake canal and become entrained.

Collins et al. (2002) indicates the nursery habitat for juvenile shortnose sturgeon in the

August 2008 5-41 NUREG-1 872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Savannah River is in the lower river approximately from rkm 31.5 to 47.5 (RM 19.57 to 29.52),

well distant from the VEGP site.

The design and operation of the CWIS (as discussed in Section 5.4.2.2) including the lowthrough-screen intake velocity, are not likely to adversely impact shortnose sturgeon. The area

affected by thermal discharge is small in comparison to the width of the Savannah River at the

VEGP site, thus not providing a barrier to the up- or down-river migration of shortnose sturgeon.

In addition, the quantities of chemicals to be discharged into the Savannah River from proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4 are of low enough concentration and would be significantly diluted so as to

not cause an adverse impact to nearby sturgeon.

No impacts are anticipated to the shortnose sturgeon from maintenance of the transmission

lines, because the lines do not cross the Savannah River. Consequently, operation of the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 is not likely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon. The

impacts to the sturgeon would be considered SMALL and there is no need for additional

mitigation.

For reasons described in Section 5.4.2.9, even under conditions of lower river flow (3000 cfs or

2000 cfs) than was analyzed for Drought Level 3 (3800 cfs), the staff does not foresee long term

adverse impacts to the Savannah River shortnose sturgeon population due to VEGP water

withdrawals. It is unlikely that the lower river flows would result in increased sturgeon mortality

due to impingement or thermal or chemical discharges. The low river flows could marginally

increase the loss of sturgeon larvae produced upstream of VEGP due to increased entrainment

and could affect the suspected downstream spawning area by further reducing the already low

river flows. However, as noted in Section 5.4.2.9, such low flow conditions are expected to be

only temporary and flows in the river could be increased during the spawning period. The staff

does not anticipate adverse impacts in connection with potential small increases in river

withdrawals associated with Revision 16 of the AP1 000 DCD. The changes in water use and

effluent discharge values associated with Revision 16 would be small in proportion to those

already analyzed. Accordingly, impacts to shortnose sturgeon should not significantly differ

from those described above.

5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

The socioeconomic impacts from operating two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the

VEGP site and from the activities and demands of the operating workforce on the surrounding

region include the potential impacts on individual communities, the surrounding region, and

minority and low-income populations. Unless otherwise specified, the primary source for

information in this section is provided by Southern's ER (Southern 2008a).

NUREG-1872 5-42 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.5.1 Physical Impacts

Potential physical impacts include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and visual

intrusions. The NRC staff believes these impacts would be mitigated through operations of the

facility in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental regulations and

therefore would not significantly affect the region surrounding VEGP. The following sections

assess the potential operations-related physical impacts of two new units on specific segments

of the population, the plant, and nearby communities.

5.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public

There are no residential areas located within the site boundary. The area within 16 km (10 mi)

of the VEGP site is predominately rural and characterized by agricultural and forested land, with

only 3500 residents (see Section 2.8.1 of this EIS). No significant industrial or commercial

facilities other than VEGP exist or are planned for this area.

Burke County is part of the Augusta-Aiken Interstate Air Quality Control Region, which is

classified as in attainment with all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)(a)

(40 CFR 81.114). Once the two new reactors have begun operation, they would not produce

any known air pollutant, except for (1) the periodic testing and operation of VEGP's standby

diesel generators and auxiliary power systems, (2) commuter vehicle dust and exhaust,

(3) odors from operations, and (4) operations-based noise. Certificates to operate the diesel

generators require that air emissions comply with all applicable regulations and the staff expects

the impact of the operations of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 on air quality would be small.

Access road maintenance and speed limit enforcement would reduce the amount of dust

generated by the commuting workforce. Southern uses a staggered shift schedule for its

operations workforce, which also helps mitigate the effects of vehicle exhaust. During normal

plant operation, the new units would not use chemicals in amounts that would generate odors

exceeding Federal and State limits. Southern plans to use BMPs to control the odors emitted by

chemicals and other sources during routine outages and therefore the staff believes the addition

of two new reactors to the site would have only a SMALL impact on workers and the local public

and would not require additional mitigation. Air-quality impacts of plant operation are discussed

in more detail in Section 5.2 of this EIS.

The proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would produce noise from the operation of pumps,

transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard equipment. The noise levels would be

controlled in accordance with applicable local regulations. Most equipment would be located

inside structures, reducing the outdoor noise level. Southern would use single natural draft

cooling towers for each Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor at the VEGP site to remove excess heat

(a) Areas of the United States having air quality as good as or better than the NAAQS are designated by

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as "attainment areas."

August 2008 5-43 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

from the CWS. Natural and mechanical draft cooling towers emit broadband noise, which

Southern expects to be greater than background levels. Noise levels below 60 to 65 dBA are

not considered to be significant because these levels are not sufficient to cause hearing loss

(NRC 1996). Ambient noise heard by recreational users on the Savannah River or nearby

Yuchi Wildlife Management Area (WMA) under normal conditions includes some noise from the

operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2. The maximum sound level generated by the operation of the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the site boundary would be approximately 30 to 40 dBA and

would not affect the usage of nearby recreational areas and would not require mitigation.

Therefore, the staff determined the noise-related effect on workers, residents, and recreational

users of nearby areas would be SMALL and no mitigation would be required.

5.5.1.2 Buildings

Operations activities would not affect offsite buildings. Except for VEGP site structures, no

other industrial, commercial, or residential structures would be affected by the operation of

VEGP Units 3 and 4. Consequently, the staff determined the operations impacts to onsite and

offsite buildings would be SMALL and not require mitigation.

5.5.1.3 Roads

Roads within the vicinity of the VEGP site would experience an increase in traffic at the

beginning and the end of each operations shift and the beginning and end of each outage

support shift. Commuter traffic would be controlled by speed limits. The access roads to the

VEGP site would be paved. Maintaining good road conditions and enforcing appropriate speed

limits would reduce the noise level and particulate matter generated by the workforce

commuting to and from the VEGP site. Therefore, the staff determined the road-related impacts

from noise and dust to workers, residents, and other users of the roads within the vicinity of the

proposed site would be SMALL and would not require mitigation.

5.5.1.4 Aesthetics

The nearest residence is more than 1.6 km (1 mi) from the site of the proposed new units,

separated by forested land such that the proposed units would not be clearly visible from its

location. The proposed intake structure would be clearly visible from the Savannah River, and

the new 180-m (600-ft) towers and the top of the new containment domes would be visible from

some locations on the river, as well as their vapor plumes, which would resemble cumulus

clouds. The plumes would be most noticeable in the winter months and may extend more than

10 km (6 mi) from the site. Section 5.2 of this EIS describes these impacts in more detail.

Given the site has already been affected by the presence of two reactors and cooling towers,

the staff believes the marginal aesthetic impact of the new reactors and cooling towers would be

SMALL and would not require mitigation.

NUREG-1872 5-44 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Once the new units are operational, the power would be transmitted via new 500-kV

transmission lines. The new transmission line right-of-way would be routed northwest of the

VEGP site to the Thomson-Vogtle Substation northwest of Augusta, Georgia. The new right-ofway would be approximately 46 m (150 ft) wide and 100 km (60 mi) long (Southern 2007a), and

would require approximately 390 metal-lattice towers (Southern 2007a). MODERATE aesthetic

impacts are expected due to the presence of this new transmission line and right-of-way.

5.5.1.5 Summary of Physical Impacts

Based on the information provided by Southern, staff interviews with local public officials, and

NRC's own independent review, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of operation of the

proposed new units would be SMALL, except for aesthetics, which would be MODERATE along

the transmission lines. Thus, additional mitigation measures beyond those identified by

Southern are not warranted.

5.5.2 Demography

Based on U.S. Census bureau estimates,* approximately 670,000 people lived within an 80-km

(50-mi) radius of the VEGP site in 2000 and this population is estimated to grow annually by an

average rate of 2.1 percent between 2000 and 2090, increasing the population to approximately

4.5 million in 2090 (see Table G-3 in Appendix G).(a) Southern anticipates employing

812 operations workers at the new units (Southern 2008b). Although it is likely that some

employees would already reside within a reasonable commuting distance to the plant, to

estimate the maximum demographic impacts from operations, the staff assumed all of the new

operations employees and their families would migrate into the region from other locations. The

average household size in Georgia and South Carolina are 2.65 and 2.53, respectively. The

staff used the average Georgia household size (2.65 persons) to determine that the increase in

the operational workforce of 812 would increase the population in the 80-km (50-mi) region by

approximately 2152 people.

The staff assumed the distribution of new operations workers and their families would resemble

the residential distribution of employees operating VEGP Units 1 and 2. Therefore,

approximately 80 percent would likely reside in Burke (about 350 people), Columbia

(732 people), and Richmond Counties (560 people) (see Table 2-15). For each of these

counties, the increase in population would constitute less than 2 percent of the 2000

populations. The staff assumes the remaining 20 percent of operations employees and their

families would be scattered throughout the other 23 counties within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of

the VEGP site, and would represent a small fraction of each community's population. Table 5-5

displays the assumed distribution of new workers in tabular form.

(a) Further detail regarding the population projection methodology used for the sector population analysis

is provided in Section 2.5 of Southern's ER (Southern 2008a).

August 2008 5-45 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Based on the information provided by Southern, NRC staff interviews with local public officials,

and NRC's own independent review, the staff concludes that the demographic impacts of

operation of the new unit or units at the VEGP site would be SMALL.

5.5.3 Economic Impacts to the Community

The impacts of station operation on the local and regional economy are dependent on the

region's current and projected economy and population. Although future impacts cannot be

predicted with certainty, some insight can be obtained for the projected economy and population

by consulting with county planners and population data. The economic impacts over a 40-year

period of station operation are qualitatively discussed. The primary economic impacts from

employing 812 new workers to operate the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be related to

taxes, housing, and increased demand for goods and services, with the largest impact

associated with plant property tax revenues (discussed in 5.5.3.2).

Table 5-5. Potential Increase in Resident Population Resulting from Operating the Proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4

Percent of Current VEGP Units 3 and Year 2000 Percentage

VEGP Site Workforce 4-Related Increase U.S. Census Increase in

County by Location in Population Population Resident Population

Columbia 34 732 89,288 0.82

Richmond 26 560 199,775 0.28

Burke 20 430 22,243 1.93

Screven 7 151 15,374 0.98

Aiken 4 86 142,552 0.06

Jenkins 2 43 8,575 0.50

Jefferson 2 43 17,266 0.25

Emanuel 1 21 21,837 0.10

Bulloch 1 21 55,983 0.04

Other 19 Counties 3 65 97,107 0.07

Total 100.0 2152

Source of resident locations: Southern 2008a

Source of Year 2000 U.S. Census Population: USCB 2007

5.5.3.1 Economy

The staff estimated the potential social and economic impacts on the surrounding region as a

result of operating the proposed two new reactors at the VEGP site, assuming a 40-year

operating license. Social and economic impacts would occur from additional operation

workforce jobs, tax revenue impacts, and increased population because of in-migrating workers

and their families.

Section 2.8 of this EIS presents a detailed description of local and regional employment trends.

The 80-km (50 mi) region of interest has a relatively diverse and stable economy, with a steady

NUREG-1872 5-46 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

growth in the number of jobs for Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties in the last decade.

The 812 new jobs at VEGP would represent less than 1 percent of the total current workforce in

the three county region (Burke-Columbia-Richmond). However, in Burke County, where the

plant is located, the 812 additional jobs currently represents a 8.7 percent increase in the total

number of jobs. Burke County would be the most impacted, as it would likely receive the largest

population and workforce increase as a percentage of its base population and workforce, and it

would also receive the substantial property tax benefits (discussed in 5.5.3.2 of this chapter).

Outside of Burke County, the impacts become diffuse as a result of interacting with the larger

economic base of the surrounding counties and the city of Augusta.

The operation of two new units at the VEGP site would also result in roughly doubling the

workforce needed for scheduled outages. VEGP Units 1 and 2 each undergo a scheduled

refueling outage every 18 months. Once the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 are operational, the

refueling outages would occur at least annually, and sometimes semiannually, which would

require as many as 1000 (maximum estimate) additional short-term (3- to 5-week) contract

employees to perform equipment maintenance, refueling, and special outage projects at the

VEGP site. Most of the outage workers would stay in local hotels, rent rooms in local homes, or

bring travel trailers so they can stay as close as possible to the VEGP site. In the town of

Waynesboro, which is the closest town to the VEGP site, all available hotel rooms are filled to

capacity during outages. This would now likely occur twice as often, increasing hotel and

restaurant revenues, as well as other retail establishments that provide services to these

temporary workers. Outside of Burke County, the impacts become more diffuse because of

each area's larger economic base with more available hotel rooms and temporary housing.

The overall impact on the economy of the region from operating two new units at the VEGP site

would be positive. The most pronounced economic impacts would occur in Burke County,

where impacts could be MODERATE, while SMALL positive economic impacts may occur in

other nearby counties within commuting distance of the plant.

5.5.3.2 Taxes

Sales, Use, Income, and Corporate Taxes

To the extent the new operations employees would move into the area surrounding the

proposed site from other states, the counties within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the plant in

Georgia and South Carolina would experience an increase in sales and use tax, and income tax

revenues; however, these tax payments go to general State funds, and the marginal tax

revenue impact at the regional level would be negligible.

GPC would also pay the State of Georgia a corporate income tax on the profits received from

the sale of electricity generated by the new units, and the tax revenue impact on the region from

increased sales, use, income, and corporate taxes would not be noticeable at a regional level.

August 2008 5-47 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Property Taxes

One of the primary sources of economic impact related to the operation of new units would be

property taxes assessed on the facility. Currently Southern's tax payments represent 80 to

82 percent of the total property taxes received by Burke County (see Table 2-16). Property

taxes that would be paid by the co-owners for the two new units during operations depend on

many factors, most of which are unknown at this time, including future millage rates. Southern

made simplifying assumptions to develop an estimate of tax payments based on the estimated

value of the reactors. Table 5-6(a) provides an estimate of the tax payments for the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4 throughout the life of the plant.

Table 5-6. Range of Estimated Annual Property Taxes Paid to Burke County Generated by the

Proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4

Estimated Range

Years of Operation Lower Range ($) Upper Range ($)

2015-2024 20,000,000 29,000,000

2025-2034 16,000,000 23,000,000

2035-2044 10,000,000 14,000,000

2045-2054 3,500,000 5,000,000

Source: Southern 2008a

In addition to the property taxes paid on the value of the plant itself, Burke, Columbia, and

Richmond Counties could experience an increase in property tax revenues on new homes, if the

influx of workers results in any new residential construction and/or increases in existing home

prices; however, this overall impact would likely be small, since the operations workforce and

their families would only make up a small percentage of the existing population in the region

(see Section 5.5.4.3 of this EIS).

Summary of Tax Impacts

The NRC staff expects tax revenue increases in the form of sales, use, income, and corporate

taxes, because of the operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 and the influx of

operations workforce into the region. This impact, however, is likely to be SMALL at a regional

level. Burke County would experience a LARGE beneficial property tax revenue increase.

(a) These assumptions used to calculate future property taxes on VEGP Units 3 and 4 are detailed in

Southem's ER, Section 5.8.2.2.2. The taxable value is assumed to depreciate throughout the life of

the plant (Southern 2008a)

NUREG-1872 5-48 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.5.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts

Based on the information provided by Southern, NRC staff interviews with local public officials,

and NRC's own independent review of data on the regional economy and taxes, the staff

concludes that the impacts on the regional economy of operating the proposed units at the

VEGP site would be SMALL and beneficial for all counties except Burke County, which would

experience a LARGE beneficial impact under current Georgia tax law.

5.5.4 Infrastructure and Community Services

Infrastructure and community services include transportation, recreation, housing, public

services, and education. The operation of two new units at the VEGP site would impact the

transportation network as the additional workforce uses the local roads to commute to and from

work and possibly additional truck deliveries are made to support operation of the new units.

These same commuters could also potentially impact recreation in the area. As the workforce

in-migrates and settles in the region, there may be impacts on housing, education, and public

sector services.

5.5.4.1 Transportation

Similar to the impacts discussed in Section 4.5.4, the impacts of the two new units' operations

on transportation and traffic would be greatest on the roads of Burke County, particularly River

Road, a two-lane highway that provides the only access to the VEGP site. Beyond River Road,

traffic is disbursed in several directions and capacity increases as the roads approach

Richmond and Columbia Counties; thus, the focus of the impact analysis is on River Road. To

enter the plant, the workforce would use the current access road that has a left turn lane from

River Road.

As discussed in Section 4.5.3 of this EIS, the staff assumed current peak traffic on River Road

is 1200 cars per hour, both directions. The current capacity of River Road is 3200 cars per hour

and there is enough capacity for an additional 2000 passenger cars per hour. The existing

workforce of 890 for VEGP Units 1 and 2 also accesses the VEGP site via River Road. Traffic

congestion would be most noticeable during shift-change, which would occur three times a day.

The number of new operations workers per shift is assumed to be similar, in percentage, to the

current operations workforce. Therefore, during the afternoon shift change, approximately

60 percent of the 812 operations workers would leave the VEGP site while 30 percent would

arrive. Including both existing workforce (operating VEGP Units 1 and 2), and the additional

workforce employed to operate the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4, the peak level number of

vehicles per hour would be approximately 2000 vehicles in both directions (assuming baseline

of 1200 cars per hour), which is still well within the 3200-vehicles-per-hour capacity (Southern

2008a; 2008d).

August 2008 5-49 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

During outages, there could also be as many as 1000 outage workers per unit (divided between

two shifts) for approximately 1 month annually or semiannually, increasing the vehicles on River

Road by approximately 600. During outages, traffic on River Road could be as high as

2600 vehicles per hour, which would noticeably increase congestion on the road, but still remain

within the road's capacity.(a)

To reduce congestion on River Road during the construction phase, Southern would already

have implemented several permanent transportation mitigation measures that would minimize

most bottlenecks, and because the current road network has sufficient capacity to

accommodate the expected increase in traffic, the estimated workforce of 812 persons is

expected to have a SMALL effect on the transportation network in the vicinity.

5.5.4.2 Recreation

A detailed description of local tourism and recreation is provided in Section 2.8. The primary

impacts on recreation would be similar to, but smaller than, those impacts described for the

construction of two new units in Section 4.5.4.2. The impacts on recreation within 80 km (50 mi)

of the VEGP Site are expected to be SMALL.

5.5.4.3 Housing

Section 2.8.2 states there were 4466 vacant rental units and 1997 vacant housing units for sale

in Burke, Richmond, and Columbia Counties in 2000. There is currently enough available

housing to support the maximum influx of workers and their families (2152 total people) into the

region, particularly in Burke, Richmond, and Columbia Counties where most of the workers are

expected to reside. Burke County, which would likely receive the highest percentage of

in-migrating workers relative to the available housing stock, may experience a noticeable

increase in housing demand as well as a possible shift in demand toward relatively higher-value

houses.(') A number of new housing developments currently in the works, however, could

alleviate some of this short-term pressure on housing demand. The overall impact on housing

demand and prices from plant operations over the expected 40-year operation of the plant in the

region would likely be SMALL.

(a) VEGP Units 1 and 2 each have a scheduled outage every 18 months. There would be four as many

outages every 18 months once Units 3 and 4 become operational (Southern 2006b). During outages

plant operation staff and outage workforce are on 12-hour shifts, 24-hours per day and 7 days per

week. The outage shifts are staggered with start/end times between 6-7:00 am and 6-7:00 pm

(Southern 2006a)

(b) General housing outlook based on an interview with Cathy Hawkins of Cox Real Estate, 259 S.

Liberty Street, Waynesboro, Georgia, where the housing market in Burke County was described as

"tight," especially for newer, higher-value homes (October 19, 2006).

NUREG-1872 5-50 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

The VEGP site would need as many as 1000 additional outage workers for a period of 30 to

40 days during each outage to maintain the two new reactors. The outages for the new units

would be staggered with the other units. The temporary outage workers for the existing VEGP

reactors typically stay in area hotels or recreational vehicles dispersed throughout the region;

therefore, no single community would be overburdened by the influx of temporary workers. In

the town of Waynesboro, however, all available hotel rooms are filled to capacity during the

current outages and once the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 become operational, this would

occur twice as often. This influx of temporary workers would not be expected to impact the

permanent housing stock or housing market in the region.

5.5.4.4 Public Services

Water Supply Facilities

The VEGP site does not use water from a municipal system. Instead, the VEGP site relies on a

series of onsite wells to provide potable water to support the operational workforce and

operations of its existing two units. The VEGP site has permits to extract up to 20.8 million L/d

(5.5 MGD) from these wells, but has typically drawn an average of 3.7 million Lid (1.05 MGD).

As discussed in its ER, Southern expects those wells to provide the additional potable water

demand for operation of the two proposed units, as well (Southern 2007a). Section 5.4.2 of this

EIS provides more detail on plant water usage.

The average per capita water usage in the United States is 340 L/d (90 gal/d) per person, 98 L

(26 gal) for personal use and the rest for bathing, laundry, and other household uses (EPA

2003). Therefore, the new operations workforce and their families would require an additional

731,680 L/d (193,290 gpd) of potable water. Section 2.8 describes the public water supply

systems in the analytical area, their permitted capacities, and current demands. Municipal

water suppliers in the region have excess capacity (see Table 2-20; 2-21) with the excess public

water capacity in Burke County at approximately 15 million Lid (4 MGD). Therefore, the

expected impact on potable water demand in the analytical area from the in-migration of

operations workers and their families would be SMALL and not require mitigation.

Waste Water Treatment Facilities

The VEGP site has a private wastewater treatment facility for the two existing units. As part of

the new units' construction project, the facility would be expanded to support the increased

capacity of the additional units. Therefore, operations would not impact the VEGP site

wastewater treatment facility.

Section 2.8 describes the public wastewater treatment systems in the three counties, their

permitted capacities, and current demands. Wastewater treatment facilities in the three

counties have excess capacity (see Table 2-21). Assuming 100 percent of the water consumed

would be disposed of through the wastewater treatment facilities, the proposed VEGP Units 3

August 2008 5-51 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

and 4 plant operations-related population increase of 2152 people would require 731,680 L/d

(193,290 gpd) of additional wastewater treatment capacity in an area where the excess

treatment capacity is approximately 72 million L/d (19 mgd). Therefore, the staff determined the

impact on wastewater treatment from the in-migration of operations workers and their families

would be SMALL and not require mitigation.

Police and Fire Services

Given the staff expects the increase in population for any given county to be less than 2 percent

(see Section 5.5.2), the impact of new operations workers and their families on police and fire

services would fall well within the expected population growth planned by their local

governments. Therefore, the in-migration of operations workers would have a SMALL impact

and not need mitigation.

Medical, Health and Human Services

Section 4.5.4.4 describes the level of medical and human services within the region of interest,

which the staff determined is sufficient to absorb the operations-related influx of workers. New

jobs created to operate and maintain the proposed new reactors would benefit the

disadvantaged population served by the state health and human resources offices by adding

some additional jobs to the region which may go to people who are currently under employed or

unemployed, removing them from social services client lists. While the influx of new workers

and their families may also create additional pressure on those same social services, the NRC

staff believes the net effect of the new permanent operations workforce on local and state

welfare and social services would be SMALL and beneficial.

5.5.4.5 Education

Section 5.5.2 discusses the staffs underlying assumptions about the distribution of workers'

families within the 80-km (50-mile) radius area around the proposed site. These assumptions

indicate the expected increase in population for any given county within the analytical area

would be less than 2 percent. This rate is well within the planned growth rate for each county

government and would, therefore, have a SMALL impact that the NRC staff does not believe

would require mitigation.

For the counties expected to have the largest increase in population, the Burke County School

District currently operates with an excess capacity that could support up to an additional

800 students.(a) Although the Richmond and Columbia County school districts do not operate

with excess capacity, the number of potential new students from the proposed VEGP site

expansion, relative to the total enrollment in their districts is relatively small. Columbia County

school capacity is driven by the rapid residential growth in the area. For the 2004 to 2006

(a) Information provided by Wilbert Roberts, Burke County School District Assistant Superintendent, in

e-mail message, March 6, 2007.

NUREG-1872 5-52 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

school years, enrollment has increased by more than 800 students each year Therefore, all of

the school-aged children that might move to the area as a result of the proposed VEGP Units 3

and 4 operations at the VEGP site would be absorbed as part of Columbia County's rapid

growth rate, The Richmond School District is the largest of the three districts and the increase

in the total number of students expected to enroll due to VEGP operations would be insignificant

relative to total enrollment levels.

5.5.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Services

Based on information supplied by Southern, staff interviews conducted with and information

solicited from public officials in Burke, Screven, Columbia and Richmond Counties, and staff

review of data concerning the current availability of services and current State and community

planning efforts, the staff concludes that the operation impacts on the regional infrastructure and

community services would be SMALL throughout the region. The estimated workforce of

812 persons would have a SMALL effect on the local transportation network. The site is

relatively isolated, industrial in nature, and well masked by forest in most directions so the

impacts on aesthetics would be SMALL, as would the impacts on recreation. The impacts on

public services and infrastructure would be SMALL.

5.5.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts

Based on information supplied by Southern, staff interviews conducted with public officials in

Burke, Screven, and Richmond Counties concerning the current availability of services, and

additional taxes that would likely compensate for the need for additional services, the staff

concludes that the operations impacts on the local economy would be beneficial and SMALL in

most of the region and probably MODERATE and beneficial in Burke County. The estimated

workforce of 812 would have a SMALL effect on the transportation network in the vicinity and

region because permanent transportation mitigation measures proposed for the construction of

the new unit or units would also result in much reduced transportation-related impacts during

operation of the new unit or units. The effect on tax revenues would be beneficial and SMALL

except for property tax receipts in Burke County, which could be beneficial and LARGE. The

impacts on public services and infrastructure would be SMALL throughout the region.

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts from Operations

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) requires Federal agencies

to take into account the potential effects of their undertakings on the cultural environment, which

includes archaeological sites, historic buildings, and traditional places important to local

populations. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended through 2000

(NHPA), also requires Federal agencies to consider impacts to those resources if they are

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (such resources are referred to as

"Historic Properties" in NHPA). As outlined in 36 CFR 800.8(c), "Coordination with the National

August 2008 5-53 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Environmental Policy Act of 1969," the NRC coordinated Section 106 compliance with NEPA

compliance.

The NRC has determined that evaluating suitability of the existing VEGP site for construction,

operation, and decommissioning of two new units is an undertaking that could possibly affect

either known or potential historic properties that may be located at the site. Therefore, in

accordance with the provisions of NHPA and NEPA, the NRC is required to make a reasonable

and good faith effort to identify historic properties in the areas of potential effect and, if present,

determine if any significant impacts are likely to occur. Identification is to occur in consultation

with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), American Indian tribes, interested parties,

and the public. If significant impacts are possible, efforts should be made to mitigate them. As

part of the NEPA/NHPA integration, if no historic properties (i.e., places eligible for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places) are present or affected, the NRC is required to notify the

SHPO before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present, the NRC is

required to assess and resolve adverse effects of the undertaking.

For specific historic and cultural information on the VEGP site, see Section 2.9.2.

The staff does not expect any significant impacts on historic and cultural resources during

operation of the new units. Any new ground-disturbing activities that might occur during

operation would follow Southern procedures, which would require further evaluation to

determine if additional archaeological review is necessary (Southern 2008a). Therefore, the

staff concludes that the impacts from operations would be SMALL. Mitigation might be

warranted in the event of an unexpected discovery.

5.7 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

addresses disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its

programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations. On August 24, 2004,

the Commission issued its policy statement on the treatment of environmental justice matters in

licensing actions (69 FR 52040). Section 2.10 discusses the locations of minority and lowincome populations around the VEGP site and within the 80-km (50-mi) radius.

The scope of the review as defined in NRC guidance (NRC 2001, 2004a; 69 FR 52040) should

include an analysis of the impacts on minority and low-income populations, the location and

significance of any environmental impacts during operations on populations that are particularly

sensitive, and any additional information pertaining to mitigation. The descriptions to be

provided by this review should state whether the impacts are likely to be disproportionately high

and adverse. The review should also evaluate the significance of such impacts.

The staff evaluated whether the health or welfare of minority and low-income populations at

those census blocks identified in Section 2.10 of this EIS could be disproportionately affected by

NUREG-1872 5-54 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

the potential impacts of operating two new reactors at the proposed site. To perform this

assessment, the staff used the same process employed in Section 4.7.

5.7.1 Health and Environmental Impacts

The results of the normal operation dose assessments presented in Section 5.9 indicate that the

maximum individual dose for these pathways was found to be insignificant, well below the

regulatory guidelines in Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 and the regulatory standards of 10 CFR

Part 20.

The evaluation of postulated accidents is provided in Section 5.10 and demonstrates that

radiological consequences of these accidents would meet the site acceptance criteria of

10 CFR 50.34 and 10 CFR Part 100 for the exclusion area boundary and low population zone

boundary. In demonstrating compliance with these criteria, an adequate level of protection

would be provided. There would be no significant adverse health impacts on members of the

public, and, therefore, there would be only minimal negligible health impacts on minority and

low-income members of the public.

Environmental Impacts

Soil: As discussed in Section 5.8, the staff does not believe there would be any operationsrelated environmental effects to soils at the VEGP site that would impact nearby residents.

Therefore, the staff believes there can be no disproportionate impact on any minority or lowincome population. Similarly, while the proposed new units would generate low-level

radioactive and non-radioactive wastes, these are currently generated and there are existing

facilities located throughout the country permitted for disposing of these materials.

Consequently, the staff determined the marginal impact to soils from the proposed new units

would be SMALL and not require mitigation.

Water: As discussed in Sections 5.3.3 and 5.4.2, the staff determined the two proposed units at

the VEGP site would operate with a very small thermal plume in the Savannah River and that

concentrations of biocides, anti-scaling compounds and dispersants would be-very small and

greatly diluted by the volume of flow in the Savannah River. Consequently, the concentration of

these chemicals in the river should quickly return to near-background levels (Southern 2008a).

Therefore, the impact to aquatic biota would be negligible.

Under normal plant operation, consumptive losses of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would

account for less than 2 percent of the flow of the Savannah River, even under drought

conditions (see Table 5-2), and are too small to affect recreational activities on the river.

The VEGP site has three groundwater wells drawing from the Cretaceous aquifer, each of which

are capable of producing 63 to 126 L/s (1000 to 2000 gpm), and under normal operating

August 2008 5-55 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

conditions for the two existing units and the two proposed units, the total pumping rate would be

about 93.5 Us (1482 gpm). The closest of the existing Cretaceous aquifer wells is 1737 m

(5700 ft) from the facility boundary. Southern has stated that two new wells may be drilled and

completed to supply groundwater, and the proposed well location closest to the facility boundary

is 1067 m (3500 ft). The pumping rate would drawdown the level of the Cretaceous aquifer by

slightly more than 1.8 m (6 ft) at the 1737-m (5700-ft) distance and nearly 2 m (6.5 ft) at the

1067-m (3500-ft) distance by 2045 for the proposed two new reactors. There are an additional

six wells completed in the Tertiary aquifer that currently provide a small amount of water for

ground site support purposes.

The staff determined that given the relatively small impact on water quantity and quality in the

Savannah River, and the small consumptive water use and the drawdown on the Cretaceous

aquifer, there would be no operations-related environmental effects that need to be mitigated

and, therefore, there cannot be any disproportionate adverse impacts on minority and lowincome populations.

Air: The total liquid and gaseous effluent doses from all four units (the two existing units plus

the two proposed units) would be well within the regulatory limits of 40 CFR 190. As described

in Section 5.5.2, the staff concurs with Southern's findings that the potential impacts from all

potential air medium sources would be small. Furthermore, the staff believes that because

these impacts would be small, there would be no disproportionate and adverse impacts felt by

minority or low-income populations within the analytical area.

5.7.2 Socioeconomic Impacts

The staff determined that once the proposed new units are operational at the VEGP site, any

adverse socioeconomic impacts felt by any group within the region of interest would either stop

or significantly diminish when the construction workforce leaves the region. However, offsetting

the departure of the construction workforce would be the in-migration of the permanent

operations workforce that would operate and maintain the two new reactors. While the addition

of these new employees would place pressure on local infrastructures (schools, hospitals, etc.),

the staff believes any adverse impact the in-migration might create would be overwhelmed by

the positive contributions of that workforce to their new local communities through income and

taxes. Furthermore, the staffs interviews of surrounding communities revealed a high level of

preparedness with regard to any potential influx of temporary construction or permanent

operations workers.

5.7.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions

This segment of the staffs environmental justice analysis was performed under the same

authority and requirements as that performed in Section 4.7 of this EIS.

NUREG-1872 5-56 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Subsistence

Fish advisories from the States of Georgia and South Carolina indicate that consumption of

some species, especially predatory species, can carry levels of radioactive contamination that

could be harmful if ingested. However, an extensive investigation by the Institute for Energy

and Environmental Research indicates only a small amount of the radiological contamination

(primarily tritium) in the Savannah River and its organisms can be attributed to the existing

VEGP (Makhijani et al. 2004). The addition of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 is not

expected to significantly increase the level of radioactive contamination in the Savannah River.

Therefore, the staff has identified no reason to believe that subsistence consumption of fish

species from the Savannah River would present a health problem for minority and low-income

populations, but even if thatmwere the case, it would not be attributable to the existing reactors

and cannot be reasonably projected to be exacerbated by the addition of two more reactors at

the site. The staff determined there were no operations-related disproportionate and adverse

impacts on minority or low-income populations related to subsistence.

High Density Communities

There are no Native American communities within the region of interest, and while some

existing communities within the area exhibit disproportionately high percentages of minority

(primarily Black races) and low-income populations, most of the higher percentages of minority

and low-income populations can be attributed to the sparseness of the rural population in

general. This was reinforced for the staff through a series of interviews with minority leaders

and social service agency representatives in the affected counties, all of whom described the

minority and low-income communities as "scattered" throughout the counties with no heavy

concentrations in any one particular area.(a) Therefore, the staff determined there were no

environmental justice effects to consider with respect to densely populated minority or lowincome communities.

5.7.4 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts

Based on the underlying assumptions of the analysis discussed in Section 2.10, the impacts of

plant operations on environmental justice would be SMALL because no environmental

pathways, health characteristics, or other preconditions of the minority and low-income

population were found that would lead to adverse and disproportionate impacts.

(a) Personal communication (phone interview) on October 9, 2006, with Reverend Robert Lynch, pastor

of Bethel Apostolic Church, Waynesboro, Georgia, and head of the Burke County Citizens Hunger

Action Committee (affiliated with the Golden Harvest Food Bank). Also confirmed in interviews with

Screven County Family Services (with Bill Hillis), October 18, 2006, and Burke County Family

Services (with Ms. Alane Hickman), October 19, 2006.

August 2008 5-57 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

This section addresses the health impacts of operating the proposed new units at the VEGP site

from nonradiological parameters. Health impacts to the public from the cooling system, noise

generated by operations, EMFs, and transporting operations and outage workers are discussed.

Health impacts from the same sources are also evaluated for workers at the new units. Health

impacts from radiological sources during operations are discussed in Section 5.9.

5.8.1 Thermophilic Microorganisms

Operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4 would result in a thermal discharge to the Savannah River

(Southern 2008a). Such discharges have the potential to increase the growth of thermophilic

microorganisms, including etiological agents, both in the circulating water system and the river.

Thermophilic microorganisms include enteric pathogens such as Salmonella spp.,

Pseudomonas aeruginosa, thermophilic fungi, bacteria such as Legionella spp., and free-living

amoeba such as Naegleria fowleri and Acanthamoeba spp. These microorganisms could result

in potentially serious human health concerns, particularly at high exposure levels.

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 from increases in thermophilic microbial populations. A small river is defined as one

with an average flow rate of less than 2800 m3/s (100,000 ft3

/s). The monthly average flow

rates of the Savannah River between the years 1985 and 2005 ranged from about 200 to

400 m3/s (7000 to 14,000 ft3/s), which meets the criterion of a small river (Southern 2008a). The

maximum projected cooling tower blowdown from operating two new units is about 1.81 m3

/s

(64 ft3/s), which is less than 1 percent of the minimum monthly average flow rate of the

Savannah River (Southern 2008a). Modeling performed by Southern (2008a) using the

CORMIX mixing zone model predicted a maximum blowdown temperature of 33.1°(C (91.5 0 F)

and a negligible impact on Savannah River temperature below the discharge outfall. In the

vicinity of the existing and proposed discharge structures, there are limited recreational activities

(e.g., boats may pass through), and the area is not commonly used for swimming.

Available data assembled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the

years 1937 to 2007 (CDC 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002a, 2003a, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,

2008), 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 from exposure to N. fowleri of an 11-year old boy who had swum in a river in

southern Georgia along with 9 other individuals (CDC 2004). In early September 2002, the

Georgia Division of Public Health and CDC were notified that this exposure had resulted in a

fatal case of primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) (CDC 2003b). The environmental

investigation revealed a high ambient air temperature (>32 0C [>900F]) and water temperature

NUREG-1872 5-58 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

(330C [91 OF]) in the river at the time of the exposure and that because no recent rainfall had

occurred in the region, the river level was low, and the river was flowing slowly (CDC 2003b).

Based on bacteriologic testing of the river water, fecal coliform levels were found to be within

acceptable limits. Naegleria fowleri was isolated from two of three river water samples tested as

well as from a control sample taken from a local lake (CDC 2003b). 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, 2003a, 2004, 2005,

2006, 2007) in terms of cases per 100,000 population or total cases per year, and the outbreaks

were associated with pools, spas, or lakes.

Epidemiological reports from the States of Georgia and South Carolina indicate a very low risk

of outbreaks from thermophilic microorganisms 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 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.

Based on the historical low incidence of primary amoebic meningoencphalitis (PAM) in Georgia,

the small temperature increase expected as a result of operating the new nuclear units, and the

relative absence of swimming or other activities resulting in immersion in the water in the vicinity

of the existing and proposed discharge structures, the staff concludes that the impacts on

human health would be SMALL and that no mitigation would be warranted.

5.8.2 Noise

In the GElS (NRC 1996), the staff discusses the environmental impacts of noise at existing

nuclear power plants. Common sources of noise from plant operation include cooling towers,

and transformers, with intermittent contributions from loud speakers and auxiliary equipment

such as diesel generators. These noise sources are discussed in this section.

August 2008 5-59 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

The existing units at the VEGP site use natural draft cooling towers. According to the ER

(Southern 2008a), there have been no complaints. According to the ER (Southern 2008a) and

Westinghouse (2003), noise levels from cooling towers and diesel generators at new units could

have noise levels as high as 55 dBA at a distance of 300 m (1000 ft). The nearest site

boundary is more than 460 m (1500 ft) from the planned cooling tower location

(Southern 2008a). At this distance, cooling tower and generator noise would be expected to

about 51 dBA, not considering attenuation because of vegetation and topography. Similarly, the

55 dBA at 300 m (1000 ft) translates to about 41 dBA at about 1.6 km (1 mi), the approximate

distance to the nearest residence (Southern 2008a).

According to the GElS (NRC 1996), noise levels below 60 to 65 dBA are considered to be of

small significance. More recently, the impacts of noise were considered in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (N U REG-0586,

Supplement 1) (NRC 2002a). The criterion for assessing the level of significance was not

expressed in terms of sound levels but based on the effect of noise on human activities and on

threatened and endangered species. The criterion in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, is stated as

follows:

The noise impacts ... are considered detectable if sound levels are sufficiently high to

disrupt normal human activities on a regular basis. The noise impacts ... are considered

destabilizing if sound levels are sufficiently high that the affected area is essentially

unsuitable for normal human activities, or if the behavior or breeding of a threatened and

endangered species is affected.

The noise sources at the VEGP site are sufficiently distant from the plant boundaries that the

noise generated by the plant is attenuated to near-ambient levels before reaching critical

receptors outside the plant boundary.

Given the postulated noise levels for cooling towers and diesel generators at the VEGP ESP

site, the staff concludes that the noise impacts would be SMALL and that mitigation would not

be warranted.

5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

In its ER, Southern states that two 500-kV transmission lines would service new generation at

the VEGP site (Southern 2008a). The applicant then evaluates electric shock potential of a

template 500-kV line built to present National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) standards as a

surrogate design for all spans. On this basis, the applicant concludes that an induced current

for a vehicle parked beneath a single 500-kV transmission line could be as high as 3.8 milliamp.

The induced current for a vehicle parked beneath two 500-kV transmission lines could be higher

or lower, depending on the configuration of the lines. Finally, the applicant commits to design

any new transmission lines to ensure that two lines combined would be in compliance with the

NUREG-1872 5-60 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5-milliamp standard in the present NESC. The staff assumes that transmission lines

constructed to serve new generation at the VEGP site would be constructed to meet NESC

criteria for construction and operation of transmission lines at the time of construction.

For the template span, the present NESC requirements for preventing electric shock from

induced current were met. With the applicant's commitment to design new transmission lines to

ensure that the present NESC criteria are met when two transmission lines are combined and

the staff's assumption that transmission lines constructed to serve new generation at the VEGP

site would be constructed to NESC standards in effect at the time of construction, the staff

concludes that the impact to the public from acute effects of EMFs would be SMALL, and

additional mitigation would not be warranted.

5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Research on the potential for chronic effects from 60-Hz EMFs from energized transmission

lines was reviewed and addressed by the NRC in the NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). At that time,

research results were not conclusive. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

(NIEHS) directs related research through the U.S. Department of Energy. An NIEHS report

(1999) contains the following conclusion:

The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field)

exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant

aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States

uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is

warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated

community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does not believe that other

cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently

warrant concern.

This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to consider the potential impacts as significant

to the public. The staff will continue to follow developments in this area.

5.8.5 Occupational Health

In general, occupational health risks for new units are expected to be dominated by

occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electric shock, asphyxiation) to workers engaged in activities

such as maintenance, testing, and plant modifications. Historically, actual injury and fatality

rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the average U.S. industrial rates.

Further, Southern (2008a) reports that the incidence rate of total recordable cases at the VEGP

site from 2000 to 2004 was 1.8 percent, which was less than the corresponding incidence rates

for the State of Georgia and the United States for electrical power production workers (4.5 and

3.5 percent). Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict adherence to NRC and

August 2008 5-61 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety standards (29 CFR Part 1910),

practices, and procedures. Appropriate State and local statutes must also be considered when

assessing the occupational hazards and health risks for new nuclear unit operation. The staff

assumes adherence to NRC, OSHA, and State safety standards, practices, and procedures

during new nuclear unit operations.

Additional occupational health impacts may result from exposure to hazards such as noise, toxic

or oxygen-replacing gases, thermophilic microorganisms in the condenser bays, and caustic

agents. Southern (2008a) reports that it maintains a health and safety program to protect

workers from industrial safety risks at the operating units and would implement the program for

the proposed new units. Health impacts to workers from nonradiological emissions, noise, and

EMFs would be monitored and controlled in accordance with the applicable OSHA regulations

and would be SMALL.

5.8.6 Impacts of Transporting Operations Personnel to the VEGP Site

The general approach used to calculate nonradiological impacts of fuel and waste shipments is

the same as that used to calculate the impacts of transporting operations and outage personnel

to and from the VEGP site. However, preliminary estimates are the only data available to

estimate these impacts. The assumptions made to fill in reasonable estimates of the data

needed to calculate nonradiological impacts are discussed below.

The number of workers needed for operations was given by Southern (2008a) as 812 (two

units), so each Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at the VEGP site requires about

406 operating personnel. An additional 1000 temporary workers are estimated to be

needed for refueling outages. It was assumed that outages for the two units would not

occur simultaneously.

* The average commute distance for operations and outage workers was assumed to be

32 km (20 mi) one way.

To develop representative commuter traffic impacts, a source was located that provided a

Georgia-specific fatality rate for all traffic for the years 2001 to 2006 (DOT 2008). The

average fatality rate for the 2001 to 2006 period in Georgia was used as the basis for

estimating Georgia-specific injury and accident rates. Adjustment factors were

developed using national-level traffic accident statistics in the U.S. Department of

Transportation publication National Transportation Statistics 2007 (DOT 2007). The

adjustment factors are the ratio of the national injury rate to the national fatality rate and the

ratio of the national accident rate to the national fatality rate. These adjustment factors

were multiplied by the Georgia-specific fatality rate to approximate the injury and accident

rates for commuters in the State of Georgia.

NUREG-1872 5-62 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

* The estimated impacts of transporting operations and outage workers to/from the VEGP site

are shown in Table 5-7. The total annual traffic fatalities during operations, including both

operations and outage personnel, represent about a 0.4 percent increase above the 12

traffic fatalities that occurred in Burke County, Georgia, in 2006 (DOT 2008). This

represents a small increase relative to the current traffic fatality risk in the area surrounding

the proposed VEGP site.

Table 5-7. Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Workers to/from the VEGP Site

Accidents per Year Injuries per Year Fatalities per Year

per Unit per Unit per Unit

Permanent Workers 4.8 x 1Ou 2.2 x 1Ou 3.3 x 10-;

Outage Workers 1.4 x 100 6.5 x 10-1 9.7 x 10-3

5.8.7 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

The staff evaluated health impacts to the public and the workers from the cooling systems,

noise generated by unit operations, and acute and chronic impacts of EMFs at the higher power

levels, and transporting operations and outage workers to/from the two additional units. Health

risks to workers are expected to be dominated by occupational injuries at rates below the

average U.S. industrial rates. Health impacts to the public and workers from thermophilic

microorganisms, noise generated by unit operations, and acute impacts of EMFs would be

minimal. Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review,

the staff concludes that the potential impacts of nonradiological effects resulting from the

operation of two additional units would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. The staff

has not come to conclusions on the chronic impacts of EMFs, but the available information is

not sufficient to cause the staff to consider the potential impacts as significant to the public.

5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

This section addresses the radiological impacts of normal operations of the proposed new units

on the VEGP site, including a discussion of the estimated radiation dose to a member of the

public and to the biota inhabiting the area around the VEGP site. Estimated doses to workers at

the proposed units are also discussed. Radiological impacts were determined using the

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design with expected direct radiation and liquid and gaseous

radiological effluent rates in the evaluation (see discussion in Section 3.2.3).

5.9.1 Exposure Pathways

The public and biota would be exposed to increased ambient background radiation from a

nuclear unit via the liquid effluent, gaseous effluent, and direct radiation pathways. Southern

estimated the potential exposures to the public and biota by evaluating exposure pathways

typical of those surrounding a nuclear unit at the VEGP site. They considered pathways that

August 2008 5-63 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

could cause the highest calculated radiological dose based on the use of the environment by

the residents located around the site (Southern 2008a). For example, factors such as the

location of homes in the area, consumption of meat from the area, and consumption of

vegetables grown in area gardens were considered.

For the liquid effluent release pathway, the ER considered the following exposure pathways in

evaluating the dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI): ingestion of aquatic food

(i.e., fish), ingestion of drinking water, and direct radiation exposure from shoreline activities

(see Figure 5-2). The analysis for population dose considered the following exposure pathways:

ingestion of aquatic food and direct radiation exposure from shoreline, swimming, and boating

activities. Drinking water was not evaluated because the current land-use census showed no

drinking water use of the river within 160 km (100 mi) downstream of the site. Liquid effluents

were assumed to be released into Savannah River at the end of a newly constructed discharge

structure.

For the gaseous effluent release pathway, Southern considered the following exposure

pathways in evaluating the dose to the individual: immersion in the radioactive plume, direct

radiation exposure from deposited radioactivity, inhalation, ingestion of garden fruit and

vegetables, and ingestion of beef. Southern (2008a) did not calculate a dose from milk

ingestion because the most recent land-use census indicated that no milk cows existed within

8 km (5 mi) of the site.

Southern (2008a) calculated population doses using the same exposure pathways as used for

the individual dose assessment, but with the addition of the cow milk ingestion pathway (see

Figure 5-2).

Southern (2008a) states that direct radiation from the reactor buildings and planned ISFSI would

be the primary sources of direct radiation exposure to the public from the VEGP site. However,

Southern assumes that contained sources of radiation at the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would

be shielded and would not contribute to the external dose of the MEI individual or the population.

Exposure pathways considered in evaluating dose to the biota are shown in Figure 5-3 and

included

" Ingestion of aquatic foods

" Ingestion of water

" External exposure from water immersion or surface effect

" Inhalation of airborne radionuclides

" External exposure to immersion in gaseous effluent plumes, and

" Surface exposure from deposition of iodine and particulates from gaseous effluents (NRC

1977).

NUREG-1872 5-64 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Figure 5-2. Exposure Pathways to Man (Soldat et al. 1974)

August 2008 5-65 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Figure 5-3. Exposure Pathways to Biota Other than Man (Soldat et al. 1974)

The staff reviewed the exposure pathways for the public and biota identified by

Southern (2008a) and found them to be appropriate, based on a documentation review, a tour

of environs, and interviews with Southern staff and contractors during the site visit in

October 2006.

NUREG-1872 5-66 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public

Southern calculated the dose to the MEI individual and the population living within an 80-km

(50-mi) radius of the site from both the liquid and gaseous effluent release pathways (Southern

2008a). As discussed in the previous sections, direct radiation exposure to the MEI individual

from sources of radiation at the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be negligible.

5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway

Liquid pathway doses were calculated using the LADTAP II computer program (Strenge et al.

1986). The liquid effluent releases used in the estimates of dose are found in Table 3.5-1 of the

ER (Southern 2008a). Other parameters used as inputs to the LADTAP II program include

effluent discharge rate, dilution factor for discharge, transit time to receptor, and liquid pathway

consumption and usage factors (i.e., fish consumption and drinking water consumption), and

are found in Table 5.4-1 of the ER (Southern 2008a).

Southern calculated liquid pathway doses to the MEI and population. The maximum annual

dose to the total body for two new units was 0.00034 mSv (0.034 mrem) for an adult. The

maximum annual dose to the thyroid for two new units was 0.0003 mSv (0.03 mrem) for an

infant. The maximum annual dose to the liver for two new units was 0.00042 mSv (0.042 mrem)

for a child. Southern calculated the dose to the population living within an 80-km (50-mi) radius

of the site to be 0.37 person-mSv/yr (37 person-mrem/yr) for two new units.

The staff recognizes the LADTAP II computer program as an appropriate method for calculating

dose to the MEI for liquid effluent releases. The staff performed an independent evaluation of

liquid pathway doses using input parameters from the ER and found similar results. All input

parameters used in Southern calculations were judged by the staff to be appropriate. Results of

the staffs independent evaluation are found in Appendix G.

5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway

Gaseous pathway doses to the MEI were calculated by Southern using the GASPAR II

computer program (Strenge et al. 1987) at the nearest residence and the exclusion area

boundary. The GASPAR II computer program was also used to calculate annual population

doses. The following activities were considered in the dose calculations: (1) direct radiation

from immersion in the gaseous effluent cloud and from particulates deposited on the ground,

(2) inhalation of gases and particulates, (3) ingestion of meat from animals eating contaminated

grass, and (4) ingestion of garden vegetables contaminated by gases and particulates.

Southern (2008a) states that no milk cows or milk goats are located within 8 km (5 mi) of the

proposed site. However, Southern did provide individual dose results for the milk pathway in its

ER for information purposes, but those results are not included in the total doses reported here

and in the ER (Southern 2008a). Southern did include the milk pathway in the calculation of

August 2008 5-67 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

population dose. The gaseous effluent releases used in the estimate of dose to the MEl and

population are found in Table 3.5-2 of the ER (Southern 2008a). Other parameters used as

inputs to the GASPAR II program, including population data, atmospheric dispersion factors,

ground deposition factors, receptor locations, and consumption factors, are found in

Tables 5.4-2 and 5.4-4 of the ER (Southern 2008a). Gaseous pathway doses to the MEI

calculated by Southern are found in Table 5-8.

Table 5-8. Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual from Gaseous Effluent Pathway for

Two Units(a)

Total Body Thyroid

Dose Dose Skin Dose

Location Pathway (mSv/yr)(bl (mSv/yr)(b) (mSv/yr)(b)

Exclusion area boundary (0.8 km [0.5 mi] NE) Plume 1.12 x 10-2 4.60 x 10-2

Nearest residence (1.1 km [0.67 mi] NE) Plume 5.11 x 10-3 2.56 x 10-2

Nearest residence (1.1 km [0.67 mu NE) Ground 1.75 x 10- 2.05 x 10-3

Nearest residence (1.1 km [0.67 mi] NE) Inhalation

Adult 5.59 x 1 5.19 x 10-3

Teen 5.65 x 10-4 6.48 x 10-3

Child 5.00 x 10- 4 7.56 x 10-3

Infant 2.89 x 10- 4 6.78 x 10-3

Nearest garden (1.1 krn [0.67 mi] NE) Ve-getable

Adult 4.09 X 10- 4.00 x 10-2

Teen 6.08 x 10-3 5.38 x 10-2

Child 1.33 x 10-2 1.05 x 10-1

Nearest meat animal (1.1 km [0.67 mi] NE) Meat

Adult 1.25 x 10- 3.08 x 10-

Teen 1.00 x 10-3 2.34 x 10-3

Child 1.81 x 10-3 3.84 x 10-3

Nearest milk cow (1.1 km [0.67 mi] NE)(c) Cow Milk

Adult 1.84 x 1 5.46 x 10-2

Teen 2.97 x 10-3 8.67 x 10-2

Child 6.42 x 10-3 1.73 x 10-1

Infant 1.27 x 10-2 4.18 x 10-1

(a) Source was the ER (Southern 2008a), Tables 5.4-6 and 5.4-7. No infant doses were calculated for the vegetable or meat

pathway because the doses that infants receive from this diet would be bounded by the dose calculated for the child.

(b) Multiply mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr.

(c) This distance and direction from the VEGP site represents nearest residence. No milk-producing animals are known to be

located within 8 km (5 mi) of the proposed site and these results for milk cow are provided for informational purposes only.

The staff recognizes the GASPAR II computer program as an appropriate tool for calculating

dose to the MEI and population from gaseous effluent releases. The staff performed an

independent evaluation of gaseous pathway doses and obtained similar results for the MEL.

The staff performed an independent evaluation of population dose and calculated a population

dose 20 percent higher than that calculated by Southern (2007a). Section 5.4.1 of the

NUREG-1872 5-68 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) requires use of "...projected population for

5 years from the time of licensing action under consideration" (NRC 2000a). Assuming the ESP

action occurs in year 2008 and adding 5 years yields 2013. The staff calculated the population

dose for the population predicted to exist in the year 2013, while Southern (2008a) used the

year 2000 census value. See Appendix G for details.

5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public

This section describes the staffs evaluation of the estimated impacts from radiological releases

and direct radiation of two new units at the VEGP site. The evaluation addresses dose from

operations to the MEl located at the VEGP site and the population dose (collective dose to the

population within 80 km [50 mil) around the VEGP site.

5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual

Southern (2008a) states that total body and organ dose estimates to the MEI from liquid and

gaseous effluents for two new units would be within the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix I. Doses to total body and maximum organ at the Savannah River from liquid

effluents were well within the respective 0.03-mSv/yr (3-mrem/yr) and 0.1-mSv/yr (10-mrem/yr)

Appendix I design objectives. Doses at the exclusion area boundary from gaseous effluents

were well within the Appendix I design objectives of 0.1 mGy/yr (10 mrad/yr) air dose from

gamma radiation, 0.2 mGy/yr (20 mrad/yr) air dose from beta radiation, 0.05 mSv/yr (5 mrem/yr).

to the total body, and 0.15 mSv/yr (15 mrem/yr) to the skin. In addition, dose to the thyroid was

within the 0.15 mSv/yr (15 mrem/yr) Appendix I design objective. A comparison of dose

estimates for each of two new units to the Appendix I design objectives is found in Table 5-9.

Table 5-9. Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Estimates for a Single New

Nuclear Unit from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I,

Design Objectives

Appendix I Design

Pathway/Type of Dose Southern (2007a)(a) Objectives(a)

Liquid Effluents

Total body dose 0.00017 mSv/yr (adult) 0.03 mSv/yr

Maximum organ dose 0.00021 mSv/yr (child liver) 0.1 mSv/yr

Gaseous Effluents (Noble gases only)

Gamma air dose 0.0068 mGy/yr 0.1 mGy/yr

Beta air dose 0.0284 mGy/yr 0.2 mGy/yr

Total body dose 0.0056 mSv/yr 0.05 mSv/yr

Skin dose 0.0230 mSv/yr 0.15 mSv/yr

Gaseous Effluents (Radiolodines and particulates)

Organ dose 0.0591 mSv/yr (child thyroid) 0.15 mSv/yr

(a) Multiply mSv/yr or mGy/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr or mrad/yr.

Source: Southern 2008a, 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I.

August 2008 5-69 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Gaseous and liquid effluents from the VEGP site are below the Appendix I design objectives

(Southern 2008a). The cumulative effects of both the current operating units and two new units

also are within Appendix I design objectives.

Southern (2008a) states that dose estimates from combined liquid and gaseous effluents to the

MEI at the nearest residence from the new units are well within the regulatory standards of

40 CFR Part 190. As stated earlier, exposure at the site boundary from direct radiation sources

at the new units would be negligible. Table 5-10 compares Southern's calculated doses from

the two existing and proposed units to the dose standards from 40 CFR Part 190, i.e.,

0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) to the total body, 0.75 mSv/yr (75 mrem/yr) to the thyroid, and

0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) to any other organ.

Doses to the MEI from the existing VEGP units are smaller than the dose estimates for the new

units. Section 2.5 states that the maximum annual dose to a member of the public from

gaseous and liquid effluents at the VEGP site is typically less than 0.001 mSv (less than

0.1 mrem). Section 4.9 states that direct exposures from the existing VEGP site do not vary

significantly from background radiation levels at the site boundary. Therefore, the combined

dose to the MEI from the existing VEGP units and the proposed new units would be well within

the 40 CFR Part 190 standards, 10 CFR Part 20 standards, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I,

design objectives.

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

Gaseous Effluents to 40 CFR Part 190 Standards

Southern (2007a) Estimate 40 CFR Part 190 Standards

Dose (mSv/yr)(a)(b) (mSvlyr)(b)

Whole body dose equivalent 0.0236 0.25

Thyroid dose 0.1239 0.75

Dose to another organ 0.0888 (child liver) 0.25

(a) Sum of dose from liquid and gaseous effluent releases for existing and proposed units.

(b) Multiply mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr.

Source: Southern 2008a, 40 CFR Part 190

5.9.3.2 ' Population Dose

Southern estimates the collective total body dose within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the VEGP

site to be 0.01837 person Sv/yr (1.837 person-rem/yr) (Southern 2008a). The estimated

collective dose to the same population from natural background radiation is estimated to be

2.43 x 103 person-Sv/yr (2.43 x 105 person-rem/yr) (Southern 2008a). The dose from natural

background radiation was calculated by multiplying the 80-km (50-mi) population estimate for

2000 of approximately 674,101 people by the annual background dose rate of 3.6 mSv/yr

(360 mrem/yr) (Southern 2008a).

NUREG-1872 5-70 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Collective dose was estimated using the GASPAR II computer code and was attributed to the

gaseous and liquid effluent pathway. The staff performed an independent evaluation of

population doses and obtained results 20 percent higher. The difference results from using

different years for the population estimate and both results are considered low (See Appendix G

for further explanation).

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation 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. A recent report by the

National Research Council (2006), BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold dose

response model. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an

incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative

model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

overestimates those risks. Based on this model, the staff estimated the risk to the public from

radiation exposure using the nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers,

nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem])

from International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 60 (ICRP 1991).

This coefficient was multiplied by the staff's estimated collective whole body population dose of

0.0217 person-Sv/yr (2.17 person-rem/yr) to calculate that the population living within 80 km

(50 mi) of the VEGP site would incur less than one fatal cancer, nonfatal cancer, or severe

hereditary effect annually. The risks from the cumulative radiation exposure from the existing

VEGP units and the proposed VEGP units would be only slightly higher. This risk is very small

compared to the estimated 212 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects

that the projected 2013 population would incur annually from exposure to natural sources of

radiation. Because the population doses from the liquid effluents are very small compared to

the gaseous effluents, the addition of this dose would not change the resulting risk estimates.

In addition, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a

study and published, "Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities," in 1990 (Jablan

1990). This report included an evaluation of health statistics around all nuclear power plants, as

well as several other nuclear fuel cycle facilities, in operation in the United States in 1981 and

found "no evidence that an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted from living near nuclear

facilities" (Jablan 1990).

5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts to Members of the Public

The staff evaluated the health impacts from routine gaseous and liquid radiological effluent

releases from the new units at the VEGP site. Based on the information provided by Southern

August 2008 5-71 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

and NRC's own independent evaluation, the staff concludes there would be no observable

health impacts to the public from normal operation of the new units, and the health impacts

would be SMALL.

5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers

Southern (2008a) reported annual occupational dose estimates of about 1.5 person-Sv

(150 person-rem) for existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 (0.75 person-Sv (75 person-rem per unit)

during 2005. On the basis of information contained in NUREG-0713 (NRC 2002b), the average

annual collective dose per operating pressurized water reactor in the United States was 0.83

person-Sv/yr (83 person-rem/yr) for the time period of 2001-2006. The estimated occupational

doses for advanced reactor designs, including the Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the VEGP

site, were slightly less than the annual occupational doses for current light-water reactors

(LWRs).

Southern (2008a) concluded that occupational exposures for the new units would likely be

bounded by occupational exposures from currently operating LWRs because advanced LWR

designs, including the Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the VEGP site, have or would

incorporate radiation protection features that are improved over the designs provided in

currently operating LWRs.

The licensee of a new plant would need to maintain individual doses to workers within 0.05 Sv

(5 rem) annually as specified in 10 CFR 20.1201 and incorporate ALARA provisions to maintain

doses below this limit.

The staff concludes that the health impacts from occupational radiation exposure would be

SMALL based on individual worker doses being maintained within 10 CFR 20.1201 limits and

collective occupational doses being typical of doses found in current operating LWR reactors.

5.9.5 Impacts to Biota Other than Members of the Public

Southern estimated doses to representative biota species, including fish, muskrat, raccoon,

heron, and duck. Additional results are reported for algae and invertebrates. Fish,

invertebrates, and algae are referred to as aquatic species. Muskrats, raccoons, herons, and

ducks are referred to as terrestrial species. Important biota species for the VEGP site and the

corresponding surrogate species are as follows: (1) various mussel and mollusc species -

invertebrates, (2) darter, shiner, catfish, sunfish, perch, eels, largemouth bass, striped bass -

fish, (3) white-tailed deer, raccoon, gray squirrel, Eastern cottontail, coyotes, gray fox, and

pocket gopher - raccoon and muskrat, (4) wood duck - duck, and (5) wood stork - heron.

Surrogate species are well-defined and provide an acceptable method for judging doses to the

biota. Exposure pathways considered in evaluating dose to the biota were discussed in

Section 5.9.1 and shown in Figure 5-3. The NRC independent evaluation included

NUREG-1872 5-72 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

consideration of surrogate species that included invertebrates and algae; and found similar

results to those reported by Southern (2008a) (see Appendix G).

5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway

Southern (2008a) used the LADTAP II computer code to calculate doses to the biota from the

liquid effluent pathway. In estimating the concentration of radioactive effluents in Savannah

River, Southern (2008a) used a transit dilution model. Liquid pathway doses were higher for

biota compared to man because of considerations for bioaccumulation of radionuclides,

ingestion of aquatic plants, ingestion of invertebrates, and increased time spent in water and

shoreline compared to man. The liquid effluent releases used in estimating biota dose are

found in Table 3.5-1 of the ER (Southern 2008a). Total body dose estimates to the surrogate

species from the liquid and gaseous pathways are shown in Table 5-11.

Table 5-11. Comparison of Biota Doses from the VEGP Site to 40 CFR Part 190(a)

Liquid Gaseous Total Body Biota 40 CFR Part 190 Total

Effluents Dose Effluents Dose Dose All Pathways Body Dose Limit

Biota (mGy/yr)(b) (mGy/yr)(b) (mGylyr)(b) (mSv/yr)(b)

Fish 1.6 x 10-3 1.6 x 10-" 2.5 x 10-1

Invertebrate (c) 4.5 x 10- 3 2.5 x 10-1

Algae (c) 1.3 x 10-2 2.5 x 10-1

Muskrat 4.7 x 10-3 1.5 x 10-2 2.0 x 10-2 2.5 x 10-1

Raccoon 1.9 x 10-3 2.2 x 10-2 2.4 x 10-2 2.5 x 10-1

Heron 2.15 x 10-2 1.5 x 10-2 3.7 x 10-2 2.5 x 10'I

Duck 4.5 x 10-3 2.2 x 10-2 2.6 x 10-2 2.5 x 10-1

(a) Data taken from Table 5.4-10 of Southern (2008a).

(b) Multiply mGy/yr or mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrad/yr or mrem/yr.

(c) Southern did not report results for these biota.

5.9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway

Gaseous effluents would contribute to the total body dose of the terrestrial surrogate species

(i.e., muskrat, raccoon, heron, and duck). The exposure pathways include inhalation of airborne

radionuclides, external exposure because of immersion in gaseous effluent plumes, and surface

exposure from deposition of iodine and particulates from gaseous effluents. The dose

calculated to the MEI from gaseous effluent releases in Table 5-8 would also be applicable to

terrestrial surrogate species with two modifications. One modification defined in Southern

(2008a) was increasing the ground deposition factors by a factor of two as terrestrial animals

would be closer to the ground than the MEL. The second modification was to disable the

vegetation intake pathway for muskrat and heron that are not known to consume vegetation.

The gaseous effluent releases used in estimating dose are found in Table 3.5-2 of the ER

(Southern 2008a). The ER used doses at the exclusion area boundary (0.8 km [0.5mi]) NE of

the VEGP site) in estimating terrestrial species doses. Total body dose estimates to the

surrogate species from the gaseous pathway are shown in Table 5-11.

August 2008 5-73 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

5.9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Biota Doses

Table 5-9 also compares the annual total body dose estimates to surrogate biota species from

each of the two new nuclear units to the annual whole body dose standard in 40 CFR Part 190.

Although the 40 CFR Part 190 standards apply to members of the public in unrestricted areas

and not to biota, they are provided here for comparative purposes. Radiation doses to the biota

are expressed in units of absorbed dose (mGy [mradj) because dose equivalent (mSv [mrem])

only applies to human radiation doses. Southern assumed that mSv (mrem) and mGy (mrad)

are approximately equivalent for comparison of biota doses to the 40 CFR Part 190 standards.

Annual dose for no surrogate species exceeded the dose standard in 40 CFR Part 190. The

biota dose estimates of the new units are conservative because they do not consider dilution or

decay of liquid effluents during transit. Actual doses to the biota are likely to be much less.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP 1977; ICRP 1991) states that if

humans are adequately protected, other living things are also likely to be sufficiently protected.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992) and the National Council on Radiation

Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1991) reported that a chronic dose rate of no greater than

10 mGy/d (1000 mrad/d) to the MEI in a population of aquatic organisms would ensure

protection of the population. IAEA (1992) also concluded that chronic dose rates of 1 mGy/d

(100 mrad/d) or less do not appear to cause observable changes in terrestrial animal

populations. Table 5-12 compares the estimated total body dose to the biota from the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4 to the IAEA chronic dose rate values for aquatic organisms and terrestrial

animals. The cumulative effects of the existing VEGP units and the new units result in dose

rates far less than those of the NCRP and IAEA studies.

Table 5-12. Comparison of Biota Doses from the Proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP

Site to Relevant Guidelines for Biota Protection(a)

Total Body Dose - Southern IAEAINCRP Guidelines for Protection of

Biota ESP Units (mGy/d)(b) Biota Populations (mGy/d)(b)

Fish 4.4 x 10-' 10

Invertebrate 1.2 x 10-5 10

Algae 3.6 x 10-5 10

Muskrat 5.5x 10-5 1

Raccoon 6.6 x 10-5 1

Heron 1.0 x 10-4 1

Duck 7.1 x 10-5 1

(a) Total dose from liquid and gaseous effluents in Table 5-9.

(b) Multiply mGy/d times 100 to obtain mrad/d.

IAEA = International Atomic Energy Agency.

NCRP = National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.

The staff performed an independent evaluation of doses to biota and found similar results.

Results of the staffs independent evaluation are found in Appendix G.

NUREG-1872 5-74 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent evaluation, the

staff concludes that the radiological impact on biota from the routine operation of the proposed

Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring

A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been in place for the VEGP site

since operations began in 1987, with preoperational sample collection activities beginning in

1981 (Southern 2002). The REMP includes monitoring of the airborne exposure pathway, direct

exposure pathway, water exposure pathway, aquatic exposure pathway from the Savannah

River, and the ingestion exposure pathway in a 8-km (5-mi) radius of the station, with indicator

locations near the plant perimeter and control locations at distances greater than 16 km (10 mi).

Milk is not currently sampled because there is no known production within 8 km (5 mi) of the

site. An annual survey is conducted for the area surrounding the site to verify the accuracy of

assumptions used in the analyses, including the occurrence of milk production. The preoperational REMP sampled various media in the environment to determine a baseline from

which to observe the magnitude and fluctuation of radioactivity in the environment once the unit

began operation. The pre-operational program included collection and analysis of samples of

air particulates, precipitation, crops, soil, well water, surface water, fish, and silt as well as

measurement of ambient gamma radiation. After operation of VEGP Unit 1 began in 1987, the

monitoring program continued to assess the radiological impacts on workers, the public, and the

environment. Radiological releases are summarized in the two annual reports: the Annual

Radiological Environmental Operating Report (e.g., Southern 2002) and Annual Radioactive

Effluent Release Report (e.g., Southern 2005). The limits for all radiological releases are

specified in the Vogtle Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (Southern 2004). No additional

monitoring program has been established for the new units. To the greatest extent practical, the

REMP for the ESP program would utilize the procedures and sampling locations used by the

existing VEGP site. The staff reviewed the documentation for the existing REMP, the Vogtle

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, and recent monitoring reports from VEGP and the Savannah

River Site (Savannah River Site 2006), and determined that the current operational monitoring

program is adequate to establish the radiological baseline for comparison with the expected

impacts on the environment related to the construction and operation of the proposed new units

at the VEGP site. In addition, the staff reviewed environmental quality and monitoring reports

from the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Georgia Department

of Natural Resources, Georgia Environmental Protection Division, and South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control.

5.10 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

The staff considered the radiological consequences on the environment of potential accidents at

new units at the VEGP site. Consequence estimates are based on the Westinghouse AP1000

reactor certified design (Westinghouse 2005) as set forth in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D. The

August 2008 5-75 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

term "accident," as used in this section, refers to any off-normal event not addressed in Section

5.9 that results in release of radioactive materials into the environment. The focus of this review

is on events that could lead to releases substantially in excess of permissible limits for normal

operations. Normal release limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2.

Numerous features combine to reduce the risk associated with accidents at nuclear power

plants. Safety features in the design, construction, and operation of the plants, which comprise

the first line of defense, are intended to prevent the release of radioactive materials from the

plant. The design objectives and the measures for keeping levels of radioactive materials in

effluents to unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable are specified in 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix I. There are additional measures that are designed to mitigate the consequences of

failures in the first line of defense. These include the NRC's reactor site criteria in 10 CFR

Part 100, which require the site to have certain characteristics that reduce the risk to the public

and the potential impacts of an accident, and emergency preparedness plans and protective

action measures for the site and environs, as set forth in 10 CFR 50.47, 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix E, and NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 (NRC 1980). All of these safety features,

measures, and plans make up the defense-in-depth philosophy to protect the health and safety

of the public and the environment.

This section discusses (1) the types of radioactive materials, (2) the paths to the environment,

(3) the relationship between radiation dose and health effects, and (4) the environmental

impacts of reactor accidents, both design-basis accidents (DBAs) and severe accidents. The

environmental impacts of accidents during transportation of spent fuel are discussed in

Chapter 6.

The potential for dispersion of radioactive materials in the environment depends on the

mechanical forces that physically transport the materials and on the physical and chemical

forms of the material. Radioactive material exists in a variety of physical and chemical forms.

The majority of the material in the fuel is in the form of nonvolatile solids. However, there is a

significant amount of material that is in the form of volatile solids or gases. The gaseous

radioactive materials include the chemically inert noble gases (e.g., krypton and xenon), which

have a high potential for release. Radioactive forms of iodine, which are created in substantial

quantities in the fuel by fission, are volatile. Other radioactive materials formed during the

operation of a nuclear power plant have lower volatilities and, therefore, have lower tendencies

to escape from the fuel than the noble gases and iodines.

Radiation exposure to individuals is determined by their proximity to radioactive material, the

duration of their exposure, and the extent to which they are shielded from the radiation.

Pathways that lead to radiation exposure include (1) external radiation from radioactive material

in the air, on the ground, and in the water, (2) inhalation of radioactive material, and

(3) ingestion of food or water containing material initially deposited on the ground and in water.

NUREG-1872 5-76 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation exposure may pose some risk of

causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation

exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold response model is- used to describe the

relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report

by the National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold

dose response theory. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an

incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative.

model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

overestimates those risks.

Physiological effects are clinically detectable should individuals receive radiation exposure

resulting in a dose greater than about 0.25 Sv (25 rem) over a short period of time (hours).

Doses of about 2.5 to 5.0 Sv (250 to 500 rem) received over a relatively short period (hours to a

few days) can be expected to cause some fatalities.

5.10.1 Design-Basis Accidents

Southern evaluated the potential consequences of postulated accidents to demonstrate that a

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor could be constructed and operated at the VEGP site without

undue risk to the health and safety of the public (Southern 2008a). These evaluations used a

set of surrogate DBAs that are representative for the reactor design being considered for the

VEGP site and site-specific meteorological data. The set of accidents covers events that range

from relatively high probability of occurrence with relatively low consequences to relatively low

probability with high consequences.

The DBA review focuses on the certified Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at the VEGP site. The

bases for analyses of postulated accidents for this design are well established because they have

been considered as part of the NRC's advanced reactor design certification process. Potential

consequences of DBAs are evaluated following procedures outlined in regulatory guides and

standard review plans. The potential consequences of accidental releases depend on the specific

radionuclides released, the amount of each radionuclide released, and the meteorological

conditions. The source terms for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor and methods for evaluating

potential accidents are based on guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.183 (NRC 2000b).

For environmental reviews, consequences are evaluated assuming realistic meteorological

conditions. Meteorological conditions are represented in these consequence analyses by an

atmospheric dispersion factor, which is also referred to as x/Q- Acceptable methods of

calculating x/Q for DBAs from meteorological data are set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.145

(NRC 1983).

August 2008 5-77 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-13 lists x/Q values pertinent to the environmental review of DBAs for the VEGP site.

The first column lists the time periods and boundaries for which x/Q and dose estimates are

needed. For the exclusion area boundary, the postulated DBA dose and its atmospheric

dispersion factor are calculated for a short-term, i.e., 2 hours, and for the low population zone,

they are calculated for the course of the accident, i.e., 30 days (720 hours) composed of four

time periods. The second column lists the x/Q values presented in Southern's ER

Section 2.7.5.2 using the site meteorological information discussed in ER Section 2.7.4 and the

exclusion area boundary and low population zone distances (Southern 2008a). No credit was

taken for building wake. Southern calculated the x/Q values listed in Table 5-13 using a set of

five years of meteorological data (1998-2002) for the VEGP site assuming the release point was

located midway between the two proposed Westinghouse AP1 000 reactors. Small x/Q values

are associated with greater dilution capability.

Table 5-13. Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for VEGP Site DBA Calculations

Time Period and Boundary x/Q (slm •

0 to 2 hr, Exclusion Area Boundary 7.38 x 10-3

0 to 8 hr, Low Population Zone 1.40 x 10.5

8 to 24 hr, Low Population Zone 1.22 x 10-5

1 to 4 d, Low Population Zone 9.15 x 10-6

4 to 30 d, Low Population Zone 6.04 x 10-6

Source: Southern 2008a

The staff reviewed the meteorological data used by Southern and the method used to calculate

the atmospheric dispersion factors, thereby confirming that the atmospheric dispersion factors

values are correct. On these bases, the staff concludes that the atmospheric dispersion factors

for the VEGP site are acceptable for use in evaluating potential environmental consequences of

postulated DBAs for the Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor design at the VEGP site.

Table 5-14 lists the set of DBAs considered by Southern and presents Southern's estimate of

the environmental consequences of each accident in terms of total effective dose equivalent

(TEDE). TEDE is the sum of the committed effective dose equivalent from inhalation and the

deep dose equivalent from external exposure. Dose conversion factors from Federal Guidance

Report 11 (Eckerman et al. 1988) were used to calculate the committed effective dose

equivalent. Similarly, dose conversion factors from Federal Guidance Report 12 (Eckerman and

Ryman 1993) were used to calculate the deep dose equivalent.

The staff reviewed Southern's selection of DBAs by comparing the accidents listed in the

application with the DBAs considered in the design certification process (Westinghouse 2005

NRC 2004b). The DBAs in the ER are the same as those considered in the design certification,

therefore the staff concludes that the set of DBAs is appropriate. In addition, the staff reviewed

the calculation of the site-specific consequences of the DBAs and found the calculations to be

correct.

NUREG-1872 5-78 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

There are no environmental criteria related to the potential consequences of DBAs.

Consequently, the review criteria used in the staffs safety review of DBA doses are included in

Table 5-14 to illustrate the magnitude of the calculated environmental consequences (TEDE

doses). In all cases, the calculated TEDE values are considerably smaller than the TEDE

doses used as safety review criteria. Therefore, the staff concludes that, with respect to DBAs,

the VEGP site is environmentally suitable for operation of two new Westinghouse AP1 000

reactors.

Table 5-14. DBA Doses for a Westinghouse AP1 000 Reactor

TEDE in remi(a)

Standard

Review Plan Review

Accident Section(b) EAB(c) LPZ(d) Criterion

Main steam line break 15.1.5

Pre-existing iodine spike 7.38 x 10-2 2.58 x 10.2 2.5 x 10+1(e)

Accident-initiated iodine spike 8.30 x 10-2 7.67 x 10-2 2.5 x 10+0(')

Steam generator rupture 15.6.3

Pre-existing iodine spike 1.66 x 10-1 3.55 x 10-2 2.5 x 10+1(e)

Accident-initiated iodine spike 8.30 x 10-2 2.44 x 10-2 2.5 x 10+0(0

Loss-of-coolant accident 15.6.5 3.52 x 10+0 1.54 x 10+0 2.5 x 10+1(e)

Rod ejection 15.4.8 2.68 x 10-1 1.66 x 10-1 6.25 x 10+0()

Reactor coolant pump rotor seizure (locked rotor) 15.3.3

No feedwater 6.46 x 10-2 1.09 x 10-2 2.5 x 10+0(0

Feedwater available' 4.61 x 10-2 2.22 x 10-2 2.5 x 10+0(0

Failure of small lines carrying primary coolant 15.6.2 1.57 x 101 2.86 x 10-2 2.5 x 10+0(')

outside containment

Fuel handling 15.7.4 5.17 x 10-1 9.63 x 10-2 6.25 x 10+0(f)

(a) To convert rem to Sv, divide by 100.

(b) NUREG-0800 (NRC 1987).

(c) Exclusion area boundary.

(d) Low population zone.

(e) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1), 10 CFR 52.17, and 10 CFR 100.21 criteria.

(f) Standard Review Plan criterion.

Source: Southern 2008a; NRC 1987

Summary of DBA Impacts

The NRC staff reviewed the DBA analysis in the ER, which is based on analyses performed for

design certification of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design with adjustment for VEGP sitespecific characteristics. The results of the Southern analyses indicate that the environmental

risks associated with DBAs, if two new Westinghouse AP1 000 reactors were to be located at

August 2008 5-79 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

the VEGP site, would be small. On this basis, the staff concludes that the environmental

consequences of DBAs at the VEGP site would be of SMALL significance for two new

Westinghouse AP1 000 reactors.

As noted in Southern's comments on the draft EIS (Southern 2007f), Westinghouse, the

AP1 000 reactor vendor, has submitted a revision to the AP1 000 design to NRC for review

(Westinghouse 2007, NRC 2008). The NRC staff is reviewing that request independently of the

VEGP review. The source term information in the Westinghouse submission indicates that the

doses from postulated accidents would decrease should the proposed design revision be

accepted. However, the staff has not completed its review of the design changes or done a

site-specific analysis of the revised design at the Vogtle site.

5.10.2 Severe Accidents

In its ER, Southern considers the potential consequences of severe accidents for a

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at the VEGP site. Three pathways are considered: (1) the

atmospheric pathway, in which radioactive material is released to the air, (2) the surface-water

pathway, in which airborne radioactive material falls out on open bodies of water, and (3) the

groundwater pathway, in which groundwater is contaminated by a basemat melt-through with

subsequent contamination of surface water by the groundwater.

Southern bases its evaluation of the potential environmental consequences for the atmospheric

and surface-water pathways on the results of the MACCS2 computer code (Chanin et al. 1990;

Jow et al. 1990) run using Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor source term information and sitespecific meteorological, population, and land-use data. In response to an NRC request for

additional information, dated December 29, 2006 (NRC 2006a), Southern provided the NRC

with copies of the input and output files for the MACCS2 computer runs (Southern 2007d). The

NRC staff has reviewed the input and output files, has run confirmatory calculations, and

concurs with Southern's results.

Environmental consequences of some potential surface-water pathways (e.g., swimming and

fishing) are not evaluated by MACCS2. Southern relied on generic analyses in the GELS,

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437

(NRC 1996) for these pathways. Similarly, the MACCS2 code does not address the potential

environmental consequences of the groundwater pathway. Southern relied on generic analyses

in the GElS and earlier analyses to evaluate the potential consequences of releases to

groundwater.

The MACCS computer code was developed to evaluate the potential offsite consequences of

severe accidents for the sites covered by NUREG-1 150 (NRC 1990). MACCS2 (Chanin and

Young 1997) is the current version of MACCS. The MACCS and MACCS2 codes evaluate the

consequences of atmospheric releases of material following a severe accident. The pathways

modeled include exposure to the passing plume, exposure to material deposited on the ground

NUREG-1872 5-80 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

and skin, inhalation of material in the passing plume and resuspended from the ground, and

ingestion of contaminated food and surface water. The primary enhancements in MACCS2 are

that MACCS2 has (1) a flexible emergency-response model, (2) an expanded library of

radionuclides, and (3) a semidynamic food-chain model (Chanin and Young 1997).

Three types of severe accident consequences were assessed: (1) human health, (2) economic

costs, and (3) land area affected by contamination. Human health effects are expressed in

terms of the number of cancers that might be expected if a severe accident were to occur.

These effects are directly related to the cumulative radiation dose received by the general

population. MACCS2 estimates both early cancer fatalities and latent fatalities. Early fatalities

are related to high doses or dose rates and can be expected to occur within a year of exposure

(Jow et al. 1990). Latent fatalities are related to exposure of a large number of people to low

doses and dose rates and can be expected to occur after a latent period of several (2 to

15) years. Population health-risk estimates are based on the population distribution within an

80-km (50-mi) radius of the site. Economic costs of a severe accident include the costs

associated with short-term relocation of people; decontamination of property and equipment;

interdiction of food supplies, land, and equipment use; and condemnation of property. The

affected land area is a measure of the'areal extent of the residual contamination following a

severe accident. Farm land decontamination is an estimate of the area that has an average

whole body dose rate for the 4-year period following the release that would be greater than

0.005 Sv/yr (0.5 rem/yr) if not reduced by decontamination and that would have a dose rate

following decontamination of less than 0.005 Sv/yr (0.5 rem/yr). Decontaminated land is not

necessarily suitable for farming.

Risk is the product of the frequency and the consequences of an accident. For example, the

probability of a severe accident without loss of containment for a Westinghouse AP1 000

reactor at the VEGP site is estimated to be 2.2 x 10-7 per reactor year (Ryr-1), and the

cumulative population dose associated with a severe accident without loss of containment at the

VEGP site is calculated to be 1.34 x 101 person-Sv (1.34 x 103 person-rem). The population

dose risk for this class of accidents is the product of 2.2 x 10-7 Ryr 1 and 1.34 x 101 person-Sv

(1.34 x 103 person-rem), or 2.9 x 10-6 person-Sv Ryr' (2.9 x 10-4 person-rem Ryrl). The

following sections discuss the estimated risks associated with each pathway.

The risks presented in the tables that.follow are risks per year of reactor operation. Southern

has indicated that the VEGP site could hold two reactors of the Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor

design. The consequences of a severe accident would be the same regardless of whether one

or two additional Westinghouse AP1 000 reactors were built at the VEGP site. However, if two

new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors were built, the risks would apply to each reactor, and the

total risk for new reactors at the site would be twice the risk for a single reactor. Even if the risk

values were doubled, the risks would still be significantly smaller than the risks associated with

current-generation reactors.

August 2008 5-81 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Air Pathway. The MACCS2 code directly estimates consequences associated with releases to

the air pathway. The results of the MACCS2 runs are presented in Table 5-15. The core

damage frequencies given in these tables are for internally initiated accident sequences while

the plant is at power. Internally initiated accident sequences include sequences that are

initiated by human error, equipment failures, loss of offsite power, etc. Estimates of the core

damage frequencies for externally initiated events and during shutdown are discussed later.

Table 5-15 shows that the probabilistically weighted consequences, i.e., risks, of severe

accidents for a Westinghouse AP1000 reactor located on the VEGP site are small for all risk

categories considered. For perspective, Tables 5-16 and 5-17 compare the health risks from

severe accidents for a Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor at the VEGP site with the risks for currentgeneration reactors at various sites and with the AP1000 reactor at the North Anna,.Clinton, and

Grand Gulf ESP sites.

In Table 5-16, the health risks estimated for a Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the VEGP site

are compared to health-risk estimates for the five reactors considered in NUREG-1 150

(NRC 1990). Although risks associated with both internally and externally initiated events were

considered for the Peach Bottom and Surry reactors in NUREG-1 150, only risks associated with

internally initiated events are presented in Table 5-16. The health risks shown for the

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at the VEGP site are significantly lower than the risks associated

with current-generation reactors presented in NUREG-1 150. Table 5-16 also compares health

risks of a Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at the VEGP site with health risks for a Westinghouse

AP1000 reactor at three other ESP sites (NRC 2006b, c, d).

The last two columns of Table 5-16 provide average individual fatality risk estimates. To put

these estimates into context for the environmental analysis, the staff compares these estimates

to the safety goals. The Commission has set safety goals for average individual early fatality

and latent cancer fatality risks from reactor accidents in the Safety Goal Policy Statement

(51 FR 30028). These goals are presented here solely to provide a point of reference for the

environmental analysis and does not serve the purpose of a safety analysis. The Policy

Statement expressed the Commission's policy regarding the acceptance level of radiological

risk from nuclear power plant operation as follows:

" Individual members of the public should be provided a level of protection from the

consequences of nuclear power plant operation such that individuals bear no significant

additional risk to life and health

" Societal risks to life and health from nuclear power plant operation should be comparable to

or less than the risks of generating electricity by viable competing technologies and should

not be a significant addition to other societal risks.

NUREG-1872 5-82 August 2008
00

00cW

Table 5-15. Mean Environmental Risks from a Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor Severe Accident at the VEGP Site

Environmental Risk

Farm Land Population Dose from

Release Category Description Core Damage Population Dose Cost(dl) Decontamination(°) Water Ingestion (Accident Class) Frequency (Ryr 1 ) (person-Sv Ryr-')(') Fatalities (Ryr-1 ) ($ Ryr') (ha Ryr 1 ) (person Sv Ryr'l)(a)

IC Intact containment 2.2 x 10' 2.9 x 10-6 0.0 x 10' 0 1.8-x 10. 7.6 x 10-2 7.5 x 10-8 2.7 x 10.8

BP Containment bypass, fission products 1.1 x 108 2.2 x 104 1.8 x 10-10 1.4 x 10_' 3.8 x 10"1 2.8 x 10-4 1.4 x10-5

released directly to environment

Cl Containment isolation failure occurs 1.3 x 10.' 9.9 x 10.6 6.7 x 10-12 6.6 x 10-7 1.3 x 10*0 1.8 x 10-' 2.8 x 10.'

prior to onset of core damage

CFE Early containment failure, after onset 7.5 x 10.8 5.4 x 10_' 6.6 x 1013 3.3 x 10.6 8.3 x 10*0 6.8 x 10-s 2.0 x 10.6

of core damage but before core

relocation

CFI Intermediate containment failure, after 1.9 x 10.10 2.1 x 10.8 4.0 x 10-14 1.3 x 10-7 2.3 x 10-1 2.8 x 10.6 2.7 x 10.8

core relocation but before 24 hr

CFL Late containment failure occurring after 3.5 x 10.13 5.6 x 10.9 0.0 x 10'0 3.7 x 10-10 1.1 x 10-3 1.3 x 10.8 6.0 x 10.12

24 hr

Total 2.4 x 10-7 2.8 x 104 1.9 x 10.10 1.9 x 10.- 4.8 x 101 3.6 x 104 1.7 x 10.5

(a) To convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100.

(b) Early fatalities are fatalities related to high doses or dose rates that generally can be expected to occur within a year of the exposure (Jow et al. 1990).

(c) Latent fatalities are fatalities related to low doses or dose rates that can be expected to occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years.

(d) Cost risk includes costs associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination, interdiction, and condemnation. It does not include costs associated with health

effects (Jow et al. 1990).

(e) Land risk is area where the average whole body dose rate for the 4-year period following the accident exceeds 0.005 Sv/yr but can be reduced to less than 0.005 Sv/yr by

decontamination.

0)

0

_0

CD

0)

0)4

0

-c

0)

0

cn

CDý

C,)

CD

z

C

m

")

00

-4N\)
z

C

M

G)

00,

4

Table 5-16. Comparison of Environmental Risks for a Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor at the VEGP Site with Risks for CurrentGeneration Reactors at Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG-1 1 50(a) and with Risks for the Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor

at Three Other ESP Sites.

50-mi (80-km) Average Individual Fatality Risk

Core Damage Population Dose Risk Fatalities Ryr" Ryr"1

Frequency (Ryr") (person-Sv Ryr' )(b) Early Latent Early Latent Cancer

Grand Gulf(c) 4.0 x 10.6 5 x 10"1 8 x 10.9 9 x 104 3 x 101 1 3 x 10.1°

Peach Bottom(c) 4.5 x 10.6 7 x 10+' 2 x 10.6 5x 10-3 5x 10"11 4 x 101°

Sequoyah(c) 5.7 x 10.5 1 x 10+1 3 x 105 1 x 10.2 1 x 10.8 1 x 10"

Surry(c) 4.0 x10-5 5 x 10+' 2 x 10-6 5 x 10.3 2 x 10-" 2 x 10.9

Zion(c) 3.4 x 104 5 x 10+1 4 x 10.5 2 x 10.2 9 x 10.1 1 x 10.8

Westinghouse AP1000(d) 2.4 x 10-7 2.8 x 10-4 1.9 x 10.-1 1.9 x 10-5 1.6 x 10-12 1.1 x 10"11

Reactor at the VEGP site

Westinghouse AP1000(e) 2.4 x 10.7 8.3 x 10-4 1.2 x 10-10 4.0 x 10.5 2.6 x 105l' 4.9 x 10"11

Reactor at North Anna

Westinghouse AP1000(• 2.4 x 10-7 2.2 x 104 1.4 x 10.5 1.2 x 10.5 6.4 x 10.13 5.5 x 10-"

Reactor at Clinton

Westinghouse AP1000(9) 2.4 x 10-7 1.4 x 10-4 < 1.0 x 10.12 6.9 x 10.6 <1.0 x 10-14 2.0 x 10.11

Reactor at Grand Gulf

(a) NRC 1990

(b) To convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100.

(c) Risks were calculated using the MACCS code and presented in NUREG-1 150 (NRC 1990).

(d) Calculated with MACCS2 code using VEGP site-specific input.

(e) NUREG-1811 (NRC 2006b)

(f) NUREG-1815 (NRC 2006c)

(g) NUREG-1817 (NRC 2006d)

Cin

0

0

-0

CD

03

CD

0

Cn

CD

aCD

cc

Co

N)

0

0
Table 5-17. Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by Internal Events for a Westinghouse AP1000

Reactor at the VEGP Site with Risks Initiated by Internal Events for Current Plants, Including VEGP Units 1 and 2,

Undergoing Operating License Renewal Review and Environmental Risks of the Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor at

Other ESP Sites

80-km (50-mi) Population Dose Risk

Core Damage Frequency (yr"1) (person-Sv Ryrl)(a)

Current Reactor Maximum(b) 2.4x 104 6.9x 10-1

Current Reactor Mean(b) 3.1 x 10.5 1.5 x 10"1

Current Reactor Median(b) 2.5 x 10.5 1.3 x.10-i

VEGP Unit 1 or 2(c) 1.6 x 10'5 3.4x 10-3

Current Reactor Minimum(b) 1.9 x 10.6 3.4 x 103

00 Westinghouse AP1000(d) Reactor at the VEGP site 2.4 x10.' 2.8 x10

Westinghouse AP1000(e) Reactor at North Anna 2.4 x 8.3x 10

107 1040 Westinghouse AP1000(o Reactor at Clinton 2.4 x 10 2.2 x 1-

CDs

10-4

0)

Westinghouse AP1000(g)~ Reactor at Grand Gulf 2.4 x 10. 1.4 x104

(a) To convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100.

(b) Based on MACCS and MACCS2 calculations for 60 current plants at 36 sites.

(c) License Renewal ER for VEGP Units 1 and 2 (Southern 2007f)

(d) Calculated with MACCS2 code using VEGP site-specific input.

(e) NUREG-1811 (NRC 2006b) W

(f) NUREG-1815 (NRC 2006c)

(g) NUREG-1817 (NRC 2006d) -r

C "C

0

m CD

0) 0 -,4,

4,CD 11.)
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

The following quantitative health objectives are used in determining achievement of the safety

goals:

" The risk to an average individual in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant of prompt fatalities

that might result from reactor accidents should not exceed one-tenth of 1 percent

(0.1 percent) of the sum of prompt fatality risks resulting from other accidents to which

members of the U.S. population are generally exposed.

" The risk to the population in the area near a nuclear power plant of cancer fatalities that

might result from nuclear power plant operation should not exceed one-tenth of 1 percent

(0.1 percent) of the sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes.

These quantitative health objectives are translated into two numerical objectives as follows:

* The individual risk of a prompt fatality from all "other accidents to which members of the

U.S. population are generally exposed," is about 3.8 x 10-4 per year (NSC 2006), including a

1.5 x 10-4 per year risk associated with transportation accidents (BTS 2005). One-tenth of

1 percent of these figures imply that the individual risk of prompt fatality from a reactor

accident should be less than 4 x 10-7 Ryr-1 .

"The sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes" for an individual is taken to

be the cancer fatality rate in the U.S., which is about 1 in 500 or 2 x 10-3 per year (Reed

2007). One-tenth of 1 percent of this implies that the risk of cancer to the population in the

area near a nuclear power plant because of its operation should be limited to 2 x 10-6 Ryr 1 .

MACCS2 calculates average individual early and latent cancer fatality risks. The average

individual early fatality risk is calculated using the population distribution within 1.6 km (1 mi) of

the plant boundary. The average individual latent cancer fatality risk is calculated using the

population distribution within 16 km (10 mi) of the plant. For the plants considered in

NUREG-1 150, these risks were well below the Commission's safety goals. Risks calculated for

the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design at the VEGP site are lower than the risks associated

with the current-generation reactors considered in NUREG-1 150 and are well below the

Commission's safety goals.

The staff compared the core damage frequency (CDF) and population dose risk estimate for a

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at the VEGP site with statistics summarizing the results of

contemporary severe accident analyses performed for 60 reactors at 36 sites. The results of

these analyses are included in the final site-specific Supplements 1 through 30 to the GElS for

License Renewal, NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), and in the ERs included with license renewal

applications for those plants for which supplements have not been published. All of the

analyses were completed after publication of NUREG-1 150 (NRC 1990), and the analyses for

56 of the reactors used MACCS2, which was released in 1997. Table 5-15 shows that the CDF

NUREG-1872 5-86 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

estimated for the Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor is significantly lower than those of currentgeneration reactors. Similarly, the population doses estimated for a Westinghouse AP1000

reactor at the VEGP site are well below the mean and median values for current-generation

reactors undergoing license renewal including VEGP Units 1 and 2.

Finally, the population dose risk from a severe accident for a Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at

the VEGP site (2.8 x 104 person-Sv/Ryr) may be compared to the dose risk for normal

operation of a single Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor at the VEGP site (9.2 x 10-3 person-Sv/Ryr)

(see Section 5.9.3.2). The risk associated with a severe accident is more than an order of

magnitude lower than the risk associated with normal operations.

The analyses described above are specifically for internally initiated events. The ER does not

address potential consequences from externally initiated events. However, the Westinghouse

AP1000 reactor vendor and the staff have addressed three externally initiated events during

design certification of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor. Those events are seismic, internal

fire, and internal flooding events. The analyses are described Section 19.1.5 of the Final Safety

Evaluation Report (FSER) for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor (NRC 2004b). Analyses of the

capability of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design to withstand external flooding, tornadoes,

hurricanes, and site-specific external events were not performed. These analyses are required

of the COL applicant (NRC 2004b [COL Action Item 19.1.5-1]). In addition, the COL applicant is

required to update the PRA used to support the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design

certification, as necessary, when site-specific and plant-specific (as-built) data become available

(NRC 2004b [COL Action Item 19.1.1.1-1]).

With respect to seismic events, the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor vendor performed a

PRA-based seismic margin analysis. This analysis indicates that there is a high confidence

(95 percent) that safety systems and components would survive a 0.5g peak acceleration during

a seismic event. The safe-shut down earthquake for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design

is 0.3g. Consequently, the staff concluded in the FSER that the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor

design is acceptable.

With respect to internal fires, the Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor vendor estimated the fireinduced CDFs to be about 5.6 x 10-8 per year, during power operation and about 8 x 10-8 per

year during shutdown and considers these estimates to be conservative. While the staff

believes that such a conclusion is not possible without a detailed PRA, the staff did conclude

that the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design is capable of withstanding severe accident

challenges from internal fires in a manner superior to most, if not all, operating plant designs. In

addition, because detailed PRA-based internal fires analyses at some operating plants have

shown that fire-induced sequences can be leading contributors to CDF, COL applicants should'

provide an updated internal fires PRA that takes into account design details (e.g., cable routing,

door and equipment locations, and fire detection and suppression system locations) to search

for internal fire vulnerabilities (NRC 2004b [COL Action Item 19.1.5.2.1-1]).

August 2008 5-87 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

With respect to internal flooding, the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor vendor did not perform a

detailed PRA to assess the risk from internal flooding. Instead, the vendor performed an

internal flooding PRA commensurate with the level of detail available and made conservative

assumptions, where detailed information was not available, to bound the flooding analysis. The

staff found that this analysis was adequate to identify potential vulnerabilities and to lend insight

into the design which could be used to support design certification requirements. Quantification

of potential scenarios with the plant at power resulted in a total CDF from internal floods of

about 1 x 10` per year. The CDF from internal floods when the plant is shut down is estimated

to be about 3.2 x 10.9 per year. The vendor considers these estimates to be conservative.

While the staff believes that such a conclusion is not possible without a detailed PRA, the staff

did conclude that the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design is capable of withstanding severe

accident challenges from internal floods in a manner superior to operating plants and that the

conclusions from the vendor's internal flood risk analysis complement this belief. In addition,

because detailed PRA-based internal floods analyses at some operating plants have shown that

flood-induced sequences can be leading contributors to CDF, COL applicants should provide an

updated internal flood PRA that takes into account design details (e.g., pipe routing, door

locations, flood barriers) to search for internal flooding vulnerabilities (NRC 2004b [COL Action

Item 19.1.5.3-1]).

Surface-Water Pathways. Surface-water pathways are an extension of the air pathway. These

pathways cover the effects of radioactive material deposited on open bodies of water. The

surface-water pathways of interest include external radiation from submersion in water and

activities near the water, ingestion of water, and ingestion of fish and other aquatic creatures.

Of these pathways, the MACCS2 code evaluates only the ingestion of contaminated water. The

risks associated with this surface-water pathway calculated for the VEGP site are included in

the last column of Table 5-15.

Doses from surface-water pathways are not modeled in MACCS or MACCS2. Typical

population exposure risk for the aquatic food pathway for plants located on small rivers were

considered in the GElS (NRC 1996). For these plants, the population dose from the food

pathway was well below the population dose from the air pathway. The existing VEGP, which is

co-located with the ESP site, is classified as being on a small river. The Savannah River is

used for recreational activities including swimming and fishing. Analysis of water-related

exposure pathways at the Fermi reactor (NRC 1981) suggests that population exposures from

swimming are significantly lower than exposures from the aquatic ingestion pathway.

Should a severe accident occur at a Westinghouse AP1000 reactor located at the VEGP site, it

is likely that Federal, State, and local officials would restrict access to the river below the site

and in contaminated areas above the site. These actions would further reduce surface-water

pathway exposures.

NUREG-1872 5-88 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Groundwater Pathway. MACCS2 does not evaluate the environmental risks associated with

severe accident releases of radioactive material to groundwater. However, this pathway has

been addressed in NUREG-1437 in the context of renewal of licenses for current-generation

reactors (NRC 1996). In NUREG-1437 the staff assumes a 1 x 10-4 Ryr1 probability of

occurrence of a severe accident with a basemat melt-through leading to potential groundwater

contamination, and the staff concluded that groundwater contribution to risk is generally a small

fraction of the risk attributable to the atmospheric pathway.

The staff has reevaluated its assumption of a 1 x 10-4 Ryr 1 probability of a basemat meltthrough. The staff believes that the 1 x 10-4 probability is too large for new plants. The

probability of core melt with basemat melt-through should be no larger than the total core

damage frequency estimate for the reactor. Table 5-15 gives a total core damage frequency

estimates of 2.4 x 10-7 Ryr- for the Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor. NUREG-1 150 indicates that

the conditional probability of a basemat melt-through ranges from 0.05 to 0.25 for currentgeneration reactors. New designs include features to reduce the probability of basemat meltthrough in the event of a core melt accident. On this basis, the staff believes that a basemat

melt-through probability of 1 x 10-7 Ryr- is reasonable and still conservative.

Although the staff assumed that the probability of occurrence of a release via the groundwater

pathway is significantly larger than a release via the atmospheric pathway for the Westinghouse

AP1000 reactor, the groundwater pathway is more tortuous and affords more time for

implementing protective actions and, therefore, results in a lower risk to the public. As a result,

the staff concludes that the risks associated with releases to groundwater are sufficiently small

that they would not have a significant effect on determination of suitability of the VEGP site.

Summary of Severe Accident Impacts. The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis in the ER and

conducted its own confirmatory analysis using the MACCS2 code. The results of both the

Southern analysis and the NRC analysis indicate that the environmental risks associated with

severe accidents if a Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor were to be located at the VEGP site would

be small compared to risks associated with operation of the current-generation reactors at the

VEGP site and other sites. These risks are well below the NRC safety goals. On these bases,

the staff concludes that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents at the

VEGP site would be of SMALL significance for a Westinghouse APt000 reactor.

Neither Southern nor the NRC staff has evaluated the effects of the proposed revision to the

AP1000 design (Westinghouse 2007; NRC 2008) on the site-specific consequences of

postulated severe accidents for an AP1 000 reactor at the Vogtle site.

5.10.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Southern elected to reference the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design in its ESP application.

The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design (see Appendix D to Part 52-Design Certification

August 2008 5-89 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Rule for the AP1000 Design) incorporates many features intended to reduce severe accident

core damage frequencies (CDFs) and the risks associated with severe accidents. The

effectiveness of the Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor design features is evident in Tables 5-16

and 5-17, which compare CDFs and severe accident risks for the Westinghouse AP1000

reactor with CDFs and risks for current-generation reactors including VEGP Units 1 and 2. Core

damage frequencies and risks have generally been reduced by a factor of 100 or more when

compared to the existing units.

The purpose of the evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) is to

determine whether there are SAMDAs or procedural modifications or training activities that can

be justified to further reduce the risks of severe accidents (NRC 2000a). Consistent with the

direction from the Commission to consider the severe accident mitigation design alternatives

(SAMDAs) at the time of certification, the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor vendor (Westinghouse

2005) and the staff, in its environmental assessment (EA) accompanying the rule (NRC 2004a,

2005), have considered a number of design alternatives for a Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at

a generic site. On these bases, the staff concluded (NRC 2006e):

Because the AP1 000 design already has numerous plant features designed to reduce CDF

and risk, the benefits and risk reduction potential of any additional plant improvements is

significantly reduced. This reduction is true for both internally and externally initiated events.

Moreover, with the features already incorporated in the AP1 000 design, the ability to

estimate CDF and risk approaches the limits of probabilistic techniques. Specifically, when

CDFs are estimated to be on the order of 1 in 1,000,000 years, it is possible that areas of

the PRA where modeling is least complete, or supporting data are sparse or even

nonexistent, may actually be the more important contributors to risk. Areas not modeled or

incompletely modeled included human reliability, sabotage, rare initiating events,

construction and design errors, and system interactions. Although improvements in these

areas may introduce additional contributors to CDF and risk, the NRC does not expect that

.additional contributions would change the conclusions in absolute terms.

In its ER (Southern 2008a), Southern assessed 15 SAMDAs that were considered in the

AP1000 DCD (Westinghouse 2005) using the VEGP site-specific information. Using

procedures set forth in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997), the applicant determined that the

maximum averted cost risk for a single Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at the VEGP site is so

low that none of the SAMDAs is cost beneficial. A more realistic assessment would show that

the potential reductions in cost risk are substantially less than the maximum averted cost risk

because no SAMDA can reduce the remaining risk to zero. Based on a review of its previous

evaluation of generic SAMDAs for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor and the applicant's

analysis, the staff concludes that there are no cost beneficial SAMDAs and that the SAMDA

issue is resolved.

NUREG-1872 5-90 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

The SAMDA issue is a subset of the SAMA review. The other attributes of the SAMA review,

namely procedural modifications and training activities, have not been addressed by the

applicant. However, the applicant has stated (Southern 2008a) that "...appropriate

administrative controls on plant operations would be incorporated into the plants' management

systems as part of its baseline."

5.10.4 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts

The staff evaluated the environmental impacts from DBAs and severe accidents for a

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at the VEGP site. Based on the information provided by

Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff concludes that the potential

environmental impacts from a postulated accident from the operation of the proposed VEGP

Units 3 and 4 would be SMALL.

5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts

During Operation

The following general measures and controls on which the staff relied in its evaluation of

environmental impacts during operation of two new units at the VEGP site include those that

would be required of Southern (at the Federal, State, and local levels) by applicable permits and

authorizations (contained in Tables 1.3-1, 1.3-2, and 1.3-4 of the ER) as well as the feasible

measures and controls contained in Section 5.10 of the ER (Southern 2008a):

" Compliance with the applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations

that prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g., solid waste management,

erosion and sediment control, air emission control, noise control, stormwater management,

spill response and cleanup, and hazardous material management)

" Compliance with applicable requirements of permits and licenses required for operation

(e.g., NPDES and GDNR permits and operating license requirements)

" Compliance with Southern or GPC procedures applicable to environmental control and

management.

Some of these permits or approvals include:

* NPDES permit requirements imposed on water discharges from the new units

(ER Sections 5.2 and 5.3)

" The Georgia Environmental Protection Agency permit limits and regulations for installing

and operating air emission sources

August 2008 5-91 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Southern evaluated the measures and controls shown in Section 5.10 of the ER

(Southern 2008a) and considered them feasible from both a technical and economic standpoint.

In addition, Southern expects these measures and controls to be adequate for avoiding or

mitigating potential adverse impacts associated with operation of the new units. The staff

considered these measures and controls in its evaluation of station operation impacts.

Table 5-18 lists a summary of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during operation

proposed by Southern. Table 5-18 is reproduced from sections of Southern's Table 5.10-1 of

the ER (Southern 2008a).

5.12 Summary of Operational Impacts

Impact level categories are denoted in Table 5-19 as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE as a

measure of their expected adverse impacts, if any. With the socioeconomic issues for which the

impacts are likely to be beneficially MODERATE or LARGE, this is noted in the Comments

column. The Impact Level column designates beneficial impacts as SMALL.

Table 5-18. Summary of Measures and Controls Proposed by Southern to Limit Adverse

Impacts During Operation of Proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP Site

(Southern 2008a).

Impact Category

Land-Use Impacts

The Site and Vicinity

Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and

Offsite Areas

Historic Properties and Cultural

Resources

Air Quality Impacts

Heat Dissipation to the Atmosphere

Water-Related Impacts

Hydrologic Alterations and Plant Water

Supply

Water-Use Impacts

Water-Quality Impacts

Future Water Use

Cooling System Impacts

Intake System

Specific Measures and Control

Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

* Maintenance practices would protect sensitive habitats and

protected species, including wetlands and water crossings.

" Routing decisions would consider protected species and

critical habitats.

Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

NUREG-1872 5-92 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-18. (contd)

Impact Category Impact Category

Hydrodynamic Descriptions and Physical Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Impacts

Aquatic Ecosystems Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Discharge System Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Thermal Description and Other Physical Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Impacts

Aquatic Ecosystems Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Terrestrial Ecosystems Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Impacts to Members of the Public Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation

Exposure Pathways Releases of radiation would be within all regulatory limits.

Radiation Doses to Members of the Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Public

Impacts to Members of the Public Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Impacts to Biota Other than Members of Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

the Public

Environmental Impact of Waste

Nonradioactive Waste System Impacts * All discharges would comply with Georgia NPDES permit

andapplicable water-quality standards.

* Revise the existing VEGP Stormwater Pollution Prevention

Plan or prepare and implement a new one to avoid/minimize

releases of contaminated stormwater.

* Revise the existing Spill Prevention Countermeasures and

Control Plan or prepare and implement a new one to

avoid/minimize contamination from spills.

* Use approved transporters and offsite landfills for disposal of

solid wastes.

* Continue the existing program of waste minimization reuse

and recycling.

* Operate minor air emission sources in accordance with

applicable regulations and certificates.

* If necessary, modify the existing sanitary waste treatment

system to accommodate increased volume.

August 2008 5-93 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts-at the Proposed Site

Table 5-18. (contd)

Impact Category

Mixed Waste Impacts

Waste Minimization

Radioactive Waste

Transmission System Impacts

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Aquatic Ecosystems

Impacts to Members of the Public

Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts

Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts Relative to

Westinghouse AP1O00 Reactor

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical Impacts of Proposed Units

Impact Category

" Limit mixed waste generation through source reduction,

recycling, and treatment options.

" Develop a Waste Minimization Program to address mixed

waste inventory management, equipment maintenance,

recycling and reuse, segregation, treatment (decay in

storage), work planning, waste tracking, and awareness

training.

" Revise the existing Spill Prevention Countermeasures and

Control Plan or prepare and implement a new one to

avoid/minimize contamination from spills.

Develop a Waste Minimization Program to address mixed

waste inventory management, equipment maintenance,

recycling and reuse, segregation, treatment (decay in storage),

work planning, waste tracking, and awareness training.

Develop a Waste Minimization Program to address mixed

waste inventory management, equipment maintenance,

recycling and reuse, segregation, treatment (decay in storage),

work planning, waste tracking, and awareness training.

Maintenance practices would protect sensitive habitats and

protected species, including wetland and water crossings.

Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

" Select mining techniques that minimize potential impacts.

* Consider use of new technology that requires less uranium

hexafluoride.

" Consider use of centrifuge process over gaseous diffusion

process, which could significantly reduce energy

requirements and environmental impacts.

* Consider use of new technologies with less fuel loading to

reduce energy, emissions and water usage.

" Comply with permit limits and regulations for installing and

operating air emission sources.

" Perform view scape study for new structures onsite,

including cooling towers, as part of final design.

" Consider staggering outage shifts to reduce plantassociated traffic on local roads during shift changes.

NUREG-1872 5-94 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-18. (contd)

Impact Category Impact Category

Social and Economic Impacts of Lead time would allow developers to construct new homes.

Proposed Units

Environmental Justice Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls;

traffic volume would not exceed road capacities.

Decommissioning

Decommissioning Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Transportation of Radioactive Waste

Transportation of Radioactive Waste Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Nonradiological Health Impacts

Nonradiological Health Impacts Southern did not propose any additional measures or controls.

Table 5-19. Characterization of Operational Impacts at the VEGP Site

Category Comments Impact Level

Land-Use Impacts

The Site and Vicinity Operation of 2 new units within existing site. SMALL

Possible new housing and retail space added in

.vicinity because of potential growth.

Transmission Line Most land-use impacts occur during construction. SMALL

Rights-of-Way

Air-Quality Impacts Cooling tower, meteorological, and transmission line SMALL

impacts are expected to be negligible. Pollutants

emitted during operations considered insignificant

and limits could be incorporated under existing

permits.

Water-Related Impacts

Water Use During normal and drought years, the impact would SMALL

be SMALL.

Water Quality Water effluents would be regulated by the GDNR SMALL

and the NPDES permit.

Ecological Impacts

Terrestrial Ecosystems Impacts from operation of a new nuclear unit, SMALL

including the associated heat dissipation system,

transmission lines, and right-of-way maintenance

would be negligible.

Aquatic Ecosystems Southern's adherence to the NPDES permit and SMALL

EPA's intake structure design requirements would

likely result in the maintenance of balanced aquatic

populations.

August 2008 5-95 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-19. (contd)

Category Comments Impact Level

Threatened and Endanaered The American alliaator and the shortnose sturaeon SMALL

Species

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical Impacts

Workers/Public

Buildings

Roads

Aesthetics

are the only threatened or endangered animal

species known to inhabit the area; other species are

transient and would not be affected.

Workers would use protective equipment and

receive training to mitigate any possible impact. The

VEGP site location is relatively remote, so the public

would not be affected.

No anticipated impact to onsite or offsite buildings.

Upgrades before or during construction would cover

the lesser impact of operational workforces.

Visual impact would be minimal because of remote

location and sparse population. Visual impacts of

operation at the VEGP site would be SMALL and

similar to existing conditions. Aesthetic Impact along

new transmission line right-of-way would be

MODERATE.

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

to

MODERATE

Demography Number of new employees would be small in

proportion to population base in the region if inmigrating population settles according to current

patterns for VEGP Units 1 and 2.

Impacts to Community - Social and Economic

Economy

Taxes

Increased jobs would benefit the area economically,

up to a moderate beneficial impact (Burke County) is

possible.

Degree of impact depends on distribution of

revenues to county or state; generally impact is

beneficial, especially for property taxes. Under

current tax law, the beneficial impact of additional

taxes would be LARGE for Burke County, and

SMALL elsewhere.

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

Beneficial

SMALL to

LARGE

Beneficial

Infrastructure and Community Services

Transportation Improvements made for construction would be

sufficient to cover any adverse impact from

additional operational workers.

SMALL

NUREG-1872 5-96 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-19. (contd)

Category Comments Impact Level

Recreation Overall impacts on recreation near the VEGP site SMALL

would be minimal because of the remote location

and fact that the facility would be operating in an

area with an existing nuclear power facility.

Housing

Public Services

Education

Historic and Cultural Resources

Environmental Justice

Nonradiological Health Impacts

Adequate housing is available in the region to

handle operational workers.

Adequate in all counties for any population increase

because of the operation workforce.

Current schools and planned additions would handle

additional students.

A cultural resource procedure is in place for

minimizing impacts from routine land disturbances.

Physical impacts would be SMALL. Economic

impacts would be beneficial under existing tax law.

Small estimated river temperature increase would

not significantly increase abundance of thermophilic

microorganisms. Health impacts of noise, EMFs,

and occupational injuries would be monitored and

controlled in accordance with OSHA regulations.

Doses to the public and occupational workers would

be monitored and controlled in accordance with

NRC limits.(a)

Doses for a Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor are

expected to be a small fraction of the regulatory

dose limits.

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

Radiological Health Impacts

Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Design-Basis Accidents

SMALL

SMALL

Severe Accidents Risks would be small compared to current- SMALL

generation nuclear power facilities.

(a) The ICRP (ICRP 1977; ICRP 1991) states that if humans are adequately protected, other living things are also

likely to be sufficiently protected.

5.13 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."

August 2008 51-97 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses,

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site

Criteria."

29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, "Occupational

Safety and Health Standards."

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties."

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 Operation."

51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. "Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power Plants;

Policy Republications." Federal Register.

52 FR 21059. June 4, 1987. "Reclassification of the American Alligator to Threatened Status

Due to Similarity of Appearance Throughout the Remainder of its Range." Federal Register.

66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System:

Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities." Federal Register,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice

Matters in*NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

AMEC Americas Limited. 2005. Mackenzie Gas project: Effects of Noise on Wildlife.

Prepared for Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited. Accessed June 11, 2008 at

http://www.ngps.nt.ca/upload/proponent/imperial/% 20oii*% 20resources`%/20ventures %/20limited/b

irdfieldwildlife/documents/noisewild lifereport-filed. pdf.

NUREG-1872 5-98 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). 2005. Figure 3-1 Transportation Fatality Rates by

Selected Mode: 2003. Accessed May 1, 2007 at

http://www.bts.govlpublications/transportation-statistics-annual-report12005/htmi/chapter-02/fig

ure_03_01.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1997. Summary of Notifiable Diseases,

United States 1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 45, No. 53. October 31, 1997.

Atlanta, Georgia.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1998. Summary of Notifiable Diseases,

United States 1997. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 46, No. 54. November 20,

1998. Atlanta, Georgia.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. Summary of Notifiable Diseases,

United States 1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 47, No. 53. December 31,

1999. Atlanta, Georgia.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2001. Summary of Notifiable Diseases,

United States 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 48, No. 53. April 6, 2001.

Atlanta, Georgia.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002a. Summary of Notifiable Diseases -

United States, 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 49, No. 53. June 14, 2002.

Atlanta, Georgia.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002b. Surveillance for WaterborneDisease Outbreaks - United States, 1999-2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,

Vol. 51 (SS08). November 22, 2002. Atlanta, Georgia.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2003a. Summary of Notifiable Diseases -

United States, 2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 52, No. 40. May 2, 2003.

Atlanta, Georgia.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2003b. Primary Amebic

Meningoencephalitis - Georgia, 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 50, No. 53.

October 10, 2003. Atlanta, Georgia.

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). October 22, 2004. Atlanta, Georgia.

August 2008 5-99 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2005. Summary of Notifiable Diseases -

United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 52, No. 54. April 22, 2005.

Atlanta, Georgia.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2006. Summary of Notifiable Diseases -

United States, 2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 53, No. 53. June 16, 2006.

Atlanta, Georgia.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007. Summary of Notifiable Diseases -

United States, 2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 54, No. 53. March 30, 2007.

Atlanta, Georgia.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2008. Primary Amebic

Meningoencephalitis - Arizona, Florida, and Texas, 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly

Report, Vol. 57, No. 21. May 30, 2007. Atlanta, Georgia.

Chanin D.I. and M.L. Young. 1997. Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume1, User's Guide.

SAND97-0594, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Chanin D.I., J.L. Sprung, L.T. Ritchie, and H.N. Jow. 1990. MELCOR Accident Consequence

Code System (MACCS), User's Guide. NUREG/CR-4691, Vol. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C.

Cherry G.S. 2006. Simulation and Particle-Tracking Analysis of Ground-Water Flow Near the

Savannah River Site, Georgia and South Carolina, 2002, and for Selected Ground-Water

Management Scenarios, 2002 and 2020. Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5195.

U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed August 7, 2007 at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5195/ (webonly publication).

Cherry, G.S. and J.S. Clarke. 2007. Simulation and Particle-Tracking Analysis of Selected

Ground-Water Pumping Scenarios at Vogtle Electric Generation Plant, Burke County, Georgia.

Open-File Report 2007-1363, 51 p., U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Accessed April

17, 2008 at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1363/.

Clarke J.S. and C.T. West. 1997. Ground-water Levels, Predevelopment Ground-Water Flow,

and Stream-Aquifer Relations in the Vicinity of the Savannah River Site, Georgia and South

Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4197, U.S.

Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 7, 2008 at

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/publications/abstracts/wrir97-4197.html.

NUREG-1872 5-100 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Clarke J.S. and C.T. West. 1998. Simulation of Ground-Water Flow and Stream-Aquifer

Relations in the Vicinity of the Savannah River Site, Georgia and South Carolina,

Predevelopment Through 1992. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations

Report 98-4062, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. Accessed July 7, 2008 at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri98-4062/.

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

[FWPCA]).

Collins M.R. and T.I.J. Smith. 1993. "Characteristics of the Adult Segment of the Savannah

River Population of Shortnose Sturgeon." In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of

Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47:485-491.

Collins M.R., W.C. Post, D.C. Russ, and T.I.J. Smith. 2002. "Habitat Use and Movements of

Juvenile Shortnose Sturgeon in the Savannah River, Georgia-South Carolina." Transactions of

the American Fisheries Society 131:975-979.

Cooper H.H., Jr. and C.E. Jacob. 1946. "A Generalized Graphical Method for Evaluation

Formation Constants and Summarizing Well Field History." Transactions of the American

Geophysical Union 27:526-534.

Dadswell M.J., B.D. Taubert, T.S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. 1984. Synopsis of

Biological Data of Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818. Technical

Report NMFS 14. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C.

Dooling R. 2002. Avian Hearing and the Avoidance of Wind Turbines. NREL/TP-500-30844,

National Renwable Energy laboroatory, Golden Colorado. Accessed July 8, 2008 at

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/30844.pdf.

Eckerman K.F., A.B. Wobarst, and A.C.B. Richardson. 1988. Limiting Values of Radionuclide

Intake and Air Concentrations and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and

Ingestion. Federal Guidance Report No. 11, EPA-520/1-88-202, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington D.C.

Eckerman K.F and J.C. Ryman. 1993. External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and

Soil. Federal Guidance Report No. 12, EPA-402-R-93-081, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington D.C.

Georgia Code, Title 12. Conservation and Natural Resources, Chapter 5 Water Resources,

Article 2. Control of Water Pollution and Surface Water Use, Official Code of Georgia.

Annotated (O.C.G.A.) § 12-5-31 Permits for Withdrawal, Diversion, or Impoundment of Surface

August 2008 5-101 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Waters Generally and for Farm Use; Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting Water Withdrawals.

Atlanta, Georgia.

Georgia Code, Title 12. Conservation and Natural Resources, Chapter 5 Water Resources,

Article 3. Wells and Drinking Water, Part 2. Ground-water Use Generally, O.C.G.A § 12-5-90

Ground-water Use Act of 1972, and O.C.G.A § 12-5-96 Permits to Withdraw, Obtain, or Use

Groundwater; Water Conservation Plan; Factors to be Considered; Notice of Official Acts;

Administrative Hearings; Judicial Review. Atlanta, Georgia.

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 Human Resources (GDHR). 2006. Georgia Epidemiology Report.

Vol. 22, No. 8. August 2006. Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Branch, Atlanta, Georgia.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007a. Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6-.03,

Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed February 4, 2008 at

http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/docs/391/3/6/03.pdf.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007b. E-mail from Greg Krakow (Georgia

Department of Natural Resources) to Amanda Stegen (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,

Terrestrial Ecology Scientist), regarding Digital Rare Element Data for Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory. January 19, 2007. Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML070851855.

Georgia Planning Act of 1989. Official Code of Georgia, section 50-8-7.

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2006. Avian Protection Plan for Georgia Power Company,

Rev 1. March 14, 2006. Accession No. ML063000228.

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2007. Corridor Study - Thomson Vogtle 500-kV

Transmission Project. Georgia Power Company, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No.

ML070460368.

Golden J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data

Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

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

fo of the American Fisheries Society 135(5):1145-1155.

NUREG-1872 5-102 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Grabowski, T.B. and J.J. Isely. 2007. "Spatial and temporal segregation of spawning habitat by

catostomids in the Savannah River, Georgia and South Carolina, U.S.A." Journal of Fish

Biology 70:782-798.

Hall J.W., T.I.J. Smith, and S.D. Lamprecht. 1991. "Movements and Habitats of Shortnose

Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Savannah River." Copeia 1991 (3):695-702.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and

Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series

No. 332, Vienna, Austria.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1977. Recommendations of the

International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 26, 1977, Pergamon

Press, New York.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of

the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, November

1990, Pergamon Press, New York.

Jablan S. 1990. Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities. National Institutes of

Health, Publication No. 90-874, Washington, D.C.

Jirka G., R.L. Doneker, and S.W .Hinton. 2004. User's Manual for Cormix: A Hydrodynamic

Mixing Zone Model and Decision Support System for Pollutant Discharges into Surface Waters.

EPA#823/B-97-006. Accessed at http://www.cormix.info.

Jow H.N., J.L. Sprung, J.A. Rollstin, L.T. Ritchie, and D.I. Chanin. 1990. MELCOR Accident

Consequence Code System (MACCS), Model Description. NUREG/CR-4691, Vol. 2,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Larkin R.P. 1996. Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. Technical Report

96/21, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois. Accessed at

http://nhsbig.inhs.uiuc.edu/bioacoustics/noiseandwildlife.txt.

Makhijani A. and B. Boyd. 2004. Nuclear Dumps by the Riverside: Threats to the Savannah

River from Radioactive Contamination at the Savannah River Site. Institute for Energy and

Environmental Research, Tacoma Park, Maryland.

McFarlane R.W., R.F. Frietsche, and R.D. McDaniels. 1978. Impingement and Entrainment of

Fishes at the Savannah River Plant: An NPDES 316B, Demonstration. DP-1494 E.I. DuPont

De Nemours and Co., Aiken, South Carolina.

August 2008 5-103 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Moulder J.E. 2003. Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health: Power Lines and Cancer

FAQs. Accessed February 4, 2008 at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/powerlines-cancerfaq/.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1991. Effects of Ionizing

Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland.

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

National Historical Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470 et seq.

National Institute of Environment Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health

Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. NIH

Publication No. 99-4493, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose

Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeonshortnose.pdf.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006. Letter from Walt Wilson, National Marine

Fisheries Service to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), October 24, 2006. U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML063200127.

National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks for Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing

Radiation: BEIR VII - Phase 2 by Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low

Levels of Ionizing Radiation. National Research Council, National Academies Press,

Washington, D.C.

National Safety Council (NSC). 2006. Odds of Dying. Washington, D.C. Accessed May 1,

2007 at http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx.

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-SR-27

prepared for E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company. Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, South

Carolina.

Paller M.H. 1992. The 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-92-1001, Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, South Carolina.

Reed E. 2007. Preventing and Controlling Cancer the Nation's Second Leading Cause of

Death. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and

NUREG-1872 5-104 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed February 8, 2008 at

www.toiholliday.com/files/cancer.pdf.

Savannah River Site. 2006. Savannah River Site Environmental Report for 2005. WSRC-TR2006-00007, Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, South Carolina. Accessed on June 11,

2007,at http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs/ERsum/er06/er2OO5.htm.

Soldat J.K., N.M. Robinson, D.A. Baker. 1974. Models and Computer Codes for Evaluating

Environmental Radiation Doses. BNWL-1754, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories,

Richland, Washington.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007. 2005

South Carolina Annual Report on Reportable Conditions' South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control, Columbia, South Carolina.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2007. E-mail from South Carolina

Department of Natural Resources to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory regarding Federal

Threatened and Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. April 9,

2007. Accession No. ML071230462.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 1989. Environmental Protection Plan,

Appendix B to the Facility Operating License No. NPF-68 and Facility Operating License

No. NPF-81, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units I and 2. Southern Nuclear, Docket

Nos. 50-424 and 50-425. March 31, 1989. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Accession No. ML012350369.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2002. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

2001 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. 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. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML021280344.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2003. Final Safety Analysis Report on

VEGP Units I and 2. VEGP-FSAR-2, Rev. 11 (May 2003). Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2004. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

for Southern Nuclear Operating Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Version 22. June

25, 2004. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML070360150.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2005. Annual Radioactive Effluent

Release Report for January 1 2004 to December 31, 2004. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant -

August 2008 5-105 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68

and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML051170347.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2006a. Executive Summary for

Groundwater Drawdown Calculation, Included in Vogtle ESP ER Sections 4.7.2 and 5.2.2

"Groundwater Use Impacts During Construction and Operation." December 1, 2006. Southern

Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML63000223.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2006b. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Environmental Site Audit Information Needs.

Letter Report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington, D.C.). December 11, 2006. Southern Company,

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML063520382.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007a. 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.). January 30, 2007. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No.

ML070880039.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007b. Email from Southern Nuclear

Operating Company to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding Southern Nuclear

Operating Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to Followup Requests for

Additional Information on the Environmental Report (AR-07-0924). Letter report from Southern

Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (Washington, D.C.). May 14, 2007. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Accession No. ML071510102.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007c. E-mail from Southern Nuclear

Operating Company to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated July 20, 2007 regarding

Supplemental Information on Water Treatment Chemical Residuals in Vogtle Unit 3 and 4 Final

Discharge." Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML072080259.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007d. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Environmental Computer Code Input and

Output Files. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama)

to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington, D.C.) July 31, 2007. Southern

Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML072150222.

NUREG-1872 5-106 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007e. Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant Units 1 and 2 License Renewal Application: Environmental Report. Southern Company,

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML071840360.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007f. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company Vogtle Early Site Permit Application Comments on Draft Environmental Impact

Statement. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington D.C.), December 26, 2007. Southern

Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML073620401.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008a. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Revision 4. Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008b. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to NRC Questions from April 23,

2008 Environmental Conference Call. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company

(Birmingham, Alabama) to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington, D.C.), June

26, 2008. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081790598.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008c. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company Vogtle Early Site Permit Application Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring at

Plant Vogtle. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama)

to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington D.C.), May 27, 2008. Southern

Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081510022.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008d. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company Vogtle Early Site Permit Application Response to Request for Additional Information

Regarding Comments Provided on Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Letter report from

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (Washington D.C.), April 4, 2008. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Accession No. ML080990410.

Specht W.A (ed.). 1987. Comprehensive Cooling Study Final Report, Volume V, Aquatic

Ecology. DP-1739, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Aiken, South Carolina.

Strenge D.L., R.A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II- Technical Reference and User

Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Strenge D.L., T.J. Bander, and J.K. Soldat. 1987. GASPAR II- Technical Reference and User

Guide. NUREG/CR-4653, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

August 2008 5-107 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

The Catena Group. 2007. Freshwater Mussel Surveys, The Savannah River from Augusta to

Savannah: South Carolina & Georgia. The Catena Group, Hillsborough, North Carolina.

Theis C.V. 1935. "The Relation Between the Lowering of the Piezometric Surface and the Rate

and Duration of Discharge of a Well Using Groundwater Storage." Trans. Am. Geophysical

Union pages 519-524, Washington, D.C.

Third Rock Consultants, LLC (TRC). 2006. Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Final

Report. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and Associated Transmission Corridors. Prepared for

Tetra Tech Nus, Inc by Third Rock Consultants, LLC, Lexington, Kentucky. Accession No.

ML071710037.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. Drought Contingency Plan Update: Savannah

River Basin. Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.

Mobile/Savannah Planning Center, Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Accessed at www.sas.usace.army.mil/Draft%20SRB%20Drought%20EA%20May%2006.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007. USA Counties. 2000 U.S. Census. Accessed August 11,

2007, at http://censtats.census.gov/usa/usa.shtml.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2007. National Transportation Statistics 2007.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, D.C. Accessed February 4, 2008, at

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportationstatistics/.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2008. Georgia, Toll of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2006.

National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Washington, D.C. Accessed on June 12, 2008 at

http://www-nrd. nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/stsi/1 3_GA/2006/13_GA_2006. htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Water on Tap: What You Need to Know.

EPA-815-K-03-007, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Stage-Discharge Relationship for USGS Gage

021973269, Savannah River Near Waynesboro, Georgia. Accessed on April 26, 2007, at

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwisweb/data/exsarat/021973269.rdb.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from

Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix I. Regulatory Guide 1.109, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1980. Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of

Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power

NUREG-1872 5-108 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Plants. NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rmldoccollections/nuregslstafflsr0654/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Impact Statement

Related to the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Addendum No. 1, NUREG-0769,

Addendum No. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for

Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.145,

Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1985. Final Environmental Statement Related to

the Operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units I and 2. Docket Nos. 50-424 and

50-425. NUREG -1087, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plan for the Review of

Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition. NUREG-0800, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment

for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1 150 Vol. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/srl 150/.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/srl 437/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation

Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Accessed July 10, 2008 at

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=446391.

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

Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1 555, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, Washington, D.C. Accessed at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregsfstaff/srl 555/.

August 2008 5-109 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000b. Alternative Radiological Source Terms

for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.183, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/power-reactors/active/0• 1-183/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. "Procedural Guidance for Preparing

Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues." Appendix D to NRR

Office Instruction LIC-203, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement I Regarding the Decommissioning of

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vol. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr0586/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. Occupational Radiation Exposure at

Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2001. NUREG-0713, Vol. 23, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0713/v23/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Procedural Guidance for Preparing

Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/guidance.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Final Safety Evaluation for APlO00

Related to Certification of the APIO00 Standard Design. Chapter 19, "Severe Accidents,

AP1000 Standard Design." U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed

July 10, 2008 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/srl 793/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Request for Additional Information from

the Southern Nuclear Operating Company Concerning The Environmental Report for the Vogtle

Early Site Permit Application. December 29, 2006. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington D.C. Accession No. ML063540072.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1 811, Vol. 1, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/srl 811/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006c. Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Exelon ESP Site. NUREG-1815, Vol. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

NUREG-1872 5-110 August 2008
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/srl 815/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006d. Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf ESP Site. NUREG-1 817, Vol. 1, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10 2008, at

http://lwww.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/srl 817/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006e. Environmental Assessment by the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Relating to the Certification of the APIO00 Standard Plant

Design Docket No. 52-006. January 24, 2006. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML053630176. Accessed July 10, 2008 at

www. nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/2005/secy2005-

0227/attachment2.pdf.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007a. Trip Report - March 7 through 9, 2007,

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Early Site Permit (ESP) Site Visit. April 3, 2007. U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML070740099.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007b. Memorandum dated August 2, 2007,

from M.D. Notich, NRC, to W.F. Burton, NRC. Subject: Conference Call - June 20, 2007;

Discussion with Southern Nuclear Operating Company Concerning Inconsistencies Between

Request for Additional Information Responses and the Environmental Report for the Plant

Vogtle Early Site Permit. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accession No.

ML071840243.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Letter from D. B. Matthews, Director

Division of New Reactor Licensing (Washington D.C.) to W. E. Cummings, Vice President

Regulatory Affairs and Standardization, Westinghouse Electric Company (Pittsburgh, PA)

regarding Acceptance Review of the AP1000 Design Certification Amendment Application for

Revision 16. January 18, 2008. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Accession No. ML073600743.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2003. APIO00 Siting Guide: Site

Information for an Early Site Permit Application. APP-0000-XI-001, Revision 3, Westinghouse

Electric Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2005. APIO00 Design Control

Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 15, Westinghouse Electric

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

August 2008 5-111 NUREG-1872
Station Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2007. APIO00 Design Control

Document. AP 000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 16, Westinghouse Electric

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

NUREG-1872 5-112 August 2008
6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

This chapter addresses the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel cycle and solid

waste management, (2) the transportation of radioactive material, and (3) the decommissioning

of two new nuclear units at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site.

In its evaluation of uranium fuel cycle impacts from new units at the VEGP site, Southern

Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) used the Westinghouse AP1000 advanced lightwater reactor (LWR) design, assuming a capacity factor of 93 percent. The capacity factor

reported by Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (2005) for the Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor

design is 95 percent. The results reported here assume two units with a capacity factor of

95 percent. If a different design is proposed at the construction permit (CP) or combined license

(COL) stage, the staff anticipates that would constitute new and significant information requiring

Southern to perform a new evaluation.

6.1 Fuel Cycle Impacts and Solid Waste Management

This section discusses the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

management for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design. The environmental impacts of this

design are evaluated against specific criteria for LWR designs at Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) 51.51.

The regulations in 10 CFR 51.51(a) state that:

Every environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage of a light-watercooled nuclear power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4, 1979, shall take

Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as the basis for evaluating

the contribution of the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the

production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of

irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials and management of low- and highlevel wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of

licensing the nuclear power reactor. Table S-3 shall be included in the environmental

report and may be supplemented by a discussion of the environmental significance of

the data set forth in the table as weighed in the analysis for the proposed facility.

The Westinghouse AP1000 reactors proposed for the VEGP site will use uranium dioxide fuel;

therefore, Table S-3 (10 CFR 51.51(b)) can be used to assess environmental impacts.

Table S-3 values are normalized for a reference 1000-megawatt electrical (MW(e)) LWR at an

80-percent capacity factor. The 10 CFR 51.51(a) Table S-3 values are reproduced in

Table 6-1. The power rating for the VEGP site is 6800 megawatts thermal (MW(t)), assuming

August 2008 6-1 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

that two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors would be located on the VEGP site (Southern 2008).

With a capacity factor of 95 percent, this corresponds to 2185 MW(e).

Specific categories of natural resource use are included in Table S-3 (see Table 6-1). These

categories relate to land use, water consumption and thermal effluents, radioactive releases,

burial of transuranic and high-level and low-level wastes, and radiation doses from

transportation and occupational exposures. In developing Table S-3, the staff considered two

fuel cycle options that differed in the treatment of spent fuel removed from a reactor. The "norecycle" option treats all spent fuel as waste to be stored at a Federal waste repository,

whereas, the "uranium only recycle" option involves reprocessing spent fuel to recover unused

uranium and return it to the system. Neither cycle involves the recovery of plutonium. The

contributions in Table S-3 resulting from reprocessing, waste management, and transportation

of wastes are maximized for both of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no-recycle); that is,

the identified environmental impacts are based on the cycle that results in the greater impact.

The uranium fuel cycle is defined as the total of those operations and processes associated with

provision, utilization, and ultimate disposition of fuel for nuclear power reactors.

Table 6-1. Table S-3 from 10 CFR 51.51(b), Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data(a)

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or

Environmental Considerations Total Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000 MW(e) LWR

Natural Resource Use

Land (acres):

Temporarily committed(b) ................... 100

Undisturbed area ......................... 79

Disturbed area .................................... 22 Equivalent to a 100-MW(e) coal-fired power plant.

Permanently committed ................... . 13

Overburden moved (millions of MT) 2.8 Equivalent to a 95-MW(e) coal-fired power plant.

Water (millions of gallons):

Discharged to air ................................ 160 = 2 percent of model 1000-MW(e) LWR with cooling

tower.

Discharged to water bodies ................ 11,090

Discharged to ground ......................... 127

Total ..................................... 11,377 < 4 percent of model 1000 MW(e) with once-through

cooling.

Fossil fuel:

Electrical energy (thousands of MW-hr) 323 <5 percent of model 1000 MW(e) LWR output.

Equivalent coal (thousands of MT) 118 Equivalent to the consumption of a 45-MW(e) coal-fired

power plant.

NUREG-1872 6-2 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Table 6-1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations ITotal Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or

I 1Reference I Reactor Year of Model 1000 MW(e) LWR

Natural gas (millions of standard cubic feet)

Effluents-Chemical (MT)

Gases (including entrainment):(c)

SO;'~u .................. ... NO '(d)

Hydrocarbons ...................................................

C O ...................................................................

Particulates .......................................................

Other gases:

F .......................................................................

H C I ...................................................................

Liquids:

S 0 4 .......................... ...........................................

N O 3 . .....................................................................

F lu o rid e ................................................................

C a ** .....................................................................

c0 .r ................................... ....................................

N a * .......................................................................

N H 3 ................................. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .......

F e .........................................................................

Tailings solutions (thousands of MT) ....................

Solids

Effluents-Radiological (curies)

Gases (including entrainment):

Rn-222 ..............................................................

Ra-226 .................................

Th-230 ..............................................................

Uranium ............................................................

Tritium (thousands) ...........................................

C -14 ..................................................................

Kr-85 (thousands) ...................

Ru-106 ..............................................................

1-12 9 ..................................................................

1-1 3 1 ....................................... ; ..........................

1351<0.4 percent of model 1000 MW(e) energy output.

4400

1190

14

29.6

1154

0.67

0.014

9.9

25.8

12.9

5.4

8.5

12.1

10

0.4

240

91,000

0.02

0.02

0.034

18.1

24

400

0.14

1.3

0.83

Equivalent to emissions from 45 MW(e) coal-fired plant

for a yearý

Principally from uranium hexafluoride (UF6) production,

enrichment, and reprocessing. The concentration is

within the range of state standards-below level that has

effects on human health.

From enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing

steps. Components that constitute a potential for

adverse environmental effect are present in dilute

concentrations and receive additional dilution by

receiving bodies of water to levels below permissible

standards. The constituents that require dilution and the

flow of dilution water are: NH3-- 600 cfs, N03-20 cfs,

Fluoride-70 cfs.

From mills only-no significant effluents to environment.

Principally from mills-no significant effluents to

environment.

Presently under reconsideration by the Commission.

Principally from fuel reprocessing plants.

T c-9 9 ................................................................. Presently under consideration by the Commission.

August 2008 6-3 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Table 6-1. (contd)

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000 MW(e) LWR

Fission products and transuranics .................... 0.203

Liquids:

Uranium and daughters .................................... 2.1 Principally from milling-included tailings liquor and

returned to ground-no effluents; therefore, no effect on

environment.

Ra-226 ............................................................. 0.0034 From UF6 production.

T h-230 .............................................................. 0.0015

Th-234 .............................................................. 0.01 From fuel fabrication plants-concentration 10 percent of

10 CFR Part 20 for total processing 26 annual fuel

requirements for model LWR.

Fission and activation products ........................ 5.9 x 10-6

Solids (buried onsite):

Other than high level (shallow) ......................... 11,300 9100 Ci comes from low-level reactor wastes and

1500 Ci comes from reactor decontamination and

decommissioning-buried at land burial facilities. 600 Ci

comes from mills-included in tailings returned to

ground. Approximately 60 Ci comes from conversion

and spent fuel storage. No significant effluent to the

environment.

TRU and HLW (deep) ...................................... 1.1 x 10o Buried at Federal Repository.

Effluents-thermal (billions of British thermal 4063 <5 percent of modell000-MW(e) LWR.

u n its) ....................................................................

Transportation (person-rem):

Exposure of workers and general public .......... 2.5

Occupational exposure .(person-rem) ................... 22.6 From reprocessing and waste management.

(a) In some cases where no entry appears it is clear from the background documents that the matter was addressed and that, in

effect, the table should be read as if a specific zero entry had been made. However, there are other areas that are not

addressed at all in the table. Table S-3 does not include health effects from the effluents described in the table, or estimates

of releases of radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle or estimates of technetium-99 released from waste management or

reprocessing activities. These issues may be the subject of litigation in the individual licensing proceedings.

Data supporting this table are given in the 'Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle," WASH-1248 (AEC 1974); the

"Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel Cycle," NUREG-01 16 (Supp.1

to WASH-1248) (NRC 1976); the "Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the

Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," NUREG-0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248)

(NRC 1977b); and in the record of the final rulemaking pertaining to Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts from Spent Fuel

Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Management, Docket RM-50-3. The contributions from reprocessing, waste

management, and transportation of wastes are maximized for either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle). The

contribution from transportation excludes transportation of cold fuel to a reactor and of irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes

from a reactor, which are considered in Table S-4 of Sec. 51.20(g). The contributions from the other steps of the fuel cycle

are given in columns A-E of Table S-3A of WASH-1248.

(b) The contributions to temporarily committed land from reprocessing are not prorated over 30 years, because the complete

temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services one reactor for one year or 57 reactors for 30 years.

(c) Estimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power generation.

(d) 1.2 percent from natural gas use and process.

NUREG-1872 6-4 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

In 1978, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 (22 USC 3201, et seq.) was enacted. This

law significantly impacted the disposition of spent nuclear fuel by deferring indefinitely the

commercial reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel produced in the U.S. commercial nuclear

power program. While the ban on the reprocessing of spent fuel was lifted during the Reagan

administration, economic circumstances changed, reserves of uranium ore increased, and the

stagnation of the nuclear power industry provided little incentive for industry to resume

reprocessing. During the 10 9 th Congress, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (119 Statute 594) was

enacted. It authorized the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct an advanced fuel

recycling technology research and development program to evaluate proliferation-resistant fuel

recycling and transmutation technologies that minimize environmental or public health and

safety impacts, Consequently, while Federal policy does not prohibit reprocessing, additional

DOE efforts would be necessary before commercial reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel

produced in the U.S. commercial nuclear power plants could commence.

The no-recycle option is presented schematically in Figure 6-1. Natural uranium is mined in

either open-pit or underground mines or by an in situ leach solution mining process. In situ

leach mining, presently the primary form of mining in the United States, involves injecting a

lixiviant solution into the uranium ore body to dissolve uranium and then pumping the solution to

the surface for further processing. The ore or in situ leach solution is transferred to mills where

it is processed to produce "yellowcake" (U308). A conversion facility prepares the uranium oxide

by converting it to uranium hexafluoride, which is then processed by an enrichment facility to

increase the percentage of the more fissile isotope uranium-235 and decrease the percentage

of the non-fissile isotope uranium-238. At a fuel fabrication facility, the enriched uranium, which

is approximately 5 percent uranium-235, is then converted to U0 2. The U0 2 is pelletized,

sintered, and inserted into tubes to form fuel assemblies, which are placed in a reactor to

produce power. When the content of the uranium-235 reaches a point where the nuclear

reactor has become inefficient with respect to neutron economy, the fuel assemblies are

withdrawn from the reactor. After onsite storage for sufficient time to allow for short-lived fission

product decay and to reduce the heat generation rate, the fuel assemblies would be transferred

to a waste repository for internment. Disposal of spent fuel elements in a repository constitutes

the final step in the no-recycle option.

The following assessment of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle as related to the

operation of the proposed project is based on the values given in Table S-3 (Table 6-1) and the

staff's analysis of the radiological impact from radon-222 and technetium-99. In NUREG-1437,

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GELS)

(NRC 1996a,b, 1999),(a) the staff provides a detailed analysis of the environmental impacts from

the uranium fuel cycle. Although NUREG-1437 is specific to the impacts related to license

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 Was issued in 1999.

Hereafter, all references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1.

August 2008 6-5 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Fuel [j f 6 týQ' 1000 m~Nn

L" Light Water Power Reactors ŽL± L/33

U02 Fuel Fabrication Fuel Cycle,

Transportation, and Proposed. Federal

Enriched D m oWaste Repository

U FS Decommissioning

Enrichment

Conversion to UFe Uranium Mines and Mills

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

renewal, the information is relevant to this review because the advanced LWR design

considered here uses the same type of fuel; the staffs analyses in Section 6.2.3 of

NUREG-1437 are summarized and set forth here.

The fuel cycle impacts in Table S-3 are based on a reference 1000-MW(e) LWR operating at an

annual capacity factor of 80 percent for a net electric output of 800 MW(e). In the following

review and evaluation of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, the staff considered the

capacity factor of 95 percent with a total net electric output of 2185 MW(e) for the proposed two

new units at the VEGP site (Southern 2008); this is about three times (i.e., 2185 MW(e) divided

by 800 MW(e) yields 2.73) the impact values in Table S-3 (see Table 6-1). Throughout this

chapter, this will be referred to as the 1 000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, reflecting 2185 MW(e)

for the site and, for simplicity the Table S-3 results are scaled by a factor of 3 rather than 2.73.

Recent changes in the fuel cycle may have some bearing on environmental impacts; however,

as discussed below, the staff is confident that the contemporary fuel cycle impacts are below

those identified in Table S-3.

The values in Table S-3 were calculated from industry averages for the performance of each

type of facility or operation within the fuel cycle. Recognizing that this approach meant that

NUREG-1 872 6-6 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

there would be a range of reasonable values for each estimate, the staff followed the policy of

choosing the assumptions or factors to be applied so that the calculated values would not be

underestimated. This approach was intended to ensure that the actual environmental impacts

would be less than the quantities shown in Table S-3 for all LWR nuclear power plants within

the widest range of operating conditions. Many subtle fuel cycle parameters and interactions

were recognized by the staff as being less precise than the estimates and were not considered

or were considered but had no effect on the Table S-3 calculations. For example, to determine

the quantity of fuel required for a year's operation of a nuclear power plant in Table S-3, the

staff defined the model reactor as a 1 000-MW(e) LWR reactor operating at 80-percent capacity

with a 12-month fuel reloading cycle and an average fuel burnup of 33,000 MWd/MTU. This is a

"reactor reference year" or "reference reactor year" depending on the source (either Table S-3

or the NUREG-1437), but it has the same meaning. The sum of the initial fuel loading plus all of

the reloads for the lifetime of the reactor can be divided by the now more likely 60-year lifetime

(40-year initial license term and 20-year license renewal term) to obtain an average annual fuel

requirement. This was done in NUREG-1437 for both boiling water reactors and pressurized

water reactors; the higher annual requirement, 35 metric tonnes (MT) of uranium made into fuel

for a boiling water reactor, was chosen in NUREG-1437 as the basis for the reference reactor

year (NRC 1996a,b). A number of fuel management improvements have been adopted by

nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel and separative work

(enrichment) requirements. Since Table S-3 was promulgated, these improvements have

reduced the annual fuel requirement.

Another change is the elimination of the U.S. restrictions on the importation of foreign uranium.

Until recently, the economic conditions of the uranium market favored utilization of foreign

uranium at the expense of the domestic uranium industry. From the mid-1980s to 2004, the

price of U30 8 remained below $20 per pound. These market conditions forced the closing of

most U.S. uranium mines and mills, substantially reducing the environmental impacts in the

United States from these activities. However, more recently the spot price of U30 8 has

increased dramatically from $24 per pound in April 2005 to $135 per pound in July 2007 and

remained near $60 per pound as of June 2008. As a result, there is a renewed interest in

uranium mining and milling in the United States and the NRC anticipates receiving multiple

license applications for uranium mining and milling in the next several years. The majority of

these applications are expected to be for in situ leach solution mining that does not produce

tailings. Factoring in changes to the fuel cycle suggests that the environmental impacts of

mining and tail millings could drop to levels below those given in Table S-3; however, Table

S-3 estimates have not been reduced for these analyses.

Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 discusses the sensitivity to recent changes in the fuel cycle on the

environmental impacts in greater detail.

August 2008 6-7 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

6.1.1 Land Use

The total annual land requirement for the fuel cycle supporting the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled

model is about 137.2 ha (339 ac). Approximately 15.8 ha (39 ac) are permanently committed

land, and 120 ha (300 ac) are temporarily committed. A "temporary" land commitment is a

commitment for the life of the specific fuel cycle plant (e.g., a mill, enrichment plant, or

succeeding plants). Following completion of decommissioning, such land can be released for

unrestricted use. "Permanent" commitments represent land that may not be released for use

after plant shutdown and decommissioning because decommissioning activities do not result in

removal of sufficient radioactive material to meet the limits in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E, for

release of that area for unrestricted use. Of the 120 ha (300 ac) of temporarily committed land,

95.9 ha (237 ac) are undisturbed and 26.7 ha (66 ac) are disturbed. In comparison, a coal-fired

power plant using the same MW(e) output as the LWR-scaled model and using strip-mined coal

requires the disturbance of about 240 ha (600 ac) per year for fuel alone. The staff concludes

that the impacts on land use to support the 1000-MWie) LWR-scaled model would be SMALL.

6.1.2 Water Use

The principal water use for the fuel cycle supporting a 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model is that

required to remove waste heat from the power stations supplying electrical energy to the

enrichment step of this cycle. Scaling from Table S-3, of the total annual water use of

1.29 x 108 m3 (3.41 x 101o gal), about 1.26 x 108 m3 (3.33 x 1010 gal) are required for the

removal of waste heat, assuming that a new unit uses once-through cooling. Other water

uses involve the discharge to air (e.g., evaporation losses in process cooling) of about

1.82 x 106 m3/yr (4.80 x 108 gal/yr) and water discharged to the ground (e.g., mine drainage) of

about 1.44 x 106 m3

/yr (3.81 x 108 gal/yr).

On a thermal effluent basis, annual discharges from the nuclear fuel cycle are about 4 percent

of the 1 000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model using once-through cooling. The consumptive water use

of 1.82 x 106 m3/yr (4.80 x 108 gal/yr) is about 2 percent of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model

using cooling towers. The maximum consumptive water use (assuming that all plants supplying

electrical energy to the nuclear fuel cycle use cooling towers) would be about 6 percent of the

1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model using cooling towers. Under this condition, thermal effluents

would be negligible. The staff concludes that the impacts on water use for these combinations

of thermal loadings and water consumption would be SMALL.

6.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts

Electric energy and process heat are required during various phases of the fuel cycle process.

The electric energy is usually produced by the combustion of fossil fuel at conventional power

plants. Electric energy associated with the fuel cycle represents about 5 percent of the annual

electric power production of the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR. Process heat is primarily

NUREG-1872 6-8 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

generated by the combustion of natural gas. This gas consumption, if used to generate

electricity, would be less than 0.4 percent of the electrical output from the model plant. The staff

concludes that the fossil fuel impacts from the direct and indirect consumption of electric energy

for fuel cycle operations would be SMALL relative to the net power production of the proposed

project.

6.1.4 Chemical Effluents

The quantities of chemical, gaseous, and particulate effluents with fuel cycle processes are

given in Table S-3 (Table 6-1) for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR. The quantities of effluents

would be about three times greater for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. The

principal effluents are SO,, NO,, and particulates. Based on data in the Seventh Annual Report

of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ 1976), these emissions constitute a small

additional atmospheric loading in comparison with emissions from the stationary fuel

combustion and transportation sectors in the United States, which is about 0.06 percent of the

annual national releases for each of these effluents.

Liquid chemical effluents produced in fuel cycle processes are related to fuel enrichment and

fabrication and may be released to receiving waters. These effluents are usually present in

dilute concentrations such-that only small amounts of dilution water are required to reach levels

of concentration that are within established standards. Table S-3 (Table 6-1) specifies the

amount of dilution water required for specific constituents. In addition, all liquid discharges into

the navigable waters of the United States from plants associated with the fuel cycle operations

would be subject to requirements and limitations set by appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, and

local agencies.

Tailings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process and are not released in

quantities sufficient to have a significant impact on the environment.

The staff determined that the impacts of these chemical effluents would be SMALL.

6.1.5 Radiological Effluents

Radioactive effluents estimated to be released to the environment from waste management

activities and certain other phases of the fuel cycle process are set forth in Table S-3

(Table 6-1). Using these effluents in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996a,b), the staff calculated the

100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle of 1 year of

operation of the model 1 000-MW(e) LWR. The total overall whole body gaseous dose

commitment and whole body liquid dose commitment from the fuel cycle (excluding reactor

releases and dose commitments because of exposure to radon-222 and technetium-99)

were calculated to be approximately 4 person-Sv (400 person-rem) and 2 person-Sv

(200 person-rem), respectively. Scaling these dose commitments by a factor of about three for

August 2008 6-9 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model results in whole body dose commitment estimates of

12 person-Sv (1200 person-rem) for gaseous releases and 6 person-Sv (600 person-rem) for

liquid releases. For both pathways, the estimated 100-year environmental dose commitment to

the U.S. population would be approximately 18 person-Sv (1800 person-rem) for the

1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model.

Currently, the radiological impacts associated with radon-222 and technetium-99 releases are

not addressed in Table S-3. Principal radon releases occur during mining and milling

operations and as emissions from mill tailings, whereas principal technetium-99 releases occur

from gaseous diffusion enrichment facilities. Southern provided an assessment of radon-222

and technetium-99 in its Environmental Report (ER) (Southern 2008). This evaluation relied on

the information discussed in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996a,b).

In Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996a,b), the staff estimated the radon-222 releases from

mining and milling operations and from mill tailings for each year of operations of the reference

1 000-MW(e) LWR. The estimated releases of radon-222 for the reference reactor year for the

1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, or for the total electric power rating for the site for a year, are

approximately 577.2 terre becquerels (TBq) (15,600 Ci). Of this total, about 78 percent would

be from mining, 15 percent from milling operations, and 7 percent from inactive tails before

stabilization. For radon releases from stabilized tailings, the staff assumed that the LWR-scaled

model would result in an emission of 110 GBq (3 Ci) per site year, (i.e., about three times the

NUREG-1437 [NRC ,1996a,b] estimate for the reference reactor year). The major risks from

radon-222 are from exposure to the bone and the lung, although there is a small risk from

exposure to the whole body. The organ-specific dose-weighting factors from 10 CFR Part 20

were applied to the bone and lung doses to estimate the 100-year dose commitment from

radon-222 to the whole body. The estimated 100-year environmental dose commitment from

mining, milling, and tailings before stabilization for each site year (assuming the 1000-MW(e)

LWR-scaled model) would be approximately 28 person-Sv (2800 person-rem) to the whole

body. From stabilized tailings piles, the estimated 100-year environmental dose commitment

would be approximately 0.52 person-Sv (52 person-rem) to the whole body. Additional insights

regarding Federal policy/resource perspectives concerning institutional controls comparisons

with routine radon-222 exposure and risk and long-term releases from stabilized tailing piles are

discussed in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996a,b).

Also as discussed in NUREG-1437, the staff considered the potential health effects associated

with the releases of technetium-99. The estimated releases of technetium-99 for the reference

reactor year for the 1 000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model are 700 million becquerels (MBq) (0.02 Ci)

from chemical processing of recycled uranium hexafluoride before it enters the isotope

enrichment cascade and 560 MBq (0.015 Ci) into the groundwater from a repository. The major

risks from technetium-99 are from exposure of the gastrointestinal tract and kidney, although

there is a small risk from exposure to the whole body. Applying the organ-specific doseNUREG-1872 6-10 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

weighting factors from 10 CFR Part 20 to the gastrointestinal tract and kidney doses, the totalbody 100-year dose commitment from technetium-99 to the whole body was estimated to be

3 person-Sv (300 person-rem) for the 1 000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model.

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation 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. A recent report by the

National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold dose

response model. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an

incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) as a conservative model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure,

recognizing that the model probably overestimates those risks.

Based on this model, the staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem]) from International

Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 60 (ICRP 1991). This coefficient

was multiplied by the sum of the estimated whole body population doses from gaseous

effluents, liquid effluents, radon-222, and technetium-99 discussed above (approximately

49 person-Sv/yr [4900 person-rem/yr]) to calculate that the U.S. population would incur a total of

approximately 3.6 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects annually. This

risk is quite small compared to the number of fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe

hereditary effects that would be estimated to the U.S. population annually from exposure to

natural sources of radiation using the same risk estimation method.

Radon releases from tailings are indistinguishable from background radiation levels at a few

kilometers from the tailings pile (at less than 1 km [0.6 mi] in some cases) (NRC 1996a,b). The

public dose limit in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) regulation,

40 CFR Part 190, is 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) to the whole body from the entire fuel cycle, but

most NRC licensees have airborne effluents resulting in doses of less than 0.01 mSv/yr

(1 mrem/yr) (61 FR 65120).

In addition, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a

study and published Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities in 1990 (Jablan 1990).

This report included an evaluation of health statistics around all nuclear power plants, as well as

several other nuclear fuel cycle facilities, in operation in the United States in 1981 and found "no

evidence that an excess occurrence of cancer has resul"ted from living near nuclear facilities"

(Jablan 1990). The contribution to the annual average dose received by an individual from fuelAugust 2008 6-11 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

cycle-related radiation and other sources as reported in a report published by the National

Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1987a) is listed in Table 6-2. The

nuclear fuel cycle contribution to an individual's annual average radiation dose is extremely

small (less than 0.01 mSv [1 mrem] per year).

Table 6-2. Comparison of Annual Average Dose Received by an Individual from All Sources

Source Dose (mSv/yr)t') Percent of Total

Natural

Radon 2 55

Cosmic 0.27 8

Terrestrial 0.28 8

Internal (body) 0.39 11

Total natural sources 3 82

Artificial

Medical x-ray 0.39 11

Nuclear medicine 0.14 4

Consumer products 0.10 3

Total artificial sources 0.63 18

Other

Occupational 0.009 <0.30

Nuclear fuel cycle <0.01 <0.03

Fallout <0.01 <0.03

Miscellaneous sources <0.01 <0.03

(a) To convert mSv/yr to mrem/yr, multiply by 100.

Source: NCRP Report 93, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States (NCRP 1987a)

Based on the analyses presented above, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of

radioactive effluents from the fuel cycle are SMALL.

6.1.6 Radiological Wastes

The quantities of buried radioactive waste material (low-level, high-level, and transuranic

wastes) are specified in Table S-3 (Table 6-1). For low-level waste disposal at land burial

facilities, the Commission notes in Table S-3 that there would be no significant radioactive

releases to the environment. For high-level and transuranic wastes, the Commission notes that

these are to be buried at a repository, such as the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada, and that no release to the environment is expected to be associated with such disposal

because it has been assumed that all of the gaseous and volatile radionuclides contained in the

spent fuel are released to the atmosphere before the disposal of the waste. In NUREG-01 16

(NRC 1976), which provides background and context for the Table S-3 values for high-level and

transuranic wastes established by the Commission, the staff indicates that these high-level and

transuranic wastes would be buried and would not be released to the environment.

NUREG-1872 6-12 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

On February 15, 2002, subsequent to receipt of a recommendation by the Secretary of Energy,

the President recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the development of a repository for the

geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste (White House Press

Release 2002).

The EPA developed Yucca Mountain-specific repository standards, which were subsequently

adopted by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 63. In an opinion, issued July 9, 2004, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated EPA's radiation protection

standards for the candidate repository, which required compliance with certain dose limits over

a 10,000-year period (U.S. Court of Appeals 2004). The Court's decision also vacated the

compliance period in NRC's licensing criteria for the candidate repository in 10 CFR Part 63.

In response to the Court's decision, EPA issued its proposed revised standards on

August 22, 2005, that would revise the radiation protection standards for the candidate

repository (70 FR 49014). In order to be consistent with EPA's revised standards, NRC

proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 63 on September 8, 2005 (70 FR 53313). The

10 CFR Part 63 rulemaking, RIN 3150-AH68, is titled "Implementation of a Dose Standard After

10,000 Years," and the comment period was extended to December 7, 2005 (70 FR 67098).

The proposed standards are 0.15 mSv (15 mrem) per year for 10,000 years following disposal

and 3.5 mSv (350 mrem) per year for 10,000 years through 1 million years after disposal. The

NRC received an application from DOE on June 3, 2008, for a license to construct and operate

the nation's first geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. If

the application is formally docketed following a 95-day acceptance review period, the NRC is

obligated by Congress to complete a formal licensing review within 3 years, with an option to

request a 1-year extension.

Consequently, at this time, for the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the

fuel cycle, there is some uncertainty with respect to regulatory limits for offsite releases of

radionuclides for the current candidate repository site. However, prior to promulgation of the

affected provisions of the Commission's regulations, the staff assumed that limits were

developed along the lines of the 1995 National Research Council report, Technical Bases for

Yucca Mountain Standards, and that in accordance with the Commission's Waste Confidence

Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository can and likely would be developed at some site that would

comply with such limits, with peak doses to virtually all individuals of 100 millirem (1 mSv) per

year or less (National Research Council 1995; NRC 1996a,b).

Despite the current uncertainty with respect to these rules, some judgment as to the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) implications of offsite radiological impacts of spent

fuel and high-level waste disposal should be made. The staff concludes that these impacts are

acceptable in that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion

that the construction and operation of new units at the VEGP site should be denied.

August 2008 6-13 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996a,b) describes the generation, storage, and ultimate

disposal of low-level waste, mixed waste, and spent fuel from power reactors. For the reasons

stated above, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of radioactive waste disposal

are SMALL.

6.1.7 Occupational Dose

In its review and evaluation of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, the staff considered a

capacity factor of 95 percent with a total net electric output of 2185 MW(e) for two new units at

the VEGP site (Southern 2008). This is referred to as the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. The

annual occupational dose attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the 1000-MW(e)

LWR-scaled model is about 18 person-Sv (1800 person-rem). This dose is based on a

6 person-Sv (600 person-rem) occupational dose estimate attributable to all phases of the fuel

cycle for the model 1000 MW(e) LWR (NRC 1996a,b). The environmental impact from this

occupational dose is considered SMALL because the dose to any individual worker is

maintained within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20, which is 0.05 Sv/yr (5 rem/yr).

6.1.8 Transportation

The transportation dose to workers and the public totals about 0.025 person-Sv

(2.5 person-rem) annually for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR per Table S-3 (Table 6-1). This

corresponds to a dose of 0.075 person-Sv (7.5 person-rem) for the 1 000-MW(e) LWR-scaled

model. For comparative purposes, the estimated collective dose from natural background

radiation to the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the VEGP site is 2.43 x 103 person-Sv/yr

(2.43 x 105 person-rem/yr) (Southern 2008). On the basis of this comparison, the staff

concludes that environmental impacts of transportation would be SMALL.

6.1.9 Conclusions

The staff evaluated the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, as given in Table S-3

(Table 6-1), considered the effects of radon-222 and technetium-99, and appropriately scaled

the impacts for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. Based on this evaluation, the staff

concludes that the impacts would be SMALL and that mitigation is not warranted.

6.2 Transportation Impacts

This section addresses both the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts from

normal operating and accident conditions resulting from (1) shipment of unirradiated fuel to the

VEGP site, (2) shipment of spent fuel to a monitored retrievable storage facility or a permanent

repository, and (3) shipment of low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste to offsite disposal

facilities.

NUREG-1 872 6-14 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

The NRC evaluated the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste for LWRs in

WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) and NUREG-75/038 (NRC 1975) and found the impact to be small.

These documents provided the basis for Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52 that summarizes the

environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and waste to and from one LWR of 3000 to

5000 MW(t) (1000 to 1500 MW(e)). Impacts are provided for normal conditions of transport and

accidents in transport for a reference 11 00-MW(e) LWR.(a) Dose to transportation workers

during normal transportation operations was estimated to result in a collective dose of

0.04 person-Sv (4 person-rem) per reference reactor year. The combined dose to the public

along the route and dose to onlookers were estimated to result in a collective dose of

0.03 person-Sv (3 person-rem) per reference reactor year.

Environmental risks (radiological) during accident conditions were determined to be SMALL.

Nonradiological impacts from postulated accidents were estimated as one fatal injury in

100 reactor years and one nonfatal injury in 10 reference reactor years. Subsequent reviews of

transportation impacts in NUREG-0170 (NRC 1977a) and Sprung et al. (2000) concluded that

impacts were bounded by Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.52(a), a full description and detailed analysis of transportation

impacts is not required when licensing an LWR (i.e., impacts are assumed bounded by

Table S-4) if the reactor meets the following criteria:

" The reactor has a core thermal power level not exceeding 3800 MW(t).

* Fuel is in the form of sintered uranium oxide pellets having a uranium-235 enrichment not

exceeding 4 percent by weight; and pellets are encapsulated in zirconium-clad fuel rods.

" Average level of irradiation of the fuel from the reactor does not exceed 33,000 MWd/MTU,

and no irradiated fuel assembly is shipped until at least 90 days after it is discharged from

the reactor.

" With the exception of irradiated fuel, all radioactive waste shipped from the reactor is

packaged and in solid form.

" Unirradiated fuel is shipped to the reactor by truck; irradiated (spent) fuel is shipped from the

reactor by truck, rail, or barge; and radioactive waste other than irradiated fuel is shipped

from the reactor by truck or rail.

The environmental impacts of the transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and from

nuclear power facilities were resolved generically in 10 CFR 51.52, provided that the specific

conditions in the rule (see above) are met; if not, then a full description and detailed analysis is

(a) The transportation impacts associated with the VEGP site were normalized for a reference

11 00-MW(e) LWR at an 80-percent capacity factor for comparisons to Table S-4.

August 2008 6-15 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

required for initial licensing. The NRC may consider requests for licensed plants to operate at

conditions above those in the facility's licensing basis; for example, higher burnups (above

33,000 MWd/MTU), enrichments (above 4 percent uranium-235), or thermal power levels

(above 3800 MW(t)). Departures from the conditions itemized in 10 CFR 51.52(a) must be

supported by a full description and detailed analysis of the environmental effects, as specified in

10 CFR 51.52(b). Departures found to be acceptable for licensed facilities cannot serve as the

basis for initial licensing for new reactors.

In its application, Southern requested an ESP for two additional reactors at its VEGP site in

Burke County, Georgia. Both proposed new reactors would be Westinghouse AP1000

advanced LWRs. The Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor has a thermal power rating of

3400 MW(t), with a minimum net electrical output of 1115 MW(e). The Westinghouse AP1000

reactors are expected to operate with a 93 percent capacity factor, so the net electrical output

(annualized) is about 1037 MW(e) (Southern 2008). Fuel for the plants would be enriched up to

about 4.5 weight percent U-235 (Southern 2008), which exceeds the 10 CFR 51.52(a) condition.

In addition, the expected irradiation level of about 48,700 MWd/MTU (Southern 2008) exceeds

the 10 CFR 51.52(a) condition. Therefore, a full description and detailed analysis of

transportation impacts is required. In comments on the draft EIS (Southern 2007), the applicant

indicated that fuel enrichment may increase to 4.54 weight percent U-235 and irradiation levels

may increase to 50,533 MWd/MTU. These increases do not affect the conclusion that a

detailed analysis of transportation impacts is required. In this section of the EIS, the staff has

discussed how these changes would affect the staffs environmental impact conclusions, it at all.

In its ER (Southern 2008), Southern provided a full description and detailed analyses of

transportation impacts that was based primarily on previous ElSs for proposed ESP sites at

North Anna, Clinton, and Grand Gulf (NRC 2006a, 2006b, and 2006c, respectively). In these

analyses, radiological impacts of transporting fuel and waste to/from the VEGP and alternative

sites were calculated using the RADTRAN 5 computer code (Neuhauser et al. 2003). Since that

time, a new version of RADTRAN 5 has been released (Weiner et al. 2006). Therefore, for this

EIS, radiological impacts are calculated using the new version of RADTRAN 5. The results that

were generated using the new version of RADTRAN 5 were then used to judge the adequacy of

the applicant's analysis of transportation impacts.

The NRC review of the three previous ESP ElSs was also considered when developing the

scope of this EIS. The most significant change is that this EIS includes an explicit analysis of

the non- radiological impacts of transporting workers and construction materials to/from the

VEGP site. Publicly available information about traffic accident, injury, and fatality rates was

used to estimate nonradiological impacts.

NUREG-1872 6-16 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel

The staff performed an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of transporting

unirradiated (i.e., fresh) fuel to the VEGP site. Radiological impacts of normal operating

conditions and transportation accidents as well as nonradiological impacts are discussed in this

section. Radiological impacts to populations and maximally exposed individuals (MEIs) are

presented.

6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions

Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as "incident-free" transportation, are transportation

activities in which shipments reach their destination without releasing any radioactive material to

the environment. Impacts from these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation that

penetrate the unirradiated fuel shipping containers. Radiation exposures would occur to

(1) persons residing along the transportation corridors between the fuel fabrication facility and

the VEGP site; (2) persons in vehicles traveling on the same route as a unirradiated fuel

shipment; (3) persons at vehicle stops for refueling, rest, and vehicle inspections; and

(4) transportation crew workers.

Truck Shipments

Table 6-3 provides an estimate of the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel for the

Westinghouse AP1 000 advanced reactor design compared to those of the reference

1100-MW(e) reactor specified in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) operating at 80-percent capacity

(880 MW[e]). After normalization, the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel to the

VEGP site is fewer than the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel estimated for the

reference LWR in WASH-1238.

Shipping Mode and Weight Limits

In 10 CFR 51.52, a condition is identified that states all unirradiated fuel is shipped to the

reactor by truck. Southern specifies that unirradiated fuel would be shipped to the reactor site

by truck. Section 10 CFR 51.52 includes a condition that the truck shipments not exceed

33,100 kg (73,000 Ibs) as governed by Federal or State gross vehicle weight restrictions.

Southern states in its ER that the unirradiated fuel shipments to the proposed VEGP site would*

comply with applicable weight restrictions (Southern 2008).

Radiological Doses to Transport Workers and the Public

Section 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4, includes conditions related to radiological dose to transport

workers and members of the public along transport routes. These doses are a function of many

variables, including the radiation dose rate emitted from the unirradiated fuel shipments, the

number of exposed individuals and their locations relative to the shipment, the time in transit

August 2008 6-17 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

(including travel and stop times), and number of shipments to which the individuals are

exposed. For this EIS, the radiological dose impacts of the transportation of unirradiated fuel

were calculated for the worker and the public using the RADTRAN 5 computer code

(Weiner et al. 2006).

One of the key assumptions in WASH-1 238 (AEC 1972) for the reference LWR unirradiated fuel

shipments is that the radiation dose rate at 1 m (3.3 ft) from the transport vehicle is about

0.001 mSv/hr (0.1 mrem/hr). This assumption was also used in the analysis of the

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor unirradiated fuel shipments. This assumption is reasonable

because the Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor fuel materials would be low-dose-rate uranium

radionuclides and would be packaged similarly to that described in WASH-1238 (i.e., inside a

metal container that provides little radiation shielding). The numbers of shipments per year were

obtained by dividing the normalized shipments in Table 6-3 by 40 years of operation. Other key

input parameters used in the radiation dose analysis for unirradiated fuel are shown in Table 6-4.

The RADTRAN 5 results for this "generic" unirradiated fuel shipment are as follows:

* Worker dose: 1.71 x 10.5 person-Sv/shipment (1.71 X 10-3 person-rem/shipment)

* General public dose (onlookers/persons at stops and sharing the highway):

2.95 x 10.5 person-Sv/shipment (2.95 x 10-3 person-rem/shipment)

" General public dose (along route/persons living near a highway or truck stop):

4.17 x 10-7 person-Sv/shipment (4.17 x 10-5 person-rem/shipment).

These values were combined with the average annual shipments of unirradiated fuel for the

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor to calculate annual doses to the public and workers. Table 6-5

presents the annual radiological impacts to workers, public onlookers (persons at stops and

sharing the road), and members of the public along the route (i.e., residents within 800 m

Table 6-3. Numbers of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for Each Advanced Reactor Type

Number of Shipments per

Reactor Unit Normalized,

Unit Electric Shipments

Initial Annual Generation, Capacity per 1100

Reactor Type Core(a) Reload Total(b) MW(e)(c) Factor(c) MW(e)(d)

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 18 6 252 1100 0.8 252

VEGP Westinghouse AP1 000 23 5.4 233 1115 0.93 198

(a) Shipments of the initial core have been rounded up to the next highest whole number.

(b) Total shipments of unirradiated fuel over a 40-year plant lifetime (i.e., initial core load plus 39 years of average

annual reload quantities).

(c) Unit capacities and capacity factors were taken from WASH-1 238 for the reference LWR and the ER

(Southern 2008) for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor.

(d) Normalized to net electric output for WASH-1238 reference LWR (i.e., 1 100-MW(e) plant at 80 percent or net

electrical output of 880 MW(e)).

NUREG-1872 6-18 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Table 6-4. RADTRAN 5 Input Parameters for Fresh Fuel Shipments

Parameter

Shipping distance, km

Travel Fraction - Rural

Travel Fraction - Suburban

Travel Fraction - Urban

Population Density - Rural, persons/km2

Population Density - Suburban, persons/km2

Population Density - Urban, persons/km 2

Vehicle speed - km/hr

Traffic count - Rural, vehicles/hr

Traffic count - Suburban, vehicles/hr

Traffic count - Urban, vehicles/hr

RADTRAN 5

Input Value

3200

0.90

0.05

0.05

10

349

2260

88.49

Source

AEC (1972)(a)

NRC (1977a)

DOE (2002a)

Conservative in transit speed of 55 mph

assumed; predominantly interstate

highways used.

530 DOE (2002a)

760

2400

Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle, mrem/hr 0.1 AEC (1972)

Packaging length, m 7.3 Approximate length of two LWR fuel

element packages placed on end

Number of truck crew 2 AEC (1972), NRC (1977a), and DOE

(2002a)

Stop time, hr/trip 4 Based on 1 30-minute stop per 400 km

Population density at stops, persons/km2 See Table 6-8 for truck stop parameters

(a) AEC (1972) provides a range of shipping distances between 40 km (25 mi) and 4800 km (3000 mi) for fresh fuel

shipments. A 3200-km (2000-mi) "representative" shipping distance was assumed here.

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

to the VEGP Site

Cumulative Annual Dose; person-Svlyr per

Normalized 1100 MW(e)(a) (880 MW(e) net)

Average

Annual Public - Public - Along

Plant Type Shipments Workers Onlookers Route

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 6.3 1.1 x 104 1.9 x 10-4 2.6x 10-6

VEGP Westinghouse AP1000 5.0 8.5 x 10-5 1.5 x 10' 2.1 x 10-6

10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4 Condition <1 per day 4.0 x 10-2 3.0 x 10-2 3.0 x 10-2

(a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/yr.

[0.5 mi] of the highway) for transporting unirradiated fuel to the VEGP site. The cumulative

annual dose estimates in Table 6-5 were normalized to 1100 MW(e) (880 MW(e) net electrical

output). The staff performed an independent review and determined that all dose estimates are

bounded by the Table S-4 conditions of 0.04 person-Sv/yr (4 person-rem/yr) to transportation

August 2008 6-19 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

workers, 0.03 person-Sv/yr (3 person-rem/yr) to onlookers, and 0.03 person-Sv/yr

(3 person-rem/yr) to members of the public along the route.

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation exposure may pose some risk of

causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation

exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response model is used to describe the

relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report

by the National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold

dose response theory. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an

incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative

model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

overestimates those risks.

Based on this model, the staff estimates the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem]) from ICRP

Publication 60 (ICRP 1991). The public doses presented in Table 6-5 for the proposed

Westinghouse AP1 000 reactors are less than or equal to 2 x 104 person-Sv/yr (2 x 10-2 personrem/yr); therefore, the total detriment estimates associated with these doses would all be less

than 2 x 105 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe heredity effects per year. To place

these impacts in perspective, the average United States resident receives about 300 mrem/yr

effective dose equivalent from natural background radiation (i.e., exposures from cosmic

radiation, naturally occurring radioactive materials such as radon, and global fallout from testing

of nuclear explosive devices) (NCRP 1987b). Using this average effective dose, approximately

160 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects would occur in the population

along this representative unirradiated fuel route from natural background radiation. The risks of

transporting unirradiated fuel to the VEGP site are small compared to the fatal cancers, nonfatal

cancers, and severe hereditary effects that would be expected to occur annually in the same

population from exposure to natural sources of radiation.

MEIs Under Normal Transport Conditions

A scenario-based analysis was conducted to develop estimates of incident-free radiation doses

to MEIs for fuel and waste shipments to and from the VEGP site. The following discussion

applies to unirradiated fuel shipments to and spent fuel and radioactive shipments from any

reactor design. The analysis is based on information in DOE (2002b) and incorporates

information about exposure times, dose rates, and the number of times an individual may be

exposed to an offsite shipment. Adjustments were made where necessary to reflect the fuel

and waste shipments addressed in this EIS. In all cases, the staff assumed that the dose rate

NUREG-1872 6-20 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

emitted from the shipping containers is 0.1 mSv/hr (10 mrem/hr) at 2 m (6.6 ft) from the side of

the transport vehicle, the maximum dose rate allowed by U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT) regulations, even though most unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste shipments would

have much lower dose rates than the regulations allow (AEC 1972; DOE 2002a). An MEI is a

person who may receive the highest radiation dose from a shipment to and/or from the VEGP

site. The analysis is described below.

Truck crew member. Truck crew members would receive the highest radiation doses during

incident-free transport because of their proximity to the loaded shipping container for an

extended period of time. The analysis assumed that crew member doses are limited to 0.02 Sv

(2 rem) per year, which is the DOE administrative control level presented in DOE-STD-1098-99,

DOE Standard, Radiological Control, Chapter 2, Article 211 (DOE 2004). This limit is

anticipated to apply to spent nuclear fuel shipments to a disposal facility, because DOE would

take title to the spent fuel at the reactor site. Spent nuclear fuel represents the bulk of the fuel

and waste shipments to and from reactor sites, and those with the highest radiation dose rates;

consequently, crew doses from unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste shipments would be

lower than the spent nuclear fuel shipments. The NRC limit for occupational exposures is

0.05 Sv/yr (5 rem/yr) (see 10 CFR Part 20).

The DOT does not regulate annual occupational exposures, but recommends limits to air crew

members that are a 5-year effective dose of 0.02 Sv/yr (2 rem/yr) with no more than 0.05 Sv

(5 rem) in a single year (Friedberg and Copeland 2003). As a result, a 0.02 Sv/yr (2 rem/yr)

MEI dose to truck crews is a reasonable estimate to apply to shipments of fuel and waste from

the VEGP site.

Inspectors. Radioactive shipments are inspected by Federal or State vehicle inspectors, for

example, at State ports of entry. DOE (2002b) assumed that inspectors would be exposed for

1 hour at a distance of 1 m (3.3 ft) from the shipping containers. The dose rate at 1 m (3.3 ft) is

about 0.14 mSv/hr (14 mrem/hr); therefore, the dose per shipment is about 0.14 mSv

(14 mrem). This is independent of the location of the reactor site. Based on this conservative

value, the annual doses to vehicle inspectors were calculated to be about 0.01 Sv/yr (1 rem/yr),

assuming the same person inspects all shipments of fuel and waste to and from the VEGP site.

This value is about one-half of the 0.02 Sv/yr (2 rem/yr) DOE administrative control level on

individual doses and one-fifth of the 0.05 Sv/yr (5 rem/yr) NRC occupational dose limit. Doses

to state inspectors would be doubled for a site with two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, which

would bring their annual dose to approximately the administrative limit.

Resident. The analysis assumed that a resident lives adjacent to a highway where a shipment

would pass and would be exposed to all shipments along a particular route. Exposures to

residents on a per-shipment basis were extracted from RADTRAN 5 output files. These dose

estimates are based on an individual located 30 m (100 ft) from the shipments that are traveling

24 km/hr (15 mph). The potential radiation dose to the maximally exposed resident is about

August 2008 6-21 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

0.00039 mSv/yr (0.039 mrem/yr) for shipments of fuel and waste to/from the VEGP site. This

dose would be doubled for a site with two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors.

Individual stuck in traffic. This scenario addresses potential traffic interruptions that could lead

to a person being exposed to a loaded shipment for one hour at a distance of 1.2 m (4 ft). The

analysis assumed this exposure scenario would occur only one time to any individual, and the

dose rate was at the regulatory limit of 0.1 mSv/hr (10 mrem/hr) at 1.8 m (6 ft) from the

shipment. The dose to the MEI was calculated in DOE (2002b) to be 0.016 mSv (1.6 mrem).

These doses would not be doubled for a site with two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors because

it was assumed that this scenario would occur only once to any individual.

Person at a truck service station. This scenario estimates doses to an employee at a service

station where all truck shipments to and from the VEGP site are assumed to stop. DOE (2002b)

assumed this person is exposed for 49 minutes at a distance of 15.8 m (52 ft) from the loaded

shipping container. This results in a dose of about 0.0007 mSv/shipment (0.07 mrem/shipment)

and an annual dose of about 0.05 mSv/yr (5 mrem/yr) for the VEGP site, assuming that a single

individual services all unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste shipments to and from

the VEGP site. This dose would be doubled for a site with two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors.

6.2.1.2 Radiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents

Accident risks are a combination of accident frequency and consequence. Accident frequencies

for transportation of unirradiated fuel to the VEGP site are expected to be lower than those used

in the analysis in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), which forms the basis for Table S-4 of

10 CFR 51.52, because of improvements in highway safety and security, and an overall

reduction in traffic accident, injury, and fatality rates since WASH-1238 was published. There is

no significant difference in consequences of accidents severe enough to result in a release of

unirradiated fuel particles to the environment between the Westinghouse AP1000 and

current-generation LWRs because the fuel form, cladding, and packaging are similar to those

analyzed in WASH-1238. Consequently, the impacts of accidents during transport of

unirradiated fuel for advanced LWRs to the VEGP site are expected to be smaller than the

impacts listed in Table S-4 for current-generation LWRs.

6.2.1.3 Nonradiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents

Nonradiological impacts are the human health impacts projected to result from traffic accidents

involving shipments of unirradiated fuel to the VEGP site; they do not consider radiological or

hazardous characteristics of the cargo. Nonradiological impacts include the projected number

of traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities that could result from shipments of unirradiated fuel to

the site and return shipments of empty containers from the site.

NUREG-1872 6-22 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Nonradiological impacts are calculated using accident, injury, and fatality rates from published

sources. The rates (i.e., impacts per vehicle-km traveled) are then multiplied by estimated

travel distances for workers and materials. The general formula for calculating nonradiological

impacts is:

Impacts = (unit rate) x (round-trip shipping distance) x (annual number of shipments)

In this formula, impacts are presented in units of the number of accidents, number of injuries,

and number of fatalities per year. Corresponding unit rates (i.e., impacts per vehicle-km

traveled) are used in the calculations.

Accident, injury, and fatality rates were taken from Table 4 in ANL/ESD/TM-150 State-Level

Accident Rates for Surface Freight Transportation: A Reexamination (Saricks and Tompkins

1999). Nation-wide median rates were used for shipments of unirradiated fuel to the site. The

data are representative of traffic accident, injury, and fatality rates for heavy truck shipments

similar to those to be used to transport unirradiated fuel to the VEGP site.

The nonradiological accident impacts for transporting unirradiated fuel to (and empty shipping

containers from) the VEGP site are shown in Table 6-6. The nonradiological impacts

associated with the WASH-1238 reference LWR are also shown for comparison purposes.

Note that there are only small differences between the impacts calculated for the'VEGP

Westinghouse AP1000 and the reference LWR in WASH-1 238 due entirely to the smaller

number of shipments. The impacts would be doubled for a site with two reactors.

Table 6-6. Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to the VEGP Site,

Normalized to Reference LWR

Total Annual Impacts

Shipments One-Way RoundNormalized Shipping trip

to Reference Distance Distance Fatalities I1njuries Accidents

Plant Type LWR km

WASH-1238 252 3200

VEGP Westinghouse

AP1000 198 3200

km

6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel

The staff performed an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of transporting spent

fuel from the proposed'VEGP site to a spent fuel disposal repository. For the purposes of these

analyses, the staff considered the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site as a surrogate

destination. The staff considers that an estimate of the impacts of the transportation of spent

fuel to a possible repository in Nevada to be a reasonable bounding estimate of the

August 2008 6-23 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

transportation impacts to a storage or disposal facility because of the distances involved and the

representativeness of the distribution of members of the public in urban, suburban, and rural

areas (i.e., population distributions) along the shipping routes. Radiological and nonradiological

environmental impacts of normal operating conditions and transportation accidents, as well as

nonradiological impacts, are discussed in this section.

This analysis is based on shipment of spent fuel by legal-weight trucks in shipping casks with

characteristics similar to casks currently available (i.e., massive, heavily shielded, cylindrical

metal pressure vessels). Each shipment is assumed to consist of a single shipping cask loaded

on a modified trailer. These assumptions are consistent with assumptions made in the

evaluation of the environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel in Addendum 1 to

NUREG-1437 (NRC 1999). These assumptions are conservative because the alternative

assumptions involve rail transportation or heavy-haul trucks, which would reduce the overall

number of spent fuel shipments (NRC 1999), thus reducing impacts. Also, use of current

shipping cask designs results in conservative impact estimates because the current designs are

based on transporting short-cooled spent fuel (approximately 120 days out of reactor). Future

shipping casks would be designed to transport longer-cooled fuel (greater than 5 years out of

reactor) and would require much less shielding to meet external dose limitations. Therefore,

future shipping casks are expected to have higher cargo capacities, thus reducing the numbers

of shipments and associated impacts.

Radiological impacts of transportation of spent fuel were calculated using the RADTRAN 5

computer code (Wiener et al. 2006). Routing and population data used in RADTRAN 5 for truck

shipments were obtained from the TRAGIS routing code (Johnson and Michelhaugh 2003). The

population data in the TRAGIS code are based on the 2000 census. Nonradiological impacts

were calculated using published traffic accident, injury, and fatality data (Saricks and

Tompkins 1999) in addition to route information from TRAGIS.

6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions

Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as "incident-free" transportation, are transportation

activities in which shipments reach their destination without an accident occurring enroute.'

Impacts from these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation that penetrate the

heavily shielded spent fuel shipping cask. Radiation exposures would occur to (1) persons

residing along the transportation corridors between the VEGP site and the proposed repository

location; (2) persons in vehicles traveling on the same route as a spent fuel shipment;

(3) persons at vehicle stops for refueling, rest, and vehicle inspections; and (4) transportation

crew workers. It was assumed that the destination for the spent fuel shipments is the proposed

Yucca Mountain disposal facility in Nevada. This assumption is conservative because it tends

to maximize the shipping distance from the VEGP site.

NUREG-1872 6-24 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Shipping casks have not been designed for the spent fuel from advanced reactor designs such

as the Westinghouse AP1000. Information in INEEL (2003) indicated that advanced LWR fuel

designs would not be significantly different from existing LWR designs; therefore, current

shipping cask designs were used for the analysis of Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent fuel

shipments. The assumed capacity of a truck shipment of Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent

fuel was 0.5 MTU/shipment, the same capacity as that used in WASH-1 238 (AEC 1972).

Input to RADTRAN5 includes the total shipping distance between the origin and destination

sites and the population distributions along the routes. This information was obtained by running

the TRAGIS computer code (Johnson and Michelhaugh 2003) for the VEGP-to-Yucca-Mountain

shipments. The resulting route characteristics information is shown in Table 6-7. Note that for

truck shipments, all the spent fuel is assumed to be shipped to the Yucca Mountain site over

designated highway-route controlled quantity routes. In addition, TRAGIS data was loaded into

RADTRAN 5 on a state-by-state basis. This increases precision and allows the results to be

presented for each state along the route between the VEGP site and Yucca Mountain, if

desired.

Radiation doses are a function of many parameters, including vehicle speed, traffic count, dose

rate, packaging dimensions, number in the truck crew, stop time, and population density at

stops. A listing of the values for these and other parameters and the sources of the information

is provided in Table 6-8.

For purposes of this analysis, the transportation crew for spent fuel shipments delivered by truck

is assumed to consist of two drivers. Escorts were considered, but they were not included

because their distance from the shipping cask would reduce the dose rates to levels well below

the dose rates experienced by the drivers. Stop times were assumed to accrue at the rate of

30 min per 4 hrs driving time. TRAGIS outputs were used to determine the number of stops.

Doses to the public at truck stops have been significant contributors to the doses calculated in

previous RADTRAN 5 analyses. For this analysis, stop doses are the sum of the doses to

individuals located in two annular rings centered at the stopped vehicle, as illustrated in

Figure 6-2. The inner ring represents persons who may be at the truck stop at the same time as

a spent fuel shipment and extends 1 to 10 m from the edge of the vehicle. The outer ring

represents persons who reside near a truck stop and extends from 10 to 800 m from the

vehicle. This scheme is similar to that used in Sprung et al. (2000). Population densities and

shielding factors were also taken from Sprung et al. (2000), which were based on the

observations of Griego et al. (1996).

August 2008 6-25 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Table 6-7. Transportation Route Information for Shipments from Advanced Reactor Sites to

the Yucca Mountain Spent Fuel Disposal Facility

One-way Shipping Distance, km Population Density, persons/km2 Stop

Advance time per

Reactor Site Total Rural Suburban Urban Rural Suburban Urban trip, hr

VEGP

Westinghouse 4091 3230 754 107 9.4 334.7 2270.4 4

AP 1000

Note: This table presents aggregated route characteristics. Input to the RADTRAN 5 computer code was

disaggregated to a state-by-state level.

Table 6-8. RADTRAN 5 Normal (Incident-free) Exposure Parameters

RADTRAN 5

Parameter Input Value Source

Vehicle speed, km/hr 88.49 Based on average speed in rural areas

given in DOE (2002a). Conservative intransit speed of 55 mph assumed;

predominantly interstate highways used.

Traffic count - Rural, vehicles/hr State-specific Wiener et al. (2006)

Traffic count - Suburban, vehicles/hr

Traffic count - Urban, vehicles/hr

Vehicle occupancy, persons/vehicle 1.5 DOE (2002a)

Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle, mrem/hr 14 DOE (2002a, b) - approximate dose rate

at 1 m that is equivalent to maximum

dose rate allowed by Federal regulations

(i.e., 10 mrem/hr at 2 m from the side of

a transport vehicle.

Packaging dimensions, m Length - 5.2 DOE (2002b)

Diameter - 1.0

Number of truck crew 2 AEC (1972), NRC (1977a), and

DOE (2002a, b)

Stop time, hr/trip 4 See Table 6-7

Population Density at Stops, 30,000 Sprung et al. (2000). Nine persons

persons/km2 within 10 m of vehicle. See Figure 6-2.

Min/Max Radii of Annular Area Around I to 10 Sprung et al. (2000)

Vehicle at Stops, m

Shielding Factor Applied to Annular Area 1 Sprung et al. (2000)

Surrounding Vehicle at Stops (no shielding)

Population Density Surrounding Truck 340 Sprung et al. (2000)

Stops, persons/km2

Min/Max Radius of Annular Area 10 to 800 Sprung et al. (2000)

Surrounding Truck Stop, m

Shielding Factor Applied to Annular Area 0.2 Sprung et al. (2000)

Surrounding Truck Stop

The results of these normal (incident-free) exposure calculations are shown in Table 6-9 for the

proposed VEGP site. Population dose estimates are given for workers (i.e., truck crew

NUREG-1872 6-26 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

members), onlookers (doses to persons at stops and persons on highways exposed to the

spent fuel shipment,) and along the route (persons living near the highway). Annual doses were

calculated assuming the annual number of spent fuel shipments is equivalent to the annual

refueling requirements. Shipping schedules for spent fuel generated by the proposed new

VEGP site units have not been determined; therefore, this assumption was judged by the staff

Figure 6-2. Illustration of Truck Stop Model

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

Shipping Spent Fuel from the VEGP Site to the Proposed High-Level Waste

Repository at Yucca Mountain

Worker (Crew) Onlookers Along Route

Reference LWR, Person-Sv/yra 1.1 x 10-1 2.0 x 10-' 5.8 x 10 3

VEGP ESP Normalized Impacts, person-Sv/yr 7.3x1 0-2 1.3 10-1 3.8x 10-3

Table S-4 Condition 4 x 10-2 3x 10-2 3 x 10-2

(a) to convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100

August 2008 6-27 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

to be reasonable. Population doses were normalized to the reference LWR in WASH-1 238

(880 net MW[e]). This corresponds to an 11 00-MW(e) LWR operating at 80-percent capacity.

Note that the impacts in Table 6-9 have been doubled to reflect operation of two reactors.

The bounding cumulative doses to the exposed population given in Table S-4 are

* 0.04 person-Sv/reactor-year (4 person-rem/reactor-year) to transport workers

* 0.03 person-Sv/reactor-year (3 person-rem/reactor-year) to general public (onlookers), and

members of the public along the route.

Population doses to the crew and the population along the route for the reference LWR and the

VEGP site shipments exceed Table S-4 values. A key reason for the higher population doses

relative to Table S-4 is the longer shipping distances assumed for this ESP analysis (i.e., to a

possible repository in Nevada) than were used in WASH-1238. WASH-1238 used a "typical"

distance for a spent fuel shipment of 1600 km (1000 mi), whereas the shipping distance used in

this assessment was about 4100 km (2500 mi). Another important difference is the stop model

described above as well as additional precision that results from incorporating state-specific

route characteristics and vehicle densities.

Where necessary, the staff made conservative assumptions to calculate impacts. Some of the

key conservative assumptions are:

* Use of the regqulatory maximum dose rate (0.1 mSv/hr [10 mrem/hrl at 2 m) in the

RADTRAN 5 calculations. The shipping casks assumed in the EIS-prepared by DOE in

support of the application for a geologic repository at the proposed Yucca Mountain

repository (DOE 2002b) were designed to transport spent fuel that has cooled for 5 years.

Most spent fuel would have cooled for much longer than 5 years before it is shipped to a

possible geologic repository. Based on this, shipments from the VEGP site is also expected

to be cooled for longer than 5 years. Consequently, the estimated population doses in

Table 6-9 could be further reduced if more realistic dose rate projections and shipping cask

capacities are used.

* Use of 30 minutes as the average time at a truck stop in the calculations. Many stops made

for actual spent fuel shipments are of short duration (i.e., 10 minutes) for brief visual

inspections of the cargo (e.g., checking the cask tie-downs). These stops typically occur in

minimally populated areas, such as an overpass or freeway ramp in an unpopulated area.

Furthermore, empirical data provided in Griego et al. (1996) indicate that a 30-minute

duration is toward the high end of the stop time distribution. Average stop times observed

by Griego et al. (1996) are on the order of 18 minutes.

NUREG-1872 6-28 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

A sensitivity study was performed to demonstrate the effects on the incident-free population

doses of using more realistic dose rates and stop times. For this sensitivity study, the dose rate

was reduced to 5 mrem/hr, the approximate 50 percent confidence interval of the dose rate

distribution estimated by Sprung et al. (2000) for future spent fuel shipments. The stop time

was reduced to 18 minutes per stop. All other RADTRAN 5 input values were unchanged. The

result is that the annual crew doses were reduced to 2.6 x 10.2 person-Sv/yr, or about

36 percent of the annual dose shown in Table 6-9. The annual onlooker doses were reduced to

3.6 x 10.2 person-Sv/yr (28 percent) and the annual doses to persons along the route were

reduced to 1.4 x 10-3 person-Sv/yr (37 percent).

Southern described the results of a RADTRAN 5 analysis of the impacts of incident-free

transport of spent fuel to a spent fuel disposal facility. The assumed transport of spent fuel

originated from the Savannah River Site (a distance approximately equal to the VEGP site) and

terminated at the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Dose estimates per

shipment were taken from three previous ESP EISs (NRC 2006a, 2006b, 2006c) that used an

earlier version of RADTRAN 5 than is available today. The results are similar to those

calculated by the staff in this EIS.

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation exposure may pose some risk of

causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is greater for higher radiation

exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response model is used to describe the

relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report

by the National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold

dose-response theory. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an

incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative

model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

overestimates those risks.

Based on this model, the staff estimates the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 mrem]) from ICRP Publication 60

(ICRP 1991). The population dose to the public (sum of doses along route and to onlookers in

Table 6-9) is about 0.13 person-Sv/yr (13 person-rem/yr); therefore, the total detriment

estimates associated with this population dose would be less than 1 X 102 fatal cancers,

nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects per year. To place these impacts in

perspective, the average U.S. resident receives about 300 mrem/yr effective dose equivalent

from natural background radiation (i.e., exposures from cosmic radiation, naturally occurring

radioactive materials such as radon, and global fallout from testing of nuclear explosive devices)

August 2008 6-29 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

(NCRP 1987b). Using this average effective dose, approximately 180 fatal cancers, nonfatal

cancers, and severe hereditary effects would occur in the population along this representative

route from natural background radiation. The risks of transporting spent fuel from the VEGP site

to a spent fuel disposal facility are small compared to the fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

severe hereditary effects that the same population would incur annually from exposure to

natural sources of radiation.

As mentioned previously, Southern advised the NRC staff that, based on changes between

Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, fuel enrichment levels would increase from

4.51% to 4.54%, and fuel irradiation levels would increase from 48, 700 MWd/MTU to 50

50,533 MWd/MTU. The staff evaluated the effect of these changes on the staff analysis

presented above. The staff determined it would have no impact on the staff conclusion with

respect to calculated doses under normal conditions.

Dose estimates to the MEI from transport of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and wastes under

normal conditions are presented in Section 6.2.1.1.

6.2.2.2 Radiological Impacts of Accidents

As discussed previously, the staff used the RADTRAN 5 computer code to estimate impacts of

transportation accidents involving spent fuel shipments. RADTRAN 5 considers a spectrum of

postulated transportation accidents, ranging from those with high frequencies and low

consequences (e.g., "fender benders") to those with low frequencies and high consequences

(i.e., accidents in which the shipping container is exposed to severe mechanical and thermal

conditions).

Radionuclide inventories are important parameters in the calculation of accident risks. The

radionuclide inventories used in this analysis were from Early Site Permit Environmental Report

Sections and Supporting Documentation (INEEL 2003) and are the same as those presented in

Southern's ER. This report includes 140 radionuclides for Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent

fuel. A screening analysis was conducted to select the dominant contributors to accident risks

to simplify the RADTRAN 5 calculations. The screening identified the radionuclides that would

contribute more than 99.999 percent of the dose from inhalation of radionuclides released

following a transportation accident. Spent fuel inventories used in the staff analysis are

presented in Table 6-10. The list of radionuclides set forth in the table includes all of the

radionuclides that were included in the analysis conducted by Sprung et al. (2000). However,

INEEL (2003) did not provide radionuclide source terms for radioactive material deposited on

the external surfaces of LWR spent fuel rods (commonly called "crud"). Because crud is

deposited from corrosion products generated elsewhere in the reactor cooling system and the

complete reactor design and operating parameters are uncertain, the quantities and

characteristics of crud deposited on Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent fuel are not available

at this time. The VEGP Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor spent fuel transportation accident

NUREG-1 872 6-30 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

impacts were calculated assuming the cobalt-60 inventory in the form of crud is 4.4 TBq/MTU

(120 Ci/MTU), based on information in Sprung et al. (2000).

Robust shipping casks are used to transport spent fuel because of the radiation shielding and

accident resistance required by 10 CFR Part 71. Spent fuel shipping casks must be certified

Type B packaging systems, meaning they must withstand a series of severe postulated accident

conditions with essentially no loss of containment or shielding capability. These casks are also

designed with fissile material controls to ensure the spent fuel remains subcritical under normal

and accident conditions. According to Sprung et al. (2000), the probability of encountering

accident conditions that would lead to shipping cask failure is less than 0.01 percent (i.e., more

than 99.99 percent of all accidents would result in no release of radioactive material from the

shipping cask). The staff assumed that shipping casks for Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent

fuel would provide equivalent mechanical and thermal protection of the spent fuel cargo.

Table 6-10. Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for

Each Advanced Reactor Type (a)(b)

Radionuclide CilMTU BqlMTU

Pu-241 6.96 x 104 2.57 x 101'

Pu-238 6.07 x 103 2.24 x 10i 4

Cm-244 7.75 x 103 2.87 x 1014

Am-241 7.27 x 102 2.69 x 10"

Pu-240 5.43 x 102 2.01 x 1013

Pu-239 2.55 x 102 9.44 x 1012;

Sr-90 6.19 x 104 2.29 x 1015

Cs-137 9.31 x 104 3.44 x 1015

Am-243 3.34 x 101 1.24 x 1012

Cm-243 3.07 x 101 1.13 x 1012

Am-242m 1.31 x 101 4.85 x 1011

Ru-106 1.55 x104 5.72 x 1014

Eu-154 9.13 x 10' 3.38 x 1014

Cs-134 4.80 x 104 1.78 x 1015

Ce-144 8.87 x 103 3.28 x 1014

Sb-125 3.83 x10' 1.42 x 1014

Pu-242 1.82 x 100 6.72 x 1010

Cm-242 2.83 x 10' 1.05 x 1012

Pm-147 1.76 x 104 6.52 x 1014

Cm-245 1.21 x 100 4.46 x 1010

Y-90 6.19 x 104 2.29 x 1015

Eu-155 4.62 x 103 1.71 x 1014

Kr-85 8.90 x 103 3.29 x 1014

Co-60(c) 1.20 x 102 4.40 x 1012

(a) Divide becquerel/metric ton Uranium (Bq/MTU) by 3.7 x 101u to obtain curies/MTU

(b) The source of the spent fuel inventories is INEEL (2003).

(c) Cobalt-60 is the key radionuclide constituent of fuel assembly crud.

August 2008 6-31 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

The RADTRAN 5 accident risk calculations were performed using radionuclide inventories

(Bq/MTU) for the spent fuel shipments from a Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor (INEEL 2003).

The resulting risk estimates were then multiplied by assumed annual spent fuel shipments

(MTU/yr) to derive estimates of the annual accident risks associated with spent fuel shipments

from the VEGP site to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. As was done for

routine exposures, the staff assumed that the numbers of shipments of spent fuel per year are

equivalent to the annual discharge quantities.

For this assessment, release fractions for current-generation LWR fuel designs (Sprung et al.

2000) were used to approximate the impacts from the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent fuel

shipments. This assumes that the fuel materials and containment systems (i.e., cladding, fuel

coatings) behave similarly to current LWR fuel under applied mechanical and thermal

conditions.

The NRC staff used RADTRAN 5 to calculate the population dose from the released radioactive

material from four of five possible exposure pathways.(a) These pathways are:

" External dose from exposure to the passing cloud of radioactive material (cloudshine).

" External dose from the radionuclides deposited on the ground by the passing plume

(groundshine). The staffs analysis included the radiation exposure from this pathway even

though the area surrounding a potential accidental release would be evacuated and

decontaminated, thus preventing long-term exposures from this pathway.

" Internal dose from inhalation of airborne radioactive contaminants (inhalation).

" Internal dose from resuspension of radioactive materials that were deposited on the ground

(resuspension). The staffs analysis included the radiation exposures from this pathway

even though evacuation and decontamination of the area surrounding a potential accidental

release would prevent long-term exposures.

Table 6-11 presents the environmental consequences of transportation accidents when shipping

spent fuel from the VEGP site to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. The shipping

distances and population distribution information for the routes were the same as those used for

the normal "incident-free" conditions (see Section 6.2.2.1). The results are normalized to the

WASH-1 238 reference reactor (880-MW(e) net electrical generation, 1 100-MW(e) reactor

operating at 80-percent capacity).

(a) Internal dose from ingestion of contaminated food was not considered because the staff assumed

evacuation and subsequent interdiction of foodstuffs following a postulated transportation accident.

NUREG-1872 6-32 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Table 6-11. Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for Advanced Reactors,

Normalized to Reference 1100-MW(e) LWR Net Electrical Generation

Population Impacts, Person-Svlyr(a)

Reference LWR, Person-Sv/yr 3.5 x 10-'

VEGP ESP Normalized Impacts, person-Sv/yr 2.2 x 10-

(a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain person-rem/yr.

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation exposure may pose some risk of

causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation

exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response model is used to describe the

relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report

by the National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold

dose response theory. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an

incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative

model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

over estimates those risks.

Based on this model, the staff estimates the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem]) from ICRP Publication

60 (ICRP 1991). The population doses presented in Table 6-11 are less than 1 x 10 -6 personSv/yr (1 x 10-4 person-rem/yr); therefore, the total detriment estimates associated with these

population doses would all be less than 1 x 10-7 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe

hereditary effects per year. These risks are small.

As mentioned previously, Southern advised the NRC staff that, based on changes between

Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, fuel enrichment levels would increase from

4.51% to 4.54%, and fuel irradiation levels would increase from 48,700 MWd/MTU to 50

50,533 MWd/MTU. The staff evaluated the effect of these changes on the staff analysis

presented above. The staff determined that while some levels might increase slightly, the

elevation in the calculated dose levels would be insignificant and, accordingly, the staff's impact

assessment would not change.

6.2.2.3 Nonradiological Impact of Spent Fuel Shipments

The general approach used to calculate nonradiological impacts of spent fuel shipments is the

same as that used for unirradiated fuel shipments. The main difference is that the spent fuel

shipping route characteristics are better-defined so the state-level accident statistics in Saricks

August 2008 6-33 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

and Tompkins (1999) may be used. State-by-state shipping distances were obtained from the

TRAGIS output file and combined with the annual number of shipments and accident, injury,

and fatality rates by state from Saricks and Tompkins (1999) to calculate nonradiological

impacts. The results are shown in Table 6-12.

6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste

This section discusses the environmental effects of transporting waste from the VEGP site. The

environmental conditions listed in 10 CFR 51.52 that apply to shipments of radioactive waste

are as follows:

* Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) would be packaged and in solid form.

* Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) would be shipped from the reactor by truck or rail.

* The weight limitation of 33,100 kg (73,000 Ib) per truck and 90.7 MT (100 tons) per cask per

railcar would be met.

" Traffic density would be less than the one truck shipment per day or three railcars per month

condition.

Table 6-12. Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Spent Fuel from the VEGP site to Yucca

Mountain, Normalized to Reference LWR

One-way Shipping Nonradiological Impacts, per year

State Highway Type Distance, km Accidentslyr Injuries/yr Fatalities/yr

AR Interstate 4.6 x 10" 4.9 x 10-" 3.6 x 10-" 2.3 x 10-"

AZ Interstate 5.7 x 102 6.1 x 10-3 5.4 x 10-3 4.3 x 10-4

CA Interstate 3.5 x 102 4.4 x 10-3 3.4 x 10-3 1.9 x 10-4

Primary 1.5 x 102 5.3 x 10-4 4.0 x 10-4 2.6 x 10-5

GA Interstate 4.3 x 102 2.3x 10.2 1.6 x 10-2 6 .6 x 10-

Primary 4.6 x 101 2.5 x 10-3 1.7 x 10-3 7.2 x 10-5

NM Interstate 6.0 x 102 5.4 x 10-3 5.5 x 10-3 5.6 x 10-4

NV Primary 1.2 x 102 3.7x 10-3 2.4 x 10-3 1.6 x 10-4

OK Interstate 5.3 x 102 1.1 X 10.2 1.2 x 10.2 5.7 x 10-4

TN Interstate 5.6 x 102 5.5 x 10-3 4.1 x 10-3 4.5 x 10'

TX Interstate 2.8 x 102 1.4 x 10.2 1.2 x 10.2 2.9 x 10-

Totals 4.1 x 103 8.1 x 10.2 6.7 x 10-2 3.6 x 10.3

Note: The number of shipments of spent fuel assumed in the calculations is 40 shipments/yr after normalizing to the

reference LWR.

Radioactive waste from the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor is expected to be capable of being

shipped in compliance with Federal or State weight restrictions. Table 6-13 presents estimates

of annual waste volumes and annual waste shipment numbers for a Westinghouse AP1000

reactor at the VEGP site normalized to the reference 11 00-MW(e) LWR defined in WASH-1 238

(AEC 1972). The expected annual waste volumes and waste shipments for the Westinghouse

AP 1000 reactor were less than the 1 100-MW(e) reference reactor that was the basis for

NUREG-1872 6-34 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Table S-4. Maximum projected waste generation rates for the VEGP ESP reactor could exceed

the reference LWR waste generation rate. However, waste generation rate projections are

uncertain and are a function of Southern's radioactive waste management practices. Therefore,

waste generation rates for the VEGP reactor are anticipated to be much closer to the expected

rate than the maximum rate.

The sum of the daily shipments of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste is well

below the one-truck-shipment-per-day condition given in 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4 for a

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor located at the VEGP site. Doubling the shipment estimates to

account for empty return shipments of fuel and waste is included in the results. An additional

doubling to account for a second reactor at the VEGP site is also less than the one-shipmentper-day condition.

Dose estimates to the MEI from transport of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and waste under

normal conditions are presented in Section 6.2.1.1.

Table 6-13. Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the VEGP Site

Annual Normalized Shipments/

Waste Electrical Rate, m311100 1100 MW(e)

Waste Volume, Output, MW(e) Unit (880 MW(e) Net)

Generation m3

1yr per MW(e) (880 MW(e) Electrical

Reactor Type Information Unit per Unit Net)(a) Output(b)

Reference LWR 3800 ft'/yr 108 1100 108 46

(WASH-1 238) per unit

VEGP Westinghouse 1964 ft3/yr 56 1115(c) 47 21

AP1O0O, expected per unit'c)

VEGP Westinghouse 5717 ft3/yr 162 1115(c) 137 59

AP1000, maximum per unitrc)

Conversions: 1 m' = 35.31 ft•. Drum volume = 210 liters (0.21 m3).

(a) Capacity factors used to normalize the waste generation rates to an equivalent electrical generation output are

80 percent for the reference LWR (AEC 1972) and 93 percent for the VEGP Westinghouse AP1OO0

(Southern 2008). Waste generation for the Westinghouse AP1000 is normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical

output (1.100-MW(e) unit with an 80-percent capacity factor).

(b) The number of shipments per 1100 MW(e) was calculated assuming the WASH-1 238 average waste shipment

capacity of 2.34 mi per shipment (108 m3

/yr divided by 46 shipments/yr).

(c) These values were taken from the ER (Southern 2008).

Nonradiological impacts of radioactive waste shipments were calculated using the same general

approach as unirradiated and spent fuel shipments. For this EIS, the shipping distance was

assumed to be 800 km (500 mi) one way (AEC 1972). Because the actual destination is

uncertain, national median accident, injury, and fatality rates were used in the calculations

(Saricks and Tompkins 1999). The results are presented in'Table 6-14.

August 2008 6-35 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Table 6-14. Nonradiological Impacts of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the VEGP Site

Shipments One-Way Fatalities Injuries Accidents

per Year Distance, km per Year per Year per Year

WASH-1238 46 800 6.8 x 10-4 1.4 x 10" 2.1 x 10-'

VEGP Westinghouse AP1000 21 800 3.1 x 104 6.5 x 10-3 9.5 x 10.'

Note: The shipments and impacts have not been normalized to the reference LWR; the expected waste

volumes from the VEGP Westinghouse AP1000 reactor were used. Normalized shipments and impacts would be

slightly smaller (see Table 6-12).

6.2.4 Conclusions

An independent confirmatory analysis was conducted of the impacts under normal operating

and accident conditions of transporting construction materials, construction and operations

personnel, and fuel and wastes to/from a Westinghouse AP1 000 reactor proposed to be located

at the proposed VEGP site. To make comparisons to Table S-4, the environmental impacts are

normalized to a reference reactor year. The reference reactor is an 11 00-MW(e) reactor that

has an 80-percent capacity factor, for a total electrical output of 880 MW(e) per year. The

environmental impacts can be adjusted to calculate impacts per site by multiplying the

normalized impacts by the ratio of the total electric output for the proposed Westinghouse

AP1000 reactor at the VEGP site to the electric output of the reference reactor.

Because of the conservative approaches and data used to calculate impacts, actual

environmental effects are not likely to exceed those calculated in this EIS. Thus, the staff

concludes that the environmental impacts of transportation of construction materials, personnel,

fuel, and radioactive wastes to and from the VEGP site would be SMALL, and would be

consistent with the environmental impacts associated with transportation of materials,

personnel, fuel, and radioactive wastes from current-generation reactors presented in Table S-4

of 10 CFR 51.52.

6.3 Decommissioning Impacts

At the end of the operating life of a power reactor, NRC regulations require that the facility

undergo decommissioning. Decommissioning is the removal of a facility safely from service and

the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC license. The

regulations governing decommissioning of power reactors are found in 10 CFR 50.75.

Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any LWR

before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Generic Environmental

Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1

(NRC 2002). If an applicant for a CP or COL referencing the Southern ESP applies for a license

to construct new nuclear units at the VEGP site, there is a requirement to provide a report

containing a certification that financial assurance for radiological decommissioning would be

NUREG-1872 6-36 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

provided. At the time an application is submitted, the requirements in 10 CFR 50.33, 50.75, and

52.77 (and any other applicable requirements) would have to be met.

At the ESP stage, applicants are not required to submit information regarding the process of

decommissioning, such as the method chosen for decommissioning, the schedule, or any other

aspect of planning for decommissioning. Southern did not provide this information in its

application; however, it did provide a decommissioning cost analysis summary. The regulatory

requirements on decommissioning activities are expected to limit the impacts of

decommissioning to a SMALL impact.

6.4 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 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 63, "Disposal of HighLevel Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada."

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and

Transportation of Radioactive Material."

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

"Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."

61 FR 65120. December 19, 1996. "Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of

Radioactive Materials; Clean Air Act." Federal Register, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

70 FR 49014. August 22, 2005. "Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection

Standards for Yucca Mountain, NV." Federal Register, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

70 FR 53313. September 8, 2005. "Implementation of a Dose Standard after 10,000 years."

Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

70 FR 67098. November 4, 2005. "Implementation of a Dose Standard after 10,000 Years;

Extension of Comment Period." Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

August 2008 6-37 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1976. The Seventh Annual Report of the Council on

Environmental Quality. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C.

Energy Policy Act of 2005. August 8, 2005. 42 USC 15801. Public Law 109-58.

Friedberg W. and K Copeland. 2003. What Aircrews Should Know About Their Occupational

Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. DOT/FAA/AM-3/16, Federal Aviation Administration,

Washington, D.C.

Griego N.R., J.D. Smith, and K.S. Neuhauser. 1996. "Investigation of RADTRAN Stop Model

Input Parameters for Truck Stops." In Proceedings of Waste Management '96, CONF-960212-

44, Tucson, Arizona.

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 2003. Early Site Permit

Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation. Engineering Design File

Number 3747, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of

the Intemational Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Pergamon

Press, New York.

Jablan S. 1990. Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities. National Institutes of

Health, Publication No. 90-874, Washington, D.C.

Johnson P.E. and R.D. Michelhaugh. 2003. Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic

Information System (TRAGIS) User's Manual. ORNL/NTRC-006, Rev. 0, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1987a. Ionizing

Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 93, Bethesda,

Maryland.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1987b. Exposure of the

Population in the United States and Canada from Natural Background Radiation. NCRP Report

No. 94, Bethesda, Maryland.

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

Law 91-190.

National Research Council. 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. National

Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1872 6-38 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing

Radiation: BEIR VII - Phase 2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low

Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council, National Academies Press,

Washington, D.C.

Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978. 22 USC 3201, et seq. Public Law 95-242, as amended.

Neuhauser K.S., F.L. Kanipe, and R.F. Weiner. 2003. RADTRAN 5 User Guide. SAND2003-

2354, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Accessed September 10, 2007

at http://infoserve.sandia.gov/sand-doc/2003/032354.pdf.

Saricks C.L. and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates of Surface Freight

Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESDITM-150. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne,

Illinois.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007. Letter from Southern Company

to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding Vogtle Early Site Permit Application:

Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement. December 26, 2007. Accession No.

ML073620401.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Revision 4. Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

Sprung J.L., D.J. Ammerman, N.L. Breivik, R.J. Dukart, F.L. Kanipe, J.A. Koski, G.S. Mills,

K.S. Neuhauser, H.D. Radloff, R.F. Weiner, and H.R. Yoshimura. 2000. Reexamination of

Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates. NUREG/CR-6672, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Environmental Survey of Transportation of

Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1 238, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel

Cycle. WASH-1248, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Court of Appeals. 2004. Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. Environmental Protection

Agency, 373 F.3d:1251.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002a. A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk

Assessment. DOE/EM/NTP/HB-01, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a

Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

August 2008 6-39 NUREG-1872
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004. DOE Standard Radiological Control. DOE-STD1098-99, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1975. Environmental Survey of Transportation of

Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1. NUREG-75/038, NRC,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing

and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to

WASH-1248), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977a. Final Environmental Statement on the

Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. NUREG-0170, Vol.1, NRC,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977b. Public Comments and Task Force

Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management

Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH-1248), NRC,

Washington, D.C.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Final Report. NUREG-1437 Vol. 1, NRC,

Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at http:llwww.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollectionslnuregs/stafflsrl437/v11.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Appendices, Final Report. NUREG-1437 Vol. 2, U.S.

NRC, Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, NRC, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstrlEPA-1MPACT/1 999lSeptemberlDay-031i22765.htm.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2, NRC, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1 872 6-40 August 2008
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site, Final Report. NUREG-1811, NRC,

Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/srl 811/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Exelon ESP Site, Final Report. NUREG-1815, NRC,

Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/srl 815/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006c. Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf ESP Site, Final Report. NUREG-1817, NRC,

Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2008 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollectionslnuregs/staff/srl 817/.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2005. APIO00 Design Control

Document, APIO00 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 15, Westinghouse Electric

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

White House Press Release. July 23, 2002. President Signs Yucca Mountain Bill. Accessed

September 10, 2007 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/07/20020723-2.html.

Weiner R.F., D.M. Osborn, D. Hinojosa, T.L. Heames, J. Penisten, and D.J. Orcutt. 2006.

RadCat 2.3 User Guide. SAND2006-6315, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque,

New Mexico.

August 2008 6-41 NUREG-1872

7.0 Cumulative Impacts

When evaluating the potential impacts of construction and operation of new units at the Vogtle

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site proposed by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

(Southern) in its early site permit (ESP) application and Environmental Report (ER)

(Southern 2008a), the staff considered potential cumulative impacts that could occur because of

the construction and operation of two Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse)

AP1000 advanced light-water reactors at the VEGP site. For purposes of this analysis, past

actions include those related to the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2. Present actions are those

related to resources at the time of the ESP application until the start of construction including

the start of requested limited work authorization activities. Future actions are those that are

reasonably foreseeable during construction and operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4,

including decommissioning. Southern has submitted an application to renew the operating

licenses for VEGP Units 1 and 2 (Southern 2007b). A draft supplemental environmental impact

statement (EIS) for license renewal of VEGP Units 1 and 2 was published in April 2008

(NRC 2008). The impacts of this potential license renewal also are considered in this analysis.

The geographical area over which past, present, and future actions could contribute to

cumulative impacts is dependent on the type of action considered and is described below for

each impact area. The staff considered cumulative effects of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4

with current operations at the Savannah River Site, and proposed new facilities at the Savannah

River Site such as the proposed mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility (NRC 2005).

The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Chapters 4 and 5, are combined with other

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of VEGP that would

affect the same resources impacted by the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4, regardless of what

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. These 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. 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.

As mentioned previously, the staff analyzes the impacts of construction and operation of the

proposed action in chapters 4 and 5, and discusses cumulative impacts in chapter 7. As a

result of the NRC's recent new rule on limited work authorizations for nuclear power plants (see

72 FR 57416), the definition of construction activities in 10 CFR 50.10 has changed to more

clearly reflect the NRC's jurisdiction. The staff's draft EIS (DEIS) for the Vogtle ESP review was

published prior to the issuance of the final rule. To reflect the effects of the new rule, site

August 2008 7-1 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

preparation and preconstruction activities would most appropriately be analyzed in the staffs

EIS as cumulative rather than as impacts of construction or operation of the proposed facility.

However, in this instance, to ensure appropriate consideration of public comments on the DEIS

and to avoid confusion from reorganizing the document following those comments, the staff has

kept discussions of such impacts (e.g., those no longer defined by regulation as construction

activities) in the chapters in which they were discussed in the DEIS. While the staffs analysis of

construction activities in the DEIS and its discussion of cumulative impacts are different, they

are generally at the same depth of analysis. The staff believes this approach will allow effective

consideration of public comments while still ensuring that impacts relevant to the NEPA analysis

are disclosed and fully evaluated. The discussion in this chapter continues to disclose and

evaluate cumulative impacts to applicable resources from activities in addition to those

previously evaluated in chapters 4 and 5.

7.1 Land Use

The NRC staff reviewed the available information on the impacts on land use of constructing

one or more additional nuclear units at the VEGP site including one additional transmission line

in a new right-of-way. In addition to land-use impacts at the VEGP site, cumulative impacts for

land use include possible additional growth and land conversions to accommodate new workers

and services. However, cumulative land-use impacts are expected to be relatively minor

because the construction and the operations workforces are expected to be drawn from an area

wider than Burke County, Georgia. Because the workforce would be dispersed over larger

geographic areas in the labor supply region, the induced impacts on land use (resulting from

either construction or operations of one or more new units at the VEGP site) can be absorbed in

that wider region.

Construction of the planned 500-kV transmission line would have land-use impacts, as

discussed in Sections 4.1.2 and 5.1.2 of this EIS. However, because the Georgia Power

Company (GPC) generally provides easements for agricultural activities under transmission

lines, the cumulative land-use impacts associated with construction of the new transmission line

are expected to be relatively SMALL.

7.2 Air Quality

Permitted air emission sources nearby the VEGP site include the Allen B. Wilson Combustion

Turbine Plant (Plant Wilson) and the Savannah River Site. Plant Wilson is located to the eastsoutheast on adjacent property to the current VEGP site and is operated by the GPC. The

facility has six combustion turbines and one black start diesel generator, all of which are listed

as significant emission units in the facility's Title V Clean Air Act operating permit

4911-033-0008-V-02.0 (Georgia EDP 2007). The Savannah River Site is a U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) facility and is located across the Savannah River to the east-northeast of the

NUREG-1872 7-2 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

VEGP site. Air emissions from Savannah River Site are permitted under DOE's operating

permit (TV-0090-0041) and include radioactive, nonradioactive toxic, and criteria pollutants from

approximately 47 nonexempt emission units, with each emission unit having specific emission

limits, operating conditions, and monitoring and reporting requirements (Savannah River Site

2006). In addition, a MOX facility has been proposed for development on the Savannah River

Site. The MOX facility would be in support of DOE's surplus plutonium disposition program for

converting depleted uranium and weapons-grade plutonium into a MOX fuel that is proliferationresistant. Estimated air emissions from the MOX facility are detailed in the EIS for the proposed

facility (NRC 2005). Emissions of criteria pollutants primarily include dust during construction

and NO 2 and particulates from processing during operation. Limited air emissions would also

result from emergency and standby diesel-power generators and fuel storage (NRC 2005).

As was discussed in Section 2.3.2 of this EIS, the VEGP site is located in an area that is in

attainment for all criteria pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

have been established (40 CFR 81.314). Section 4.2 of this EIS examined air-quality impacts

associated with construction; emissions would be predominately dust from construction

activities and exhaust from equipment and vehicles. Emissions from construction are expected

to be temporary and limited in magnitude and impacts on air quality would be small. Section 5.2

addressed air-quality impacts from operations. Natural draft cooling towers proposed for VEGP

Units 3 and 4 would not release emissions regulated under the NAAQS. Air emissions from

operations would be primarily from diesel generators and auxiliary power supplies. These

systems would be permitted and operated in accordance with State and Federal regulatory

requirements and emissions would be infrequent and impacts would be small. No other

significant air impacts from other actions at the VEGP were identified. Based on its evaluation,

the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts to air quality would be SMALL and that

mitigation is not warranted.

7.3 Water Use and Quality

The assessments performed by the NRC staff in Sections 4.3 and 5.3 describe the impacts of

construction and operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 on the hydrological

environment. This section addresses the cumulative impacts of the proposed VEGP Units 3

and 4, the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2, the DOE's Savannah River Site directly across the

Savannah River from the VEGP site, and other water users in the region.

7.3.1 Water-Use Impacts

The potential impacts on the environment from surface-water withdrawals from the Savannah

River during operation of the proposed units are described in-Section 5.2 of the ER

(Southern 2008a). The potential impacts on the environment from groundwater use during

operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site are described in Section 5.2.2.2

of the ER (Southern 2008a), in Southern's response to requests for additional information

August 2008 7-3 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

(Southern 2007a,b), and in Section 5.3.2.2 of this EIS. Other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of the proposed site include (1) the cumulative impact

from operation of the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2, (2) saltwater intrusion issues in the State of

Georgia, (3) observed tritium in the unconfined aquifer, and (4) contamination in the environment

surrounding the Savannah River Site.

7.3.1.1 Surface-Water-Use Impacts

Water withdrawn from the Savannah River and used to cool both the existing VEGP Units 1 and

2 and the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 was compared as a percent of the total river discharge.

As shown in Table 7-1, during periods of average discharge conditions, surface-water

withdrawals amount to 2 percent of the discharge. During periods of drought, the withdrawal

percentage increases, finally reaching 4.6 percent when the river discharge has declined to

Drought Level 3. Comparable levels for Drought Level 4 are not shown in Table 7-1 because

the river discharge is not specified in the Drought Plan but is variable based on inflow

conditions.

Visually, the impact of withdrawing 4.9 m3/s (173 cfs) can be qualitatively gaged by inspecting

Figure 2-5. Although the average river discharge rate is 250 m3/s (8830 cfs), numerous periods

exist when the discharge rate exceeds 424.85 m3/s (15,000 cfs). At a discharge rate of

Table 7-1. Savannah River Discharge Rates and Combined Surface-Water Withdrawal Rates

River Normal Combined

Discharge Withdrawal Withdrawal

VEGP Units 1 and 2 VEGP Units 3 and 4

Case m3/s (cfs) m3

/s (cfs) m3/s (cfs) m3/s (cfs) % of river

Average Conditions 250 (8830) 2.55 (90) 2.35 (83) 4.9 (173) 2.0

Drought Level 1 119 (4200) 2.55 (90) 2.35 (83) 4.9 (173) 4.1

Drought Level 2 113 (4000) 2.55 (90) 2735 (83) 4.9 (173) 4.3

Drought Level 3 108 (3800) 2.55 (90) 2.35 (83) 4.9 (173) 4.6

Sources: NRC 1985;Southern 2008a

424.85 m3/s (15,000 cfs), the combined withdrawal represents 1.2 percent of the total river

discharge. The impact of these withdrawals on the shoreline was evaluated by investigating the

net change in river stage resulting from a withdrawal of 4.9 m3/s (173 cfs). Assuming the river

was at Drought Level 3 conditions, a further reduction of discharge resulting from the combined

withdrawals of VEGP Units 1 through 4 resulted in a net lowering of the water surface elevation

by 5 cm (2 in.). Water would be returned to the Savannah River from the site via two discharge

outfalls, one serving VEGP Units 1 and 2 and the other serving the proposed VEGP Units 3 and

4. Under normal operating conditions, the consumptive use of the plants would be 1.90 m3/s

(67 cfs) for VEGP Units 1 and 2 (NRC 1985) and 1.76 m3/s (62 cfs) for the proposed VEGP

NUREG-1872 7-4 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2008a). Table 7-2 presents these consumptive water uses as ratios of

the total discharge in the Savannah River. The combined consumptive use is approximately

1.5 percent of the average river discharge and 3.4 percent of the discharge during Drought

Level 3 conditions.

Table 7-2. Consumptive Use of Savannah River Water

River Normal Combined

Discharge Consumptive Use Consumptive Use

VEGP Units I VEGP Units 3

and 2 and 4

Case m3/s (cfs) m3

/s (cfs) m3/s (cfs) m3/s (cfs) % of river

Average Conditions 250 (8830) 1.90 (67) 1.76 (62) 3.65 (129) 1.5

Drought Level 1 119 (4200) 1.90 (67) 1.76 (62) 3.65 (129) 3.1

Drought Level 2 113 (4000) 1.90 (67) 1.76 (62) 3.65 (129) 3.2

Drought Level 3 108 (3800) 1.90 (67) 1.76 (62) 3.65 (129) 3.4

Source: NRC 1985; Southern 2008a

As described in Section 2.6.2.1, nearby water users to the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4

include the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 at rkm 243 (RM 151), the South Carolina Electric and

Gas (SCE&G) D-Area Powerhouse at rkm 249 (RM 155), and the SCE&G Urquhart Station at

rkm 314 (RM 195). Of these, the D-Area Powerhouse consumptive use (1.94 m3

/s [68.4 cfs])

and the Urquhart Station consumptive use (3.61 m3/s [127.5 cfs]) were the largest water users

outside the VEGP site. During times of average or above-average flow in the Savannah River,

the VEGP site water use would be 1.5 percent or less of the total river discharge.

Because (1) the total VEGP site withdrawals are expected to be less than 5 percent of the total

river discharge even under drought conditions, (2) the total VEGP site consumptive use is

expected to be less than 4 percent of the total river discharge, (3) other nearby surface-water

users consume less water than the VEGP site would with the proposed two new units, and

(4) the reduction in the river stage near the VEGP site caused by its normal withdrawals is

expected to be less than 5 cm (2 in.) even under drought conditions, the staff concluded that the

combined surface-water-use impacts to the Savannah River resulting from the operation of the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be minor. Although the effects may be detectable, they

would not destabilize the resource; therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts would be

SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

Southern, in its ER, also investigated the cumulative impact of the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2

outfall on the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 outfall. At a distance of 123.14 m (404 ft)

downstream from the existing outfall, the expected increase in water temperature was computed

to be less than 0.5 0C (0.9 0 F) (Southern 2008a). Values computed in Southern's analysis were

August 2008 7-5 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

based on expected differences between ambient river and tower blowdown water temperatures,

not the maximum range, as was done in the staffs analysis.

In addition to the above analysis, the staff also considered the cumulative impacts to water

supplied from the Savannah River associated with the normala withdrawal rates for all four units

at the VEGP site at two river flow rates below the Drought Level 3 values. Even assuming river

flows of 3000 cfs and 2000 cfs, rather than the Drought Level 3 case of 3800 cfs river flow, the

percentage of streamflow reduction in the Savannah River due to the operation of VEGP Units 1

through 4 would be 4.3 percent at 3000 cfs and 6.5 percent at 2000 cfs.

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised the NRC staff (Southern 2007f) that

based on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, the normal

surface water consumptive use for Vogtle Units 1 through 4 would increase by approximately 3

cfs). The staff evaluated the effect of this change on the staffs analysis presented above, which

uses the DCD Revision 15 surface water consumption values currently in Southern's ER

(Southern 2008a). The staff determined that this change would result in an increase in the

normal water consumptive use to approximately 3.5 percent of the 3800 cfs river flow at Drought

Level 3. At a river flow rate of 3000 cfs, the revised consumption use rate would be 4.4 percent,

and for 2000 cfs it would be 6.6 percent. Because the change identified by Southern would

result in only a minor increase in consumptive water use under Drought Level 3 conditions and

that the impact level analyzed for the Revision 15 values was not near a known impact

threshold, the staff determined that these changes would not alter the staffs cumulative analysis

of impact to water supply presented above. Furthermore, even under low flow conditions of

3000 and 2000 cfs, the increased consumptive use identified by Southern would result in

sufficiently small increases in consumptive water use that it similarly would not alter the staff's

cumulative impact assessment.

Therefore, consistent with its analysis discussed above, the staff determined that the cumulative

normal water consumptive use of all four VEGP units at the low flows of 3000 and 2000 cfs will

reduce the streamflow in the Savannah River further. However, these extreme low flow

conditions will be very rare, temporary and not destabilizing to the water supply resource.

Southern, in its ER, also investigated the cumulative impact of the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2

outfall on the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 outfall. At a distance of 123.14 m (404 ft)

downstream from the existing outfall, the expected increase in water temperature was computed

to be less than 0.5°C (0.9°F) (Southern 2008a). Values computed in Southern's analysis were

a Staff determined that the 'normal' case was most appropriate for the cumulative analysis because it is

more representative of long-term impacts and because it is unlikely that all plants would be operating

simultaneously in the 'maximum' consumption mode.

NUREG-1872 7-6 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

In addition to the above analysis, the staff also considered the cumulative impacts to water

supplied from the Savannah River associated with the normala withdrawal rates for all four units

at the VEGP site at two river flow rates below the Drought Level 3 values. Even assuming river

flows of 3000 cfs and 2000 cfs, rather than the Drought Level 3 case of 3800 cfs river flow, the

percentage of streamflow reduction in the Savannah River due to the operation of VEGP Units 1

through 4 would be 4.3 percent at 3000 cfs and 6.5 percent at 2000 cfs.

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised the NRC staff (Southern 2007f) that

based on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, the normal

surface water consumptive use for Vogtle Units 1 through 4 would increase by approximately 3

cfs). The staff evaluated the effect of this change on the staffs analysis presented above, which

uses the DCD Revision 15 surface water consumption values currently in' Southern's ER

(Southern 2008a). The staff determined that this change would result in an increase in the

normal water consumptive use to approximately 3.5 percent of the 3800 cfs river flow at Drought

Level 3. At a river flow rate of 3000 cfs, the revised consumption use rate would be 4.4 percent,

and for 2000 cfs it would be 6.6 percent. Because the change identified by Southern would

result in only a minor increase in consumptive water use under Drought Level 3 conditions and

that the impact level analyzed for the Revision 15 values was not near a known impact

threshold, the staff determined that these changes would not alter the staffs cumulative analysis

of impact to water supply presented above. Furthermore, even under low flow conditions of

3000 and 2000 cfs, the increased consumptive use identified by Southern would result in

sufficiently small increases in consumptive water use that it similarly would not alter the staffs

cumulative impact assessment.

Therefore, consistent with its analysis discussed above, the staff determined that the cumulative

normal water consumptive use of all four VEGP units at the low flows of 3000 and 2000 cfs will

reduce the streamflow in the Savannah River further. However, these extreme low flow

conditions will be very rare, temporary and not destabilizing to the water supply resource.

Because of the minor increase relative to the normal water withdrawals from all four units

previously analyzed, the potential increased surface water consumptive use associated with

Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD would not affect the staffs conclusion that cumulative impacts

associated with river flows down to Drought Level 3 to the surface water supply from operation

of all four units at the VEGP site would be SMALL.

Therefore, although the cumulative surface-water-quality impacts may be detectable, they are

expected to be minor and would not destabilize the resource. Therefore, the staff concludes

that cumulative impacts resulting from the operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would

be SMALL.

August 2008 7-7 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

7.3.1.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts

Potential offsite impact during the operation of VEGP Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 is represented by a

total normal operation groundwater requirement of 93.50 LUs (1482 gpm) for all units. This is a

multi-year average rate applicable to.the long-term operation of VEGP. It is based on the

normal operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2, requiring 46.1 Us (730 gpm), and the proposed VEGP

Units 3 and 4, requiring 47.44 L/s (752 gpm) (Southern 2008a). The maximum rate for the

operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2 is 145 Us (2300 gpm), and the proposed maximum rate for

VEGP Units 3 and 4 is 198.1 Us (3140 gpm). Thus, in the unlikely event that all four units were

at the maximum groundwater usage, a total rate of 343.2 Us (5440 gpm) would be required.

However, this would not be a long-term rate, and may only be required for a short time

(e.g., Southern simulated a 2-day period) (Southern 2007b). Potential offsite impact is

evaluated based on the decline in hydraulic head in the Cretaceous aquifer using a simple

conservative analysis based on withdrawal from a single onsite well nearest the VEGP property

boundary.

The well selected for analysis is deep production well MU-2A, and the property boundary is

1740 m (5700 ft) away. Data on the hydraulic properties of the Cretaceous aquifer are

published in the Final Safety Analysis Report for VEGP Units 1 and 2 (Southern 2003) and were

gathered during the installation and testing of the deep production wells. The transmissivity of

0.0227 m2/s (158,000 gal/d/ft) is identified by Southern (2008a) as a mid-range value for use in

analyses. The storativity value of 3.1 E-04 (dimensionless) is the arithmetic mean of values

reported in the Final Safety Analysis Report (Southern 2003).

The staff performed an independent analysis of cumulative normal and maximum unit

operations confirming Southern's calculations and to examine a range of cases. The cumulative

drawdown resulting from normal operation at the nearest offsite location is approximately 3.7 m

(12 ft) in 2045 (i.e., after 59 years operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2 and 31 years operation of

the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4). Although the drawdown associated with a short-term

(i.e., 2 days) maximum operational level is approximately 2.75 m (9.0 ft), a longer period

response (i.e., 30 days) is approximately 5.9 m (19.4 ft). The long-term drawdown associated

with normal operation represents a small fraction of the approximately 120 m (400 ft) of

confining hydraulic head in the Cretaceous aquifer. The drawdown associated with maximum

operation levels for brief periods would be temporary, and the hydraulic head would rebound to

prior levels.

If either VEGP Unit 1 or 2 were to require maximum groundwater withdrawal, the incremental

drawdown after 30 days would be approximately 0.9 m (3 ft). If either the proposed VEGP

Unit 3 or 4 were to require maximum off-normal groundwater withdrawal, the incremental in

drawdown after 30 days would be approximately 1.3 m (4.3 ft). Incremental drawdowns of

0.9 to 1.3 m (3 to 4.3 ft) would not dewater installed screens in either the Tertiary or Cretaceous

NUREG-1872 7-8 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

aquifers, and are within the operational tolerance of pumps installed to recover groundwater

from confined aquifers.

In addition to identifying the MU-2A well for analysis, Southern identified the proposed locations

of water supply wells for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 (see Southern 2008a). The staff

estimated the distance from the VEGP property line to the nearest proposed well location as

1070 m (3500 ft). The proximity of the boundary caused the drawdown estimates to increase by

approximately 10 percent (i.e., 0.3 m of 3.5 m) for long time periods, by approximately

20 percent (i.e., 0.5 m of 2.5 m) for 30-day periods, and by approximately 40 percent (i.e., 1.1 m

of 2.75 m) for 2-day periods. The incremental drawdown and drawdown are both SMALL and

these results do not alter the staffs conclusions.

The estimates above reflect the potential impact at the property boundary from both normal or

average and maximum withdrawal rates. The closest users of the Cretaceous aquifer are a

municipal well 23.3 km (14.5 mi) away, an industrial well 13.7 km (8.5 mi) away, and wells

located in the Savannah River Site D-Area 6.4 km (4 mi) away. At these distances, the

cumulative drawdown resulting from the production of water during operation of all units through

2045 (approximately 30 years after startup of the proposed units) would be less than 3 m (10 ft)

for these users. Thus, potential impacts are quantified for future groundwater .users located

adjacent to the proposed facility, and for existing groundwater users at some distance from the

facility. The existing and projected increased use of groundwater in the region (i.e., the potential

50 percent increase by 2035 to 2045 described in Section 2.6.2.1) will not be substantially

impacted by the proposed facility.

Clearly, the pumping stress to support the cumulative operation of VEGP Units 1, 2, 3, and 4

would not dewater the confined aquifer, does not substantially alter the 120 m (400 ft) of

confined head in the Cretaceous aquifer, and does not substantially alter the hydraulic head in

the Cretaceous aquifer at the nearest neighbor offsite well location.

Analysis of prior studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey reveals estimates of deep

aquifer baseflow ranging from 5.21 m3/s (119 MGD) to 9.57 m3/s (218.4 MGD). The former

baseflow is based on regional field measurements (Aucott et al. 1987), and the latter on regional

modeling (Cherry 2006). Both estimates indicate a groundwater resource that is sufficient to

sustain the incremental increase in normal operation for the proposed plants (0.047 m3/s

[1.08 MGD]), the incremental increase in maximum demand (0.198 m3

/s [4.52 MGD]) for the

proposed plants, and the total demand under the unlikely condition of all plants requiring

maximum demand (0.343 m3

/s [7.83 MGD]). Of these amounts, only the last requires more

groundwater than is permitted under the existing groundwater-use permit held by Southern, and

it would require an increase of 0.080 m3

/s (1.83 MGD) above the current permitted amount.

This represents 1.5 percent of the lower estimate of the deep aquifer baseflow. Thus,

groundwater use at this rate could be sustained for the life of the facility. However, during

August 2008 7-9 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

actual operation of the proposed facility, this maximum usage rate would not be sustained for

extended periods.

The normal operation of the proposed plants will require 0.047 m3s (1.08 MGD) of the lower

estimate of aquifer baseflow (5.21 m3

s [119 MGD]) or 0.9 percent of the available groundwater

resource. Based on permitted and reported groundwater usage in the region (Southern 2008a),

approximately 60 MGD, or half of the baseflow in the deep aquifer, is allocated. Beyond the

approximately 1 percent increase in allocation required by the proposed facility, there is an

additional groundwater resource available to meet the projected 50 percent increase in resource

usage.

Based on the projected relatively low drawdown of normal operation, the temporary drawdowns

of maximum operation, and the presence of a groundwater resource sufficient to sustain the

incremental increase and future increase in groundwater use, the staff concluded that

cumulative groundwater-use impacts are SMALL and mitigation is not warranted.

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised NRC staff (Southern 2007c) that, based

on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, the maximum

groundwater demand for proposed Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be expected to decrease by

about 11 percent. Because the impacts if this groundwater demand would be bounded by the

present analysis, the staff determined that its conclusions regarding cumulative groundwater

use would not change.

7.3.2 Water-Quality Impacts

This section describes cumulative water-quality impacts resulting from operation and interaction

of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 with the surrounding environment.

7.3.2.1 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts

Near the mouth of the Savannah River approximately 240 km (150 mi) downstream of the

VEGP site, saltwater is intruding into the Floridan aquifer because of groundwater withdrawals.

The States of Georgia and South Carolina have issued management plans to address the

saltwater intrusion issue. The plan issued by Georgia (GDNR 2006) requires (1) aggressive

and practical measures to ensure efficient and effective use of groundwater resources,

(2) justification for the water need, and (3) continuous monitoring of the Floridan aquifer for

response to management practices. In its plan, Georgia also identifies other sources of fresh

water in the coastal region including sources achieved through (1) conservation, particularly

irrigation conservation, and (2) use of reclaimed water for lawn and golf-course irrigation. The

South Carolina Water Plan (Badr et al. 2004) recommended, in part, that (1) use of surface and

groundwater be optimized to reduce impacts, (2) groundwater withdrawal will not result in salt

water intrusion, and (3) efficient irrigation techniques, recycling of treated municipal wastewater,

NUREG-1872 7-10 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

and desalination should all be studied as alternative water sources. However, to preserve the

groundwater resource, a shift in water supply may occur whereby consumers of Floridan aquifer

water may meet their water needs through the use of surface water originating from the

Savannah River (GDNR 2006). Accordingly, the use of Savannah River water at the VEGP site

may diminish the quantity of river water that would be available downstream. However, as

discussed earlier in Section 5.3.2.1, the consumptive water use of the proposed VEGP Units 3

and 4 is expected to be less than 1 percent of the total river discharge during average periods

and only up to 1.7 percent during periods of water scarcity (Drought Level 3). The normal

cumulative water use for VEGP Units 1 through 4 (i.e., the VEGP site with four operating

reactors) is not large when compared to the total Savannah River discharge and, as shown in

Table 7-2, is expected to be 3.4 percent or less of the total river discharge.

The NRC staffs assessment of the cumulative water temperature impacts from VEGP Units 1

through 4 is in Section 5.3. This analysis considers the combined impacts by assigning the total

effluent discharge from VEGP Units 1 through 4 to the outfall pipe for the proposed VEGP

Units 3 and 4. It should be noted that this scenario is not proposed by Southern, but was

considered to produce the maximum single thermal plume. The numerical model CORMIX was

used to compute the extent of the effluent plume. The maximum downstream extent of the

2.8 0C (50F) above ambient isotherm was computed to occur 29.6 m (97 ft) downstream of the

outfall pipe, and the maximum width of the curved isotherm was 4.6 m (15 ft).

The staff conducted a second assessment of the cumulative water temperature impacts from

VEGP Units 1 through 4 by separating the effluent discharges, as proposed by Southern, into

two different discharge pipes (i.e., the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 and the proposed VEGP

Units 3 and 4 pipes). Both pipes were assigned a diameter of 61 cm (2.0 ft). The effluent

discharge from VEGP Units 1 and 2 was set at 631.5 Us (22.3 cfs) based 4 cycles of

concentration (Southern 2008a). The effluent discharge from the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4

was set at the maximum design discharge of 1939.7 Us (68.56 cfs) (Southern 2008a). The staff

made a bounding assumption that all waste issuing from both pipes was at a temperature of

33.1°C (91.5°F). River temperatures were set to the minimum observed value of 5°C (41°F),

resulting in the maximum temperature difference (28 0C [50 0F]) between the ambient river and

the discharge effluent.

As in Chapter 5, the staff used the numerical model CORMIX version 5.0 (Jirka et al. 2004) to

compute the size of the two discharge plumes. Southern states in its ER that the two discharge

locations would be 123.14 m (404 ft) apart (Southern 2008a). At this distance downstream from

the existing discharge, the increase in water temperature above ambient was computed by staff

to be 0.8 0C (1.40F). For comparison, at half the distance between the proposed and existing

outfalls (i.e., 60.96 m [200 ft]), the increase in water temperature was computed to be 1.1°C

(2.0°F). Conservatively, the expected impact of the existing outfall on the proposed VEGP Units

3 and 4 outfall would be expected to be less than 1.0°C (1.8°F). The proposed VEGP Units 3

August 2008 7-11 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

and 4 plume computed as part of the second analysis in which the two discharges were

separate was smaller in extent than the plume computed in Chapter 5, in which ,the two

discharges were conservatively combined into one discharge. This difference would be

expected because the effluent discharge is less.

In the cumulative water quality analysis conducted in Section 5.3.3.1, the staff considered water

quality impacts from Units 1 and 2 in combination with proposed Units 3 and 4. As already

explained in that Section, to provide additional context for its conclusions, the staff did consider

the impacts to water quality in the Savannah River at river flow rates below the Drought Level 3

values analyzed. The staff found that the impacts under these conditions would not be

significantly different from the impacts analyzed under the Drought Level 3 condition.

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised the NRC staff (Southern 2007c) of

updates to its original analysis based on changes in flow rates between Revision 15 and

revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD. As already explained in Section 5.3.3.1, the staff determined

that these changes would not affect the staffs conclusion that im-pacts of the effluent plume on

the Savannah River would be SMALL and localized.

7.3.2.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts

The potential cumulative impact on groundwater quality of VEGP Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 operation

is addressed in this section. Three aspects of cumulative groundwater quality deserve mention:

(1) water quality associated with the regional issue of saltwater intrusion, (2) water quality

associated with observed tritium in the Water Table aquifer in the vicinity of the VEGP site, and

(3) the potential for Savannah River Site contamination to impact the quality of groundwater

withdrawn at the VEGP site.

Saltwater Intrusion

The staff review of the potential impact of VEGP operations on saltwater intrusion resulted in the

acquisition and review of the permitting plan published by the State of Georgia (GDNR 2006).

After nearly a decade of study, the State of Georgia issued the permitting plan for managing

saltwater intrusion (GDNR 2006). Burke County is identified in that plan as one of 19 counties

that do not contribute substantially to the development or extent of saltwater intrusion in coastal

areas. However, applications for water-use permits in the 19-county region, including Burke

County, would be reviewed to ensure a justified need exists, and that aggressive and practical

conservation and reuse principles would be applied. Southern notes in its ER that groundwater

wells would be completed in the Cretaceous aquifer to supply groundwater for operation of the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4, and that Southern would request a modification of the existing

groundwater-use permit (Southern 2008a). The quality of water withdrawn from groundwater

wells in Burke County is not impacted by saltwater intrusion and the proposed project will not

NUREG-1872 7-12 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

contribute to the saltwater intrusion occurring in the coastal regions of Georgia and South

Carolina.

Tritium in the Unconfined Aquifer

The staff reviewed the potential for VEGP operation to contribute to tritium absorbed in the

unconfined aquifer. The staff independently reviewed documents published by the State of

Georgia and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to fully understand the observed tritium

contamination. Tritium has been identified as a pollutant in the Water Table aquifer in the

vicinity of the VEGP site (Summerour et al. 1998). Tritium was first discovered in 1988 in a

public water supply well serving the DeLaigle Mobile Home Park, which is a short distance from

the VEGP site, and it was initially believed to contaminate the confined aquifer system. A

thorough study of the region (Summerour et al. 1994, 1998) revealed the following:

* The measured tritium levels were well below the drinking water standard, and there was no

public health threat.

" The Water Table aquifer was contaminated, and the Tertiary aquifer was only contaminated

by a poor well completion that has since been sealed.

" The contamination likely resulted from recharge of the Water Table aquifer by atmospheric

deposition of tritium that was released from the Savannah River Site.

Transriver flow within the groundwater system was assumed initially to be a second potential

pathway for tritium found in the Georgia aquifer systems (i.e., groundwater flowing from the

Savannah River Site in South Carolina beneath the Savannah River into Georgia)

(Summerour et al. 1998). Transriver flow has been studied by the USGS (Clarke and West

1997, 1998; Cherry 2006; Cherry and Clark 2007) and found to be an unlikely source for the

broadly observed tritium found in the unconfined aquifer in Georgia. Southern does not

withdraw water from the Water Table aquifer for operation of the VEGP site. The source of the

tritium has been resolved and does not involve VEGP operation; thus, there is no reason to

believe the proposed project will contribute to the issue of tritium in the unconfined aquifer.

Savannah River Site Groundwater Contamination

To evaluate the potential for VEGP operation to cause groundwater contamination at the

Savannah River Site to be drawn to VEGP wells in Georgia, the staff reviewed several USGS

studies referenced by Southern, and the staff acquired and reviewed documents detailing

groundwater contamination and management practices at the Savannah River Site. Several

aspects of the hydrogeology of the Georgia and South Carolina aquifer systems argue against

the movement of groundwater contamination from the Savannah River Site into Georgia

groundwater. However, there are circumstances illustrated by USGS analyses when it could

August 2008 7-13 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

occur to a limited extent. Salient aspects of the hydrogeology and Savannah River Site

contamination are listed below:

* The Savannah River in the vicinity of Savannah River Site and the VEGP site incises the

Water Table aquifer and acts as a discharge boundary for the unconfined aquifer, thus

intercepting all unconfined aquifer groundwater from both Georgia and South Carolina.

Contamination in the unconfined aquifer underlying Savannah River Site is intercepted by

the Savannah River.

* In the vicinity of Savannah River Site and the VEGP site, the Tertiary aquifer exhibits

hydraulic head contours indicative of either groundwater flow toward the Savannah River

from both states, or groundwater flow toward upriver locations where the river has incised

the overlying confining unit allowing the Tertiary aquifer to discharge to the Savannah River

alluvium. Thus, contamination in the Tertiary aquifer underlying the Savannah River Site is

intercepted by the Savannah River.

" In the vicinity of the Savannah River Site and the VEGP site, three aspects of the

Cretaceous aquifer are significant:

- DOE maintains an upward hydraulic gradient in areas where the deep confined aquifer is

used for groundwater production, and hence, a natural barrier is maintained between the

uppermost confined aquifer and the deep confined aquifer (Wells 1999). This barrier

protects the quality of Cretaceous aquifer groundwater.

- USGS has studied the transriver flow issue (Clarke and West 1997, 1998; Cherry 2006)

and found that contaminants in the groundwater at the Savannah River Site are not

drawn to the production wells at the VEGP site. In general, Cherry (2006) shows that

regions of transriver flow discharge are within the Savannah River Alluvium near the

river and are of limited extent.

- The USGS study by Cherry (2006) presents piezometric contours of the confined

aquifer, and it appears groundwater in the confined system moves toward the VEGP site

laterally from either side of the Savannah River and from groundwater saddles in the

deep aquifer system to the southeast of the site. The groundwater then moves in an

upstream direction away from the VEGP site to erosional windows in the confining unit,

thus allowing Cretaceous aquifer discharge to the Savannah River.

- The USGS (Cherry and Clarke 2007) applied the updated model (Cherry 2006) to

simulate future pumping scenarios. Those scenarios examined normal long-term

pumping rates for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4, and showed groundwater

produced by the VEGP production wells in the Cretaceous aquifer originated in upland

areas of Georgia, near the county line between Burke and Jefferson Counties. Under

normal long-term pumping rates, no recharge originating in South Carolina, including the

Savannah River Site, was drawn to the VEGP production wells in the deep confined

aquifer.

NUREG-1872 7-14 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

Accordingly, while there is limited contamination to groundwater attributable to the Savannah

River Site, existing and proposed use of groundwater at VEGP does not appear to contribute to

the broader migration of that contamination. Thus the VEGP operation does not introduce any

cumulative impacts to the groundwater resource.

Summary

Based on the above, the proposed project does not contribute to the existing issues of saltwater

intrusion, tritium in the water table aquifer, or groundwater contamination underlying the

Savannah River Site. The VEGP site does not introduce contaminants to the aquifer system.

The staff has examined potential VEGP operational influences on groundwater. Based on

(1) the absence of impacts concerning saltwater intrusion, (2) an understanding of tritium levels

in the Water Table aquifer and its origin, and (3) an understanding of the relationship between

aquifers underlying the Savannah River Site and the VEGP site, and the circumstances that

may lead to contamination at the Savannah River Site reaching Georgia, the staff concludes

that cumulative impacts to groundwater would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised NRC staff (Southern 2007f) that, based

on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1 000 DCD, the maximum

groundwater demand for Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be expected to decrease by about 11

percent. Because the impacts of this groundwater demand would be bounded by the present

analysis, the staff determined that its conclusions regarding groundwater quality would not

change.

7.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem

Construction and operation of two new units at the VEGP site were evaluated to determine the

magnitude of their contribution to regional cumulative adverse impacts on terrestrial ecological

resources. An assessment of potential impacts caused by plant construction was made for

important terrestrial species (animal and plant) and habitats (as defined in NRC 2000) by

evaluating the impact of construction in light of other past, present, and future actions in the

region. An assessment of potential impacts caused by plant operation was made for resource

attributes normally affected by cooling tower operation, transmission line operation, and right-ofway maintenance. For this analysis, the geographic region encompassing past, present, and

foreseeable future actions is the area immediately surrounding the VEGP site, including

adjoining sections of the Savannah River bottomland.

The GPC completed a transmission line study in 2007 to identify potential rights-of-way for the

proposed 500-kV transmission line (GPC 2007). For the analysis of cumulative impacts related

to the addition of the transmission line and its right-of-way, the geographic region encompassing

past, present, and foreseeable future actions is the original study area identified by the GPC

(GPC 2007).

August 2008 7-15 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

VEGP Site

Approximately 225 ha (556 ac) of land would be disturbed by construction of the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2007b, 2008b). An estimated 8.5 ha (21 ac) of

wetlands habitat on the site would' be disturbed (Southern 2008b). Most of the wetlands

acreage involved would be in the Savannah River floodplain (Southern 2007b). Of the 8.5 ha

(21 ac) that would disturbed, only a small portion would be permanently lost (Southern 2007b).

The amount of acreage that would be disturbed represents about 12.5 percent of the total 69 ha

(170 ac) of wetlands currently available onsite and less than 0.03 percent of available wetlands

associated with the Savannah River floodplain in the vicinity of the VEGP site (i.e., within 16 km

[10 mi] from midpoint of VEGP). Approximately 0.57 ha (1.4 ac) of land composed of pond and

bottomland hardwood would be within the onsite portion of the new transmission line right-ofway. At this time, it is not known if any of this land would be considered wetlands. An

estimated 120 ha (297 ac) of upland habitat including planted pines, previously disturbed areas,

and open fields would be lost to permanent structures and facilities (including the onsite portion

of the new transmission line), representing about 17 percent of the total 700 ha (1730 ac) of

pine forests and open areas currently available onsite. The amount of upland habitat that would

be disturbed is less than 0.5 percent of the available forested habitat (23,788 ha [58,781 ac) in

the vicinity of the VEGP site (NRSAL 2003). An estimated 1.6 ha (4 ac) of mixed hardwood and

pine habitat would be lost to permanent structures and facilities, representing less than

1 percent of the total 248 ha (612 ac) of hardwood habitat available onsite and less than

0.5 percent of hardwoods (25,887 ha [63,966 ac]) in the vicinity of the site (NRSAL 2003).

The area around the VEGP site is rural and primarily forested and farmland. The habitats that

would be disturbed at VEGP are common in the region, and are not considered to be critical for

the survival of any species, including those that are Federally protected. In addition, the percent

of wetlands that would be disturbed represents only a small portion of the available wetlands in

the vicinity of the site. Therefore, the staff concludes that the development of the VEGP site on

the cumulative habitat loss and important species in the region associated with construction

impacts would be negligible.

There are four generating stations within 90 mi (145 km) of the VEGP site: the SCE&G

Urquhart station, 21 m (34 km) from the VEGP site; the SCE&G D area powerhouse station,

20 mi (32 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 (NRC 2008).

NUREG-1872 7-16 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

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 (NRC 2008).

The Savannah River Site could have impacts on terrestrial habitats. Included in the Savannah

River Site facility are former nuclear reactors, current operational coal-fired generating plant,

and a proposed facility to convert weapons-grade plutonium into nuclear reactor fuel. The

Savannah River Site, when originally constructed, added runoff from additional roads and

impervious surfaces, increased development on wetlands and riparian zones, and caused a

decrease in forest habitat. Current operations at the Savannah River Site, 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 the surrounding area (NRC 2008).

Since VEGP is a nuclear plant there is little additional impact to the environment from airborne

releases typical of fossil fuel or other industrial facilities. Therefore, even in combination with

emissions from the facilities described above, the operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4 would not

results in unacceptable deposition rates of airborne pollutants. Furthermore, terrestrial habitat

loss or alteration for the proposed action would be confined primarily to the VEGP site. This

loss or alteration of habitat, even in combination with chemical discharges and habitat

modification associated with the other facilities in the region as discussed above, would not

destabilize the terrestrial resource.

During the review of the Southern ESP application, no other past, present, or future actions in

the region were identified that could significantly affect wildlife and wildlife habitat in ways similar

to those associated with the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 site cooling tower operation (cooling

tower noise, drift from cooling towers, and birds colliding with cooling towers). Southern

estimates that a single plume from each of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 cooling towers

would have a maximum deposition rate of 4.0 kg/ha/mo (3.6 lbs/ac/mo) (Southern 2008b).

Southern estimates that maximum deposition would occur approximately 490 m (1600 ft) from

each tower. Thus, the deposition from the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 cooling towers could

overlap because the towers are only 340 m (1100 ft) apart. The maximum estimated cumulative

deposition rate is about 8.0 kg/ac/mo (7.2 lbs/ac/mo) at 490 m (1600 ft) from the proposed

VEGP Units 3 and 4 towers (4.3 kg/ac [3.8 lbs/ac] per tower). At this distance, the maximum

deposition would occur on the VEGP site. The existing pair of cooling towers for VEGP Units 1

and 2 is located approximately 1200 m (4000 ft) to the east-northeast of the proposed cooling

towers (Southern 2008a). This separation distance is greater than the distance of the maximum

deposition rate of 490 m (1600 ft) predicted for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 cooling

towers (Southern 2008a). Moreover, given the location and orientation of the proposed cooling

towers with respect to the existing cooling towers, it is unlikely that plumes would interact

August 2008 7-17 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

appreciably for any extended period of time (Southern 2008a). General guidelines for predicting

effects of drift deposition on plants suggest that many species have thresholds for visible leaf

damage in the range of 10 to 20 kg/ha/mo (9 to 18 lbs/ac/mo) during the growing season

(NRC 1996). Because of the separation distance, it is unlikely the maximum cumulative

deposition for all units would reach a threshold that would cause visible leaf damage, and

impacts would be negligible for the VEGP site. Furthermore, there are no other significant

sources of cooling tower drift in the vicinity of the site.

The impacts associated with cooling tower operation were considered negligible for the VEGP

site; the cumulative adverse impact of these types of activities in the region would also be

considered minor. Consequently, the staff concludes that the contribution of VEGP site cooling

tower operation to cumulative impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat in the region would be

minimal.

Transmission Line Right-of-Way

The extent and type of wildlife habitat within the proposed new transmission line right-of-way is

not known at this time because Southern and the GPC are evaluating rights-of-way alternatives

within a larger Representative Delineated Corridor (RDC). It is anticipated that the transmission

line would cross Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie, and Warren Counties and would be 45 m (150 ft)

wide and 97 km (60 mi) long (Southern 2008a). There are no U.S. Forest Service Wilderness

Areas, Wild/Scenic Rivers or Wildlife Refuges, State orNational Parks within the RDC

(GPC 2007). If possible, wetland areas would be avoided in the routing (GPC 2007).

A hypothetical transmission line right-of-way that represents what the GPC believes is a feasible

route within the RDC was identified as part of a 2007 study (GPC 2007). Based on the GPC

analysis, habitats within the right-of-way could include approximately 97 ha (240 ac) of forested

habitat, 133.1 ha (329 ac) of planted pine, 2.6 ha (6.4 ac) of open water, and 63.9 ha (158 ac) of

open land (Southern 2007b). Other land-use categories identified as potentially being impacted,

such as quarry mine, pecan orchard, utility, transportation, and row crops, provide little value as

wildlife habitat. In the region surrounding the proposed transmission line right-of-way, there are

approximately 18,085 ha (44,688 ac) of forest, 1354 ha (3346 ac) of open water, and 17,262 ha

(42,656 ac) of open land (GPC 2007). Assuming the actual routing was similar to the

hypothetical route, the number of acres of forested habitat, open water, open land, and planted

pine forest that would be affected represent a very small portion of the available habitat. If the

actual route was similar to the hypothetical route, impacts on wildlife habitat in the region would

be negligible. However, if the actual route differs from the hypothetical route, wildlife habitat

impacts could either be greater or smaller.

There are no known occurrences of Federally listed threatened and endangered species within

the RDC. However, suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), wood

stork (Mycteria americana), flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), American alligator

NUREG-1 872 7-18 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

(Alligator mississippiensis), Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum), and Canby's

dropwort (Oxypolis canbyl) could exist within the RDC. The GPC would site the line in

accordance with Georgia Code Title 22, Section 22-3-161. Part of the GPC procedures for

implementing this regulation include consultation with FWS and GDNR and an evaluation of

impacts to special habitats and threatened and endangered species. In addition, the GPC

would comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit requirements, and would use

good engineering and construction practices (Southern 2008a). Based on this review,

cumulative impacts on important species and habitat loss in the region associated with

construction would be negligible.

During the review of the Southern application, no other past, present, or future actions in the

region were identified that could significantly affect wildlife and wildlife habitat in ways similar to

those associated with transmission line operation and right-of-way maintenance (i.e., birds

colliding with transmission lines, flora and fauna affected by electromagnetic fields and right-ofway maintenance, and floodplains and wetlands affected by right-of-way maintenance). Thus,

because these impacts were considered negligible for the VEGP site transmission line operation

and right-of-way maintenance, the cumulative adverse impacts of these types of activities in the

region would also be minor. Consequently, the staff concludes that the contribution of the

operation of transmission lines and the maintenance of transmission line rights-of-way to

cumulative impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat in the region would be minimal.

Summary

The cumulative terrestrial resource impacts may be detectable, but are expected to be minor

and not destabilize the resource. Therefore, the staff concludes that cumulative impacts to

terrestrial resources resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed VEGP Units

3 and 4, including transmission line operation and maintenance, would be SMALL.

7.5 Aquatic Ecosystem

The staff evaluated construction and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site

to determine whether interactions with past, present, and future actions could contribute to

adverse cumulative impacts to aquatic resources. For this analysis, the geographic area of

interest is the Savannah River from upstream of the VEGP site to the mouth of the river.

7.5.1 Construction

Factors contributing to the impacts include the construction of the proposed VEGP Units 3

and 4, operation of the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 (with or without the addition of the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4), activities at the DOE Savannah River Site on the South

Carolina side of the Savannah River, anthropogenic activities not directly related to VEGP or the

Savannah River (e.g., increased urban development and recreational activity in or near the

August 2008 7-19 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

river), and natural environmental stressors (e.g., short- or long-term changes in precipitation or

temperature and the resulting response of the aquatic community. The staff considered these

potential sources of impacts in its evaluation of the cumulative aquatic ecology impacts

presented in Southern's ER.

From an aquatic ecological perspective, the construction of VEGP Units I and 2 did not change

the Savannah River observably or significantly. Likewise, activities related to construction of the

intake and discharge structures and the barge slip to support the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4

would have minimal and temporary impacts on the aquatic ecosystem that can largely be

mitigated, as discussed in Section 4.4.2. No species of special interest or Federally or Statelisted threatened and endangered species are. expected to be affected by construction activities

(including the shortnose sturgeon [Acipenser brevirostrum] occurring at, or adjacent to, the

VEGP site).

The staff anticipates that dredging the Federal navigation channel in the Savannah River

downstream of the VEGP site would have the potential for adverse impacts to aquatic

organisms. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as authorized by the Rivers and

Harbors Act, has the responsibility for maintaining a 27.4-m-wide by 2.74-m-deep (90-ft wide by

9-ft deep) channel in the Savannah River for navigational purposes. The Federal navigation

channel was last used for a commercial shipment in 1979 and has not been maintained since

that time. Recent measurements by the USACE indicate that, depending on the level of water

flow, most areas of the navigation channel above rkm 56 (RM 35) would likely need to be

dredged to allow barge traffic during normal river flow as discussed in Section 4.4.2. Prior to

any authorization for dredging in the Savannah River, the USACE would be required by NEPA

to assess the impact of dredging on the river biota. At the present time the dredging project is

incompletely defined, the amount of material to be removed is unknown, and the locations of the

dredged material disposal areas have not been identified. Specifics of the project would be

provided in the USACE's assessment to fulfill the NEPA requirement. This would presumably

include mitigative actions to preserve the threatened, endangered, and sensitive mussel species

that occur in the Savannah River.

Even though a detailed assessment has not been conducted, the staff concludes that this action

would likely have an effect on aquatic organisms for most trophic levels. These impacts could

include temporary loss of benthic habitat, disruption of spawning migrations, resuspension of

sediments that may be contaminated, and would also require the disposal of dredged materials.

If dredging of the Savannah River channel was undertaken, in part to facilitate barge

transportation to the VEGP site, some or all of the above impacts could be realized.

Nevertheless, the use of BMPs, time of year restrictions, relocation of benthic organisms, and

restrictions on equipment type could ameliorate many of the impacts. The staff concludes that

the cumulative impacts to aquatic organisms in the region from the construction including

dredging of a navigation channel could be MODERATE, depending on the type of mitigation.

NUREG-1872 7-20 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

However, these impacts would be evaluated in more detail in the NEPA analysis that would

need to be conducted by the USACE.

7.5.2 Operations

For operations, the staff considered that anthropogenic stressors not directly associated with the

VEGP site activities may contribute to the cumulative impacts to the river. Current and future

conditions of the local aquatic resources are influenced by the cumulative effects of past actions

and future changes. Water consumption, drought, 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.

These impacts include habitat loss and nonpoint pollution related to increased urbanization along

the shores of the river and increased recreational use of the Savannah River. Although the

potential for long-term development in this area exists, its interactions with plant operations are

not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the river downstream of the VEGP site.

The presence of natural environmental stressors (e.g., short- or long-term changes in

precipitation or temperature) would contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts to the

Savannah River. These impacts are not related to Southern's activities and are difficult to

predict. At certain times of the year, the VEGP site operations, other anthropogenic stressors,

and climatic events could combine to adversely impact the aquatic populations of the Savannah

River. Adequate freshwater flows are necessary in the lower river to prevent saltwater from

moving upstream and degrading fish and wildlife habitat. Adequate releases are also necessary

to allow for assimilation of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-permitted

wastewater that enters the river in the Augusta area. These issues were identified in a report

entitled Savannah River Basin Comprehensive Reconnaissance Study issued by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers in July 1999 (USACE 1999) and are being addressed by both the States.of

Georgia and South Carolina (Southern 2007a).

Several facilities currently intake from or discharge into the Savannah River in the area between

Augusta and Savanna, Georgia, including the Savannah River Site, several electric generation

facilities located on the Savannah River, a paper mill, and municipal water supply systems.

These facilities will contribute to the cumulative effect of consumption, impingement,

entrainment, thermal and chemical discharges.

Water consumed for operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be less than

1 percent of the total river discharge during normal water periods and up to 1.7 percent during

periods of relative water scarcity (Drought Level 3). Including the consumptive use of VEGP

Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, cumulative water use for the entire VEGP site, expressed as a percentage

August 2008 7-21 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

of Savannah River discharge, would range from 1.5 to 3.4 percent, as discussed in

Section 7.3.2.1. There is always a potential for a drought in the Southeast U.S. that results in

more severe drought level conditions. The principal impacts of drought are the loss of aquatic

habitat for organisms, such as spawning or nursery areas; and changes in water quality such as

temperature and flow rates. Aquatic organisms inhabiting Atlantic coastal rivers and streams

are pre-adapted to tolerate large variations in water flow. Periodic droughts occur in rivers in

the southeastern United States and aquatic species have the ability to tolerate temporary

reductions in aquatic habitat without having a lasting effect on the'aquatic population. Thus, the

staff considers the cumulative impacts to the aquatic ecosystem from cumulative water

consumption along the middle Savannah River including the two existing and two proposed

VEGP Units 1 and 2 to be minor.

The staff considered the potential cumulative impacts of entrainment of aquatic organisms. The

other facilities that withdraw large amounts of water in the vicinity of VEGP Units 3 and 4

include, VEGP Units 1 and 2 and the Savannah River site. Studies on the entrainment due to

past reactor operations at the Savannah River Site have been conducted (Paller et al. 1986).

One study found that in 1983 and 1985, 8.3 to 12.3 percent of the ichthyoplankton drifting past

the three Savannah River Site 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

was no evidence to indicate that numbers of ichthyoplankton in the river were decreasing

(Paller et al. 1986). Water withdrawals from the Savannah River site have been substantially

reduced from the time that this study was conducted.

Based on the small percentage of water withdrawn from the Savannah River currently by the

Savannah River Site and the two existing and two proposed VEGP units, as well as the design

of the cooling intake canal and structure, the significantly greater larval densities in the oxbows,

as opposed to the straighter part of the river at the location of the VEGP site, the typically high

fecundity of most species inhabiting rivers, and the high natural mortality rates of eggs and

larvae, the staff finds that the impacts to the fish of the Savannah River from entrainment would

be minor.

Preliminary data collected from the first few months of an impingement study indicate that the

impingement losses from VEGP Units 1 and 2 are minor. Based on the similarity in design of

VEGP Units 3 and 4 to Units 1 and 2, the staff determined that impingement at these units

would also be minor. The other large water user in the vicinity of the VEGP site, the Savannah

River site, has conducted impingement studies in the past and has determined that losses

associated with operation of that facility are also minor (Specht 1987). Therefore, the staff

concludes that cumulative losses from impingement are unlikely to adversely affect Savannah

River fish populations.

NUREG-1872 7-22 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

The studies conducted in the Savannah River to determine the effects of Savannah River Site

thermal discharges found no evidence of adverse impacts on the river ecosystem

(Specht 1987). These studies and their conclusions indicate that the historical effects on the

aquatic resources of the Savannah River from the operations of Savannah River Site facilities

were minor, and the current effects of the operation of the D-Area powerhouse are much

smaller. The thermal discharge from the Savannah River site would be undetectable at the

VEGP site. Therefore, there would be no cumulative thermal impact associated with the VEGP

site and the Savannah River Site.

The staff also considered the potential cumulative impacts related to thermal discharges from

the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2. The assessments performed by the staff and described in

Section 5.3 explicitly considered the combined impacts of concurrent operation of the existing

VEGP Units 1 and 2 and the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. The maximum size, computed by

the staff, of the area that would result in a 2.8 0C (50F) temperature increase above ambient

mixing zone was approximately 29.6 m (97 ft) long (downstream) and 4.6 m (15 ft) wide. The

size of the plume is small in comparison to the width of the Savannah River near the VEGP site.

The effluent discharge from VEGP Units 1 and 2 at the proposed location for the VEGP Unit 3

and 4 discharge (123 m [404 ft]) downstream of the discharge for VEGP Units 1 and 2, resulted

in an average increase of less than 0.5°C (0.9 0F) (Southern 2007a). Because this change in

temperature is so small, the cumulative effects from operation of VEGP Units 1 and 2 would not

negatively impact aquatic organisms and is not expected to affect species of special interest or

Federally or State-listed threatened and endangered species.

The staff considered the potential cumulative impacts from chemical releases from the existing

VEGP units. VEGP Units 1 and 2 are in compliance with the Clean Water Act Section 316(a)

(thermal discharges) impacts from cooling water systems. Chemical releases from the existing

units currently comply with the State of Georgia's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System permit requirements and would continue to be monitored in the future and are expected

to result in no detectable impacts to aquatic organisms.

In addition to the above analysis, the staff also considered the cumulative impacts to aquatic

biota in the Savannah River associated with the normala withdrawal rates for all four units at the

VEGP site at two river flow rates below the Drought Level 3 values. Even assuming river flows

of 3000 cfs and 2000 cfs, rather than the Drought Level 3 case of 3800 cfs river flow, the

percentage of water withdrawn from the Savannah River due to the operation of VEGP Units 1

through 4 would be 5.8 percent at 3000 cfs and 8.7 percent at 2000 cfs.

a Staff determined that the 'normal' case was most appropriate for the cumulative analysis because it is

more representative of long-term impacts and because it is unlikely that all plants would be operating

simultaneously in the 'maximum' consumption mode.

August 2008 7-23 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

At river flows of 3000 and 2000 cfs, the river stage and available habitat for aquatic organisms

would be reduced, which would concentrate aquatic biota populations, and through-screen

velocities at the intake would increase, likely resulting in an increase in impingement. The lower

flows of 3000 and 2000 cfs would result in an increased fraction of water flowing past the site

being drawn into the cooling water system. Accordingly, entrainment would increase

proportionately for both the 3000 and 2000 cfs river flow cases.

Although it is likely that impingement mortality to fish would increase, the losses would be minor

and no detrimental effect on the fishery would occur. Fish inhabiting large rivers are used to

flowing water and can escape the velocities that would be expected in the vicinity of the VEGP

intake structures.

Entrainment mortality for some species would increase at the lower river flow rates (3000 and

2000 cfs) based on the reduction in habitat and the increased percentage of water withdrawal.

Water withdrawal rates that approach ten percent, even in a riverine environment, may result in

some adverse and detectable impact to some fish populations. EPA determined that limiting

withdrawals from a river to five percent of the source waterbody mean flow was technically

achievable and larger withdrawals may result in greater levels of entrainment. DOE Savannah

River Site (SRS) conducted an ichthyoplankton study in the 1980s and concluded that operation

of the SRS was not having an adverse impact on fish populations despite entrainment losses to

the ichthyoplankton of 8.3 and 12.3 percent (Paller et al. 1986). The staff notes that such losses

at SRS combined with the entrainment losses from the four units at the VEGP site during the

hypothetical low flow conditions of 3000 and 2000 cfs could have a localized detrimental effect

on some fish populations. However, such effects are unlikely to have any long term persistent

impacts on populations in the river because the unusual low flow conditions would likely be

temporary.

Because of the cumulative effects of all four units combined with the potential for losses at the

SRS under these low flow conditions, the impact to some species of fish from entrainment may

be significant and detectable. Although the resource may be affected through the alteration of

the fish community, with some species declining in abundance while others increasing, the staff

concludes that the resource would not be destabilized (i.e., the effects would not result in the

collapse of the fishery).

Because of the small amount of water discharged in relation to the river flow and the resulting

dilution of the discharge plume, the effects on aquatic biota in the river from the thermal and

chemical discharges from VEGP Units 1 through 4 at the 3000 and 2000 cfs river flow rates

would not result in discharge related impacts to aquatic biota that are significantly different from

those analyzed for VEGP operation at Drought Level 3.

Following publication of the draft EIS, Southern advised the NRC staff (Southern 2007f) that

based on changes between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD, the normal

NUREG-1872 7-24 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

surface water withdrawal for Vogtle Units 1 through 4 would increase by approximately 3.5 cfs.

The staff evaluated the effect of this change on the staffs analysis presented above, which uses

the DCD Revision 15 surface water withdrawal values currently in Southern's ER (Southern

2008a). The staff determined that this change would result in an increase in the normal water

withdrawal to approximately 4.6 percent of the 3800 cfs river flow at Drought Level 3. At a river

flow rate of 3000 cfs, the revised withdrawal rate would be 5.9 percent, and for 2000 cfs it would

be 8.8 percent. Accordingly, because the change identified by Southern would result in only a

minor increase in consumptive water use under Drought Level 3 conditions, the staff determined

that these changes still would not alter the staff's cumulative analysis of impact to aquatic biota

presented above. Furthermore, even under low flow conditions of 3000 and 2000 cfs, the

increased withdrawals identified by Southern would result in sufficiently small increases in water

use that it similarly would not alter the staffs impact assessment.

Therefore, consistent with its analysis discussed above, the staff determined that the cumulative

normal water withdrawals of all four VEGP units at the low flows of 3000 and 2000 cfs may

result in adverse impact to the fishery, primarily due to entrainment. However, as noted above,

this impact is likely to be temporary and not destabilizing.

The potential increased surface water withdrawals associated with Revision 16 of the AP1000

DCD, because of the minor increase relative to the normal water withdrawals from all four units

previously analyzed, would not affect the staffs conclusion that cumulative impacts associated

with river flows down to Drought Level 3 to aquatic biota from operation of all four units at the

VEGP site would be minor.

For the reasons stated above, the cumulative effects resulting from the operation of VEGP Units

3 and 4 would not negatively impact aquatic organisms and are not expected to affect species

of special interest or Federally or State-listed threatened and endangered species, and are

considered by the staff to be minor. In addition, other past, current, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions are estimated to have little impact on aquatic resources, and therefore, the

potential cumulative impacts on the aquatic resources would be minor.

As a result of the awareness of the issues related to the need for adequate flow in the river, the

small amount of consumptive loss from all the units at the VEGP site, and the negligible direct

affects that construction and operation of the facility would have on aquatic organisms, the staff

concludes that cumulative impacts to aquatic resources as a result of the proposed VEGP Units

3 and 4 would be SMALL.

August 2008 7-25 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

7.6 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources,

Environmental Justice

Much of the analyses of socioeconomic impacts presented in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 already

incorporate cumulative impact analysis because the metrics used for analysis only make sense

when placed in the total or cumulative context. For example, the impact of the total number of

additional housing units that may be needed can only be evaluated with respect to the total

number that would be available in the affected area. Therefore, the geographical area of the

cumulative analysis varies depending on the particular impacts considered, and may depend on

specific boundaries, such as taxation jurisdictions, or may be distance-related, as in the case of

environmental justice.

There are potential cumulative impacts on road congestion on the River Road connector to

VEGP. The potential cumulative increase in the number of vehicles during a combined outage,

construction, and permanent workforce egress and ingress into the site are likely, but

temporary, and can be mitigated with proper planning, incentives to car pool, and minor road

improvements, such as turn lanes, which are already planned.

The construction and operation of one or more additional units at the VEGP site would not be

likely to add to any cumulative socioeconomic impacts beyond those already evaluated in

Sections 4.5 and 5.5. In other words, the impacts of issues such as transportation or taxes are

not likely to be detectable beyond the regions previously evaluated and would quickly decrease

with increasing distance from the site. The staff concludes that construction impacts would

generally be SMALL, but there are exceptions if more workers than expected settle in Burke

County, in which case a MODERATE impact level may be reached for the impacts on roads,

housing, and some public services. In terms of beneficial effects, including tax revenues

benefits, the impacts on Burke County would be LARGE under current Georgia law.

As part of the analysis of the cumulative socioeconomic impacts, NRC staff considered the

potentially simultaneous construction of the nearby Savannah River Site MOX facility in

Barnwell County, South Carolina, which may have socioeconomic impacts in both Richmond

and Columbia Counties in Georgia. County planners from both Richmond and Columbia

Counties expect negligible impacts on socioeconomic infrastructure and housing in the region

, as a result of the VEGP proposed activities, even at the height of construction.(a) NRC's staff,

therefore, expects cumulative impacts including Savannah River Site MOX facility construction

impacts on the 80-km (50-mi) region around VEGP to be SMALL.

(a) Information provided by Jeff Browning, Columbia County Planner, in e-mail correspondence,.dated

November 7, 2006, and in interviews with Richmond County Planners (PNNL 2006).

NUREG-1872 7-26 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

The construction and operation of one or more additional units at the VEGP site would likely add

significantly to cumulative cultural resource impacts. Cultural resources are non-renewable;

therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources is cumulative. Because impacts to

important resources from construction of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 are moderate, the

cumulative environmental impacts related to cultural resources would be MODERATE. The

staff did not identify other past, present, or future actions with adverse cultural resource

implications.

The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices or environmental pathways

through which minority and low-income populations would be disproportionately affected. As a

result, the cumulative environmental impacts related to environmental justice would be SMALL.

However, if significant demands are placed on Burke County services as a result of more

workers than expected settling in the county (without a corresponding increase in tax revenues),

the socioeconomic impacts of reduced services or higher taxes would fall disproportionately on

the residents of the county.

7.7 Nonradiological Health

In Section 5.8.1, the health impacts of operating the existing and two new units at the VEGP site

were evaluated regarding the ambient temperature of the Savannah River and the potential

formation of thermophilic microorganisms. The evaluation showed that the addition of two new

units is not likely to increase populations of thermophilic microorganisms. Health risks to

workers can be expected to be dominated by occupational injuries at rates below the average

U.S. industrial rates. Health impacts to the public and workers from noise, dust emissions,

acute electromagnetic fields, and transportation also were evaluated and found to be small.

The staff concludes that the cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation of the

existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 and the proposed new VEGP Units 3 and 4 on nonradiological

health would be SMALL, and that mitigation is not warranted. No other factors or inputs were

identified that would impact those conclusions. The staff has not come to a conclusion on the

chronic impacts of electromagnetic fields, but the available information is not sufficient to cause

the staff to consider the impact as significant to the public.

7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation

The radiological exposure limits and standards for the protection of the public and for

occupational exposures have been developed assuming long-term exposures and, therefore,

incorporate cumulative impacts. As described in Section 5.9, the public and occupational doses

predicted from the proposed operation of two new units at the VEGP site are well below

regulatory limits and standards. Specifically, the site boundary dose to the maximally exposed

individual (MEI) from the VEGP site would be well within the regulatory standard of 40 CFR

Part 190. For purposes of this cumulative impact analysis, the area within an 80-km (50-mi)

August 2008 7-27 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

radius of the VEGP site is considered, which includes the existing operating VEGP Units 1 and

2 and DOE's Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

As stated in Section 2.5, Southern has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring

program around the VEGP site since 1987. The radiological environmental monitoring program

measures radiation and radioactive materials from all sources, including the existing units at the

VEGP site. The NRC, the DOE, and the States of Georgia and South Carolina would regulate

or control any reasonably foreseeable future actions in the region that could contribute to

cumulative radiological impacts. The Savannah River Site has monitored radionuclides for

many years and has completed annual tritium monitoring since 1960. The annual release of

tritium from the Savannah River Site has decreased from about 140,000 Ci in the mid 1960s to

the present level below 5000 Ci. The Savannah River Site (2006) reports mean tritium

concentrations in the Savannah River (based on weekly sampling results) of 79.4 pCi/L

upstream of the VEGP site (River Mile 160.0), 984 pCi/L at the VEGP site outfall (River Mile

150.4), and 546 pCi/L downstream of the VEGP site (River Mile 118.8). These results, which

include all sources of tritium (i.e., the VEGP site, Savannah River Site, and any other sources),

remain far below the EPA drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L.

Southern (2008a) calculated the combined total body dose for the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2

and the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 to be 2.36 mrem/yr, and the corresponding population

dose to be 2.05 person-rem/yr for a population of 674,101. The Savannah River Site (2006)

reports the dose to the MEI from Savannah River Site releases to be 0.13 mrem/yr, with

approximately 60 percent contribution from H-3, 20 percent from Cs-1 37, and 4 percent from

1-129. The Savannah River Site (2006) reports the population dose to be about 5.0 personrem/yr for a population of 713,500. Nine additional activities at the Savannah River Site, with

the most significant contributor to dose being salt processing, have a combined MEI dose of

0.41 mrem/yr and a population dose of 21.6 person-rem/yr (NRC 2005).

Additional nuclear facilities within 80 km (50 mi) of the VEGP site include Chem-Nuclear Inc., a

commercial low-level waste burial site approximately 30 km (19 mi) east northeast of the VEGP

site; Starmet CMI, Inc., a facility that formerly processed uranium-contaminated metals located

approximately 29 km (18 mi) east of the VEGP site; and hospitals located in the area. The

operations of Chem-Nuclear, Inc. and cleanup at Starmet CMI, Inc. are reported not to

noticeably affect radiation levels in air or water pathways near the Savannah River Site and

would be expected to haye an even lower effect near the VEGP site, which is more distant from

these facilities.

A reasonably foreseeable future action near the VEGP site is the potential construction and

operation of facilities related to the proposed MOX fabrication facility at the Savannah River

Site. These MOX fabrication facilities are composed of the Pit Disassembly and Conversion

Facility, the Fuel Fabrication Facility, and the Waste Solidification Facility. The dose to the MEl

NUREG-1872 7-28 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

is reported to be 0.004 mrem/yr, and the corresponding population dose is reported to be

1.6 person-rem/yr (NRC 2005).

The MEIs for these facilities likely are composed of different individuals, locations, and periods

of time. Simple addition of MEI doses does not yield a technically accurate result; however, it is

done here to be conservative (i.e., to ensure an overestimate of the impact). Combining these

results yields an estimate of cumulative impacts of about 2.9 mrem/yr for the MEI and about

30 person-rem/yr for the population dose.

Therefore, the staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts of operating two new

units, along with the existing units at VEGP. and the influence of the Savannah River Site, would

be SMALL and that additional mitigation is not warranted.

7.9 Severe Accidents

The environmental impacts of potential severe accidents for a single Westinghouse AP1000

reactor at the VEGP site are discussed in Section 5.10.2 and 5.10.3. Southern has requested

an ESP for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors. Assuming that the risks for two reactors are

independent, the risks associated with two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the VEGP site are

twice the risks for a single reactor.

The risks associated with two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors in addition to the two existing

reactors is the sum of the risks for the four individual reactors. Southern (2007b) states that

the population dose risk for VEGP Unit 1 or VEGP Unit 2 is about 1.9 x 10.2 person-Sv/Ryr

(1.9 person-rem/Ryr); the population dose risk for the two existing reactors is about 3.7 x 10-2

person-Sv/Ryr (3.7 person-rem/Ryr). The population dose risk for a single Westinghouse

AP1000 reactor is about 2.8 x 1 0 4 person-Sv/Ryr (2.8 x 10-2 person-rem/Ryr). Thus, the

combined risk for the existing two units plus two Westinghouse AP1 000 reactors is about

3.8 x 10.2 person-Sv/Ryr (3.8 person-rem/Ryr). This is not a significant increase in risk. Similar

conclusions are obtained when other risks, such as cost risk, early fatalities, and

decontamination areas, are evaluated. As a result, the staff concludes that the cumulative

severe accident impacts associated with adding two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors to the

VEGP site are SMALL.

7.10 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

The addition of the proposed new units on the VEGP site would result in the need for additional

nuclear fuel. The impacts of producing this fuel include mining of the uranium ore, milling of the

ore, conversion of the uranium oxide to uranium hexafluoride, enrichment of the uranium

hexafluoride, fuel fabrication where the uranium hexafluoride is converted into uranium oxide

fuel pellets, and disposition of the spent fuel in a proposed Federal waste repository. As

August 2008 7-29 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

discussed in Section 6.1 of this EIS, the environmental impacts of fuel cycle activities for the

proposed units would be about three times those presented in Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51.

Table S-3 provides the environmental impacts from uranium fuel cycle operations for a model

1000-MW(e) light-water reactor operating at 80-percent capacitywith a 12-month fuel-loading

cycle and an average fuel burnup of 33,000 MWd/MTU. Per 10 CFR 51.51(a), the staff

considers the impacts in Table S-3 to be acceptable for the 1000-MW(e) reference reactor. As

discussed in Section 6.1.1 of this EIS, advances in reactors since the development of Table S-3

impacts would have the effect of reducing environmental impacts of the operating reference

reactor. For example, a number of fuel management improvements have been adopted by

nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel and separative work

(enrichment) requirements. Fuel cycle impacts would occur not only at the VEGP site but would

also be scattered through other locations in the United States, or in the case of foreignpurchased uranium, in other countries. The staff considers the cumulative fuel cycle impacts of

operating the VEGP site to be SMALL.

The addition of the proposed new VEGP Units 3 and 4 would result in additional shipments of

unirradiated fuel to the site and additional shipments of spent fuel and waste from the site.

Cumulative impacts would be approximately twice that of the existing operating plant.

Environmental impacts from transportation of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and waste are found

in Section 6.2 of this EIS based on the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design. The following

conclusions were derived from the staff's analysis of unirradiated fuel shipments: (1) the

number of unirradiated fuel shipments equates to less than one truck shipment per day within

criteria specified in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52, (2) annual dose to workers and the public would

be less than the dose specified in Table S-4, and (3) health impacts are projected to be small

(i.e., less than 1 x 10 4 detriment/yr). The following conclusions were derived from the staff s

analysis of spent fuel: (1) after accounting for conservative assumptions in the staffs

evaluation, doses to the worker and the public would be within criteria specified in Table S-4,

and (2) health impacts from normal conditions and accident conditions would be small (i.e., less

than 0.1 detriment/yr). Regarding transportation of waste, the staff concluded that the

normalized number of waste shipments would be within the value specified in Table S-4 for the

11 00-MW(e) reference reactor. Cumulative impacts of transportation for operating the VEGP

site would be SMALL.

As discussed in Section 6.3 of this EIS, environmental impacts from decommissioning are

expected to be small because the licensee would have to comply with decommissioning

regulatory requirements. In Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586, Generic Environmental Impact

Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, the NRC found the impacts on radiation

dose to workers and the public, waste management, water quality, air quality, ecological

resources, and socioeconomics to be small (NRC 2002). Therefore, the cumulative impacts for

the VEGP site would be SMALL.

NUREG-1872 7-30 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

7.11 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

The staff considered the potential impacts resulting from construction and operation of two

additional nuclear units together with the past, present, and future actions in the VEGP site

area. For the duration of the proposed action (i.e., the construction period plus 40 years of

operation), the evaluation took into account the potential impacts from factors known or likely to

affect the environment. This included considering conditions at the site and surrounding vicinity

from past, present, and future human activities.

For each impact area, the staff concludes the potential cumulative impacts resulting from

construction and operation are generally SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted.

7.12 References

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

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

1508, "Terminology and Index."

Aucott, W.R., S.R.S. Meadows, and G.G. Patterson. 1987. Regional Ground-Water Discharge

to Large Streams in the Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina and Parts of North Carolina and

Georgia. Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4332. U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia,

South Carolina. Accessed January 23, 2008 at

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri864332.

Badr, A.W., A. Wachob, and J.A. Gellici. 2004. South Carolina Water Plan. Second Edition,

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources; Land, Water and Conservation Division.

Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed April 17, 2008 at

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/water/hydro/wtrplanerrata.html.

Cherry G.S. 2006. Simulation and Particle-Tracking Analysis of Ground-Water Flow near the

Savannah River Site, Georgia and South Carolina, 2002, and for Selected Ground-Water

Management Scenarios, 2002 and 2020. Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5195.

U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed August 7, 2007 at http:l/pubs.usgs.govlsir/2006151951 (webonly publication.

August 2008 7-31 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

Cherry, G.S. and J.S. Clarke. 2007. Simulation and Particle-Tracking Analysis of Selected

Ground-Water Pumping Scenarios at Vogtle Electric Generation Plant, Burke County, Georgia.

Open-File Report 2007-1363, 51 p., U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Accessed April

17, 2008 at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1363/.

Clarke J.S. and C.T. West. 1997. Ground-Water Levels, Predevelopment Ground-Water Flow,

and Stream-Aquifer Relations in the Vicinity of the Savannah River Site, Georgia and South

Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4197, U.S.

Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri97-4197/.

Clarke J.S. and C.T. West. 1998. Simulation of Ground-Water Flow and Stream-Aquifer

Relations in the Vicinity of the Savannah River Site, Georgia and South Carolina,

Predevelopment Through 1992. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4062,

U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri98-4062/.

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

[FWPCA]).

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD). 2007. State of Georgia Electronic

Title V Permit Applications. Accessed July 2007 at

http://airpermit.dnr.state.ga.us/gatv/GATV/default.asp.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2006. Coastal Georgia Water &

Wastewater Permitting Plan for Managing Salt Water Intrusion. Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed March 30, 2007 at

http://www.gadnr.org/cws/Documents/saltwatermanagement-planjune2OO6.pdf.

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2007. Corridor Study - Thomson Vogtle 500-kV

Transmission Project. Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML070460368.

Jirka G., R.L. Doneker, and S.W Hinton. 2004. User's Manual for Cormix: A Hydrodynamic

Mixing Zone Model and Decision Support System for Pollutant Discharges into Surface Waters.

EPA#823/B-97-006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://www.cormix.info.

Natural Resource Spatial Analysis Laboratory (NRSAL). 2003. 1998 Vegetational Land Cover

Map of Georgia. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Accessed at

http://www.gis.state.ga.us.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). 2006. Letter from Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding Vogtle Early Site Permit Audit

Trip Report. October 17-19, 2006. Accession No. ML071020317.

NUREG-1872 7-32 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

Paller M.H., B.M. Saul, and D.V. Osteen. 1986. Distribution and Abundance of lchthyoplankton

in the Mid-Reaches of the Savannah River and Selected Tributaries. Primary Report No.

DPST-86-798, Environmental and Chemical Sciences, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina.

Savannah River Site. 2006. Savannah River Site Environmental Report for 2005. WSRC-TR2006-00007. Accessed June 11, 2007 at

http:l/www.srs.gov/general/pubs/ERsum/erO6/index.html.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2003. Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Revision 11. Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007a. June 27, 2007, letter from L.M.

Stimson, Southern, to NRC regarding VEGP Units 1 and 2 application for license renewal.

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML071840351.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007b. 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.), January 30, 2007. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No.

ML070460323.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007c. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company Vogtle Early Site Permit Application Comments on Draft Environmental Impact

Statement. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington D.C.), December 26, 2007. Southern

Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML073620401.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008a; Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Revision 4. Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008b. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to NRC Questions from April 23,

2008 Environmental Conference Call. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company

(Birmingham, Alabama) to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington, D.C.), June

26, 2008. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081790598.

Specht W.A (ed.). 1987. Comprehensive Cooling Study Final Report, Volume V, Aquatic

Ecology. DP-1739, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Aiken, South Carolina.

August 2008 7-33 NUREG-1872
Cumulative Impacts

Summerour J.H., E.A. Shapiro, J.A. Lineback, P.F. Huddlestun, and A.C. Hughes. 1994. An

Investigation of Tritium in the Gordon and Other Aquifers in Burke County, Georgia. Information

Circular 95. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division,

Georgia Geologic Survey, Atlanta, Georgia.

Summerour J.H., E.A. Shapiro, and P.F. Huddlestun. 1998. An Investigation of Tritium in the

Gordon and Other Aquifers in Burke County, Georgia: Phase II. Information Circular 102.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia

Geologic Survey, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1999. Savannah River Basin Comprehensive

Reconnaissance Study. Accessed May 24, 2007 at http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/srb/final.pdf.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1985. Final Environmental Statement Related to

the Operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1087, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 7, 2008 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/srl437.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan:

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

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 7, 2008 at

http:/lwww.nrc.gov/reading-rmldoc-collections/nuregs/staff/srl 555/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1

and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 7, 2008 at

http:llwww.nrc.govlreading-rmldoc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0586/index.html.

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

Construction and Operation of a Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River

Site, South Carolina. NUREG-1767, Vol. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. Accessed at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/srl767/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. General Environmental Impact Statement

for Licenses Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 34, Regarding Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant, Units I and 2. Draft Report for Comment. NUREG 1437, Supplement 34, Washington,

D.C. Accessed May 12, 2008 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/srl 437/supplement34.

NUREG-1872 7-34 August 2008
Cumulative Impacts

Wells D.G. 1999. Groundwatepr Protection Management Program. WSRC-TR-99-00350,

Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina.

August 2008 7-35 NUREG-1872

8.0 Need for Power

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulation implemented in Title 10 of the Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51.50(b)(2) states that an early site permit (ESP) application

"...need not include an assessment of the economic, technical, or other benefits (for example

need for power) and costs of the proposed action." Potential applicants for an ESP are allowed

to defer the analysis until they submit an application for a construction permit (CP) or a

combined license (COL). However, an applicant may address the Need for Power in its ESP

application. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) chose to include a

discussion of the Need for Power in its ESP application (Southern 2008a) in preparation for its

COL application, which it submitted in March 2008 (Southern 2008b).

The NRC's Environmental Standard Review Plan of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1 555), Section 8.0

through Section 8.4, guides the staff's review of the Need for Power analysis (NRC 2000). The

guidance in NUREG-1 555 is limited because of changes in the regulatory structure that were

occurring as this guidance was being revised. Deregulation in the electricity markets has a

significant impact on the analysis of the Need for Power. Applicants may be power generators

rather than traditional utilities; therefore, analysis of the Need for Power must be sufficiently

flexible to accommodate the applicant type. Because of deregulation in bulk sales markets for

electricity, the advent of independent power producers, and the increased use of purchases and

exchanges of electricity among utilities to meet demand, the demand for electricity by ultimate

consumers and customers within a utility's service area is increasingly not being met by the

utility's own generating resources. Trading of electricity is further facilitated by the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission's final rule (61 FR 21540), requiring all public utilities that own,

control, or operate facilities used for transmitting electricity in interstate commerce to file open

access nondiscriminatory transmission tariffs that contain minimum terms and conditions on

nondiscriminatory service.

The term "relevant service area" is used here to indicate any region to be served by the

proposed facility, whether or not it corresponds to a traditional utility service area. "Relevant

service area" is a situation-specific concept and must be defined on a case-by-case basis.

Affected states or regions may prepare a Need for Power evaluation and assessment of the

regional power system for planning or regulatory purposes. A Need for Power analysis may

also be prepared by a regulated utility and submitted to a regulatory authority, such as a State

public utility commission. The NRC staff would review the evaluation and determine if it is

(1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to confirmation, and (4) responsive to forecasting

uncertainty (NRC 2000). If the Need for Power evaluation is found to be acceptable, no

additional independent review by the NRC is needed. However, the data may be supplemented

August 2008 8-1 NUREG-1872
Need for Power

by information from other sources such as the Energy Information Agency, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

8.1 Description of Power System

Southern has been authorized to submit the ESP application by the Georgia Power Company

(GPC), acting as agent for the following co-owners of the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2: the

.GPC, 45.7 percent; the Oglethorpe Power Corporation (OPC), 30.0 percent; the Municipal

Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG), 22.7 percent; and the city of Dalton, an incorporated

municipality in the State of Georgia acting by and through its Board of Water, Light, and Sinking

Fund Commissioners (Dalton Utilities), 1.6 percent. The existing co-owners of VEGP Units

1 and 2 support the development of VEGP Units 3 and 4, and anticipate the same ownership

interest percentages in VEGP Units 3 and 4 as exist in VEGP Units 1 and 2. The GPC and

Southern are subsidiaries of Southern Company, which owns and operates the electricity

generating facilities shown in Figure 8-1 (Southern 2008a).

Southern is engaged in the operation of nuclear power plants. Besides operating VEGP Units

1 and 2, it operates the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Plant Hatch) for GPC; and

the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (Plant Farley) for Alabama Power Company.

The combined electric generation of all six units is approximately 5700 MW(e) (DOE/EIA

2007a). Should a nuclear facility be constructed at the proposed VEGP site, Southern is

expected to be the exclusive licensed operator of VEGP Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2008a).

The GPC is engaged in the generation and transmission of electricity and the distribution and

sale of such electricity within the State of Georgia. The GPC serves more than 2 million

customers in a service area of approximately 148,000 km 2 (57,000 mi 2). With a rated electricity

generation capability of approximately 14,000 MW(e), the GPC currently provides retail electric

service in all but six of Georgia's 159 counties (Southern 2008a).

The OPC, an Electric Membership Corporation (EMC), supplies electricity at wholesale prices to

38 EMCs in the State of Georgia, which in turn distribute this electricity at retail to their

residential, commercial, and industrial customers. The EMCs serve approximately 1.5 million

metered electric customers, representing approximately 3.7 million people of the 9 million total

residents in the State of Georgia. The EMCs serve customers in 150 of the 159 counties in

Georgia (Southern 2008a).

The MEAG is an electric generation and transmission public corporation, which provides

wholesale power to 49 communities in the State of Georgia and other wholesale customers

outside the State of Georgia. These communities, in turn, supply electricity to more than

600,000 retail customers, representing approximately 10 percent of Georgia's population, in

their respective service areas across the State (Southern 2008a).

NUREG-1872 8-2 August 2008
Need for Power

otoGaftwonHarLo,.

9L40anougC

"MID *ystes

*.tc;,..dad.t l ,owd

M* f HobbWWn

(So u att Cm Hanrm 7)anf N200h Hatch

*Rn +Rim

Th"iyofDlo is , wa muncplty ihi h Stateof Caaftht Gergia Actinglby andtruhtor the entire Stat. of

Figure 8-1. Electricity Generating Facilities Owned and Operated by Southern Company (Southern Company 2007)

The city of Dalton is a municipality within the State of Georgia. Acting by and through its Board

of Water, Light, and Sinking Fund Commissioners, doing busin~ess as Dalton Utilities, the city of

Dalton owns electric generation capacity, transmission capacity, and a distribution system. The

city of Dalton is a duly incorporated municipality under the laws of the State of Georgia.

Savannah Electric and Power merged with GPIC on July 1, 2006, adding an additional

320,000 residents in a 5180 km2 (2000 mi2 ) region along the Georgia Atlantic coast.

Collectively, the potential co-owners serve an area that encompasses-the entire State of

Georgia, except for the northwest corner, and supply electricity to approximately 6.2 million

people, who represent approximately 76 percent of Georgia's (year 2000) population. However,

Savannah Electric and Power customers are not included in the 6.2 million approximate number

of users mentioned above.

August 2008 8-3 NUREG-1872
Need for Power

8.2 Power Demand/lntegrated Resource Planning

Need for Power is an intricate part of all integrated resource planning, and is a derivative of load

demand forecasting.

Integrated resource planning can be thought of as a process of planning to meet users' needs

for electricity services in a way that satisfies multiple objectives with limited resources. Broad

objectives can include, but are not limited to:

" conforming to national, regional, State, and local development objectives

" ensuring that all households and businesses have access to electricity services

* maintaining reliability of supply

* minimizing the short-term or long-term economic costs of delivering electricity services

" minimizing the environmental impacts of electricity supply and use

" enhancing energy security by minimizing the use of external resources

" providing economic benefits.

Integrated resource planning is built on principles of comprehensive analysis. Traditional

methods of electric resource planning focused on "supply-side" projections only for such things

as construction of generation, transmission, and distribution facilities. Integrated resource

planning considers a full range of feasible supply-side and demand-side options, and assesses

them against a common set of planning objectives.

Integrated resource planning provides an opportunity for electric planners to address complex

issues in a structured, inclusive, and transparent manner. At the same time, it provides a

chance for interested parties both inside and outside the planning region to review, understand,

and provide additional input.

The steps in the integrated resource planning process generally are to:

" establish objectives

" survey historical energy use patterns and develop load demand forecasts

" investigate electricity supply options

" investigate demand-side management measures

" prepare and evaluate supply plans

" prepare and evaluate demand-side management plans

" integrate supply-side and demand-side plans into candidate integrated resource plans

" select the preferred plan.

NUREG-1872 8-4 August 2008
Need for Power

8.3 Power Supply/integrated Resource Planning in the

State of Georgia

The mission of the Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) is to ensure that consumers

receive safe, reliable, and reasonably priced electric services from financially viable and

technically competent companies subject to its jurisdiction. For companies subject to its

jurisdiction, the GPSC has the authority to set rates and require long range plans and

projections.

The GPSC regulates the GPC. Under the Georgia Integrated Resource Planning Act, at least

every 3 years the GPC must submit to the GPSC an integrated resource plan (IRP) that:

* includes GPC's electric demand and energy forecast for at least a 20-year period

• includes GPC's program for meeting the requirements shown in its forecast in an

economical and reliable manner

" includes GPC's analysis of all capacity resource options, including demand-side and

supply-side options

* sets forth GPC's assumptions and conclusions with respect to the effect of each capacity

option.

Provisions in the Georgia Integrated Resource Planning Act require the GPSC to hold a public

hearing on the IRP and establish criteria for the GPSC to use in determining whether to approve

and adopt a plan. A related provision in the Georgia Integrated Resource Planning Act prohibits

a utility from constructing an electric plant, or increasing the capacity of an existing plant,

without first obtaining a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the GPSC. A

certificate application must include the current IRP and a benefit-cost analysis for the proposed

additional capacity.

The Consumer's Utility Counsel Division of the Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs

represents State residents and small commercial customers in utility proceedings, including IRP

reviews, before the GPSC (Official Code of Georgia [OCGA], Section 46-10). This provides a

viewpoint that might not otherwise be present in the review process for IRPs.

The GPSC has established detailed regulatory requirements for IRPs in Chapter 515-3-4 of the

Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia. The requirements include the following:

* Energy and Demand Forecasting. An IRP must report and use 3 years of historic data and

address each of the next 20 years (forecast). Forecasting must be weather-normalized and

August 2008 8-5 NUREG-1872
Need for Power

address the jurisdictional area, retail and wholesale loads, customer classes, and annual

load factors. The GPSC regulations specify forecasting methodologies and standards for

data inputs. Finally, an IRP must include an evaluation of the sensitivity of the results to

changes in major assumptions and estimates used. The sensitivities must include a

reasonable range of sales and demand and include base-growth, high-growth, and

low-growth scenarios.

" Capacity Resource Identification. The IRP must identify existing resources, including power

purchases, sales and exchanges, demand-side programs, cogeneration, standby

generation, spinning reserves, interruptible service, pooling or coordination agreements,

generation, and transmission. The IRP must address potential new supply-side and

demand-side resources and the associated decision-making process (the GPSC IRP

regulations detail the process for securing long-term new supply-side options.)

" Integrated Plan Development and Filing. In addition to energy and demand forecasting and

capacity resource identification, the IRP must address alternatives to proposed generation;

environmental impact of proposed and alternative generation; economic, environmental, and

other benefits to the State of Georgia and consumers; and financial information. The IRP

must identify the integrated combination of demand-side and supply-side resources selected

to satisfy future electric demands. Periodically after IRP approval, the GPC must report on

actions taken to implement the IRP and any deviations from the plan. A new IRP must be

filed with the GPSC every 3 years.

The GPSC staff retains experts to assist in reviewing the IRP, developing data requests and

reviewing responses, providing reports to and testimony before the GPSC, and responding to

GPSC requests. The GPSC can approve the IRP, approve it subject to stated conditions or

modifications, approve it in part and reject in part, reject the IRP in its entirety, or provide an

alternative plan.

In addition to IRP requirements, the GPSC has detailed requirements for obtaining GPSC

approval and certification of new supply-side resources. An application for GPSC certification

for constructing or purchasing capacity (purchase agreement) must include a discussion of how

the proposed application is consistent with the current IRP, a benefit-cost analysis, and detailed

information about the proposal and alternatives. Once the GPSC certifies a power purchase

agreement, that capacity is added to the IRP's base case for meeting forecast loads.

As part of the 2007 IRP filing with the GPSC (Docket No. 17687-U and 24505-U), the GPC has

provided information showing the details of the load and energy forecasts. Portions of this

information is proprietary to the GPC.

The proprietary information provided in the IRP constitutes detailed forecasted information

regarding GPC's future energy and demand growth. This information could be used to

NUREG-1872 8-6 August 2008
Need for Power

determine GPC's short-term capacity needs. If revealed to the public, a generation

wholesaler or power marketer could use the information to tailor proposals with the intention of

pricing products that could undermine GPC's market position. Such disclosure could unfairly

allow competitors to manipulate the wholesale market and ultimately harm retail customers

through higher prices and less reliability. Lastly, GPC's competitors are not required to file their

respective forecast information.

Furthermore, the information is subject to substantial procedures to maintain its secrecy. Only

select GPC affiliated personnel are granted access to the information on a "need-to-know"

basis. Generally, parties outside the GPC who would be granted access to the IRP information

would be required to sign confidentiality agreements.

For the reasons cited above, the GPSC granted the GPC proprietary status on parts of its IRP

filings. GPC has not included the full IRP into the NRC Docket in support of its Need for Power

analysis, but has supplied a summary of its IRP highlights, procedures, and conclusions, in the

VEGP application (Southern 2008a). To facilitate the Need for Power review, access to the full

2007 IRP, including proprietary information, was granted to the NRC staff in March 2007. This

access to NRC staff occurred at Southern Company's Headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.

8.4 Assessment of Need for Power/NRC Findings on

GPC's IRP

8.4.1 Evaluation of GPC's IRP

The staff considered the GPSC evaluation of GPC's IRP and other energy forecasts to develop

a conclusion about the Need for Power. In July 2007, the GPSC issued its final order approving

the 2007 GPC IRP (GPSC 2007). The order is an explanation of the proceedings and

conclusions. The GPSC approved a 13.5 percent reserve margin for planning within 3 years,

and a 15 percent reserve margin for longer forecasts and approved planning that identifies the

need for new (generating) resources beginning in 2010. The GPSC determined that it is

reasonable for GPC to investigate the opportunity to build nuclear resources. The

2007 GPC IRP includes nuclear generation and shows nuclear additions using the

Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear technology as a base case option, with commercial generation

expected to start in year 2015/2016.

8.4.2 Other Forecasts for Energy

The NRC compared GPC's IRP demand for electricity forecast in its territory to the

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration's (DOE-EIA) Annual Energy

Outlook 2007 (DOE/EIA 2007b), which looks at the United States as a whole. The Annual

Energy Outlook forecasts total electricity sales to increase by 41.0 percent, from 3660 billion

August 2008 8-7 NUREG-1872
Need for Power

kilowatt-hours in 2005 to 5168 billion kilowatt-hours in 2030. By end-user sector, electricity

demand is projected to grow by 39 percent from 2005 to 2030 in the residential sector,

63 percent in the commercial sector, and by 17.0 percent in the industrial sector. This

translates into an average annual increase of 1.3 percent in the residential sector, 2.0 percent

increase in the commercial sector, and 0.6 percent increase in the industrial sector.

Increases in the demand for electricity are related to population increases, as well as an

increase of personal consumption. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population in the

State of Georgia is expected to increase 46.8 percent from 8.2 million in 2000, to 12.0 million in

2030 (USCB 2007). The surrounding States of Florida and South Carolina anticipate increases

in populations of 79.5 percent and 28.3 percent, respectively. These forecast increases are

during a time when the population of the whole United States is expected to grow 29.2 percent

from 281.4 million in 2000 to 363.6 million in 2030.

In addition, the staff estimates that gross average annual personal consumption for electricity in

the State of Georgia may increase 0.30 percent from 13,000 kilowatt-hours per year in 2005 to

14,000 kilowatt-hours per year in 2030, the same gross average annual personal consumption

as forecast in the United States as a whole.

GPC assumes a demand for electricity in Georgia alone to grow by an average annual rate of

1.8 percent through 2030. Given the relative changes expected in demography, the demand for

electricity growth rate in the State of Georgia is compatible to the national average annual rate

of 1.4 percent, as stated in the Annual Energy Outlook (DOE/EIA 2007b).

On July 20, 2006, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation was certified as the

Electric Reliability Organization in the United States, pursuant to Section 215 of the Federal

Power Act. Included in this certification was a provision for the Electric Reliability Organization

to delegate authority for the purpose of proposing and enforcing reliability standards in particular

regions of the country by entering into delegation agreements with regional entities.

The South Eastern Reliability Council (SERC) serves as a regional entity with delegated

authority from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for the purpose of proposing

and enforcing reliability standards within the SERC Region. The State of Georgia is in the

SERC territory of responsibility, and the GPC, OPC, and MEAG are SERC members.

The SERC is a nonprofit corporation responsible for promoting and improving the reliability,

adequacy, and critical infrastructure of the bulk power supply systems in all or portions of

16 central and southeastern States (Figure 8-2). Owners, operators, and users of the bulk

power system in these States cover an area of approximately 560,000 square miles and

comprise what is known as the SERC Region.

NUREG-1872 8-8 August 2008
E'

ERCOT

L, RFC-"

• :: • t >7k;, 

1!!77 7/7 ""+

Need for Power

1,

]p

pipT .

'p 4 f

4" 'p.4'..

Figure 8-2. SERC Service Territory (SERC 2006)

The NRC also examined the electric energy forecast developed by SERC. Among SERC's

2007 conclusions (SERC 2007):

" There has been significant merchant generation built since 1998, but much of it has not

been contracted to serve loads within the SERC region.

" More recent surveys have shown downward trends in merchant generation development.

" Projected peak demand is forecast to increase at 2.08 percent annually through 2016.

• Electric demand is forecast to increase 1.7 percent annually through 2016.

" SERC is projecting firm capacity margins of about 13 to 15 percent through 2016, which is a

requirement imposed on its members to maintain system reliability.

August 2008 8-9 NUREG-1872
Need for Power

8.4.3 NRC Conclusions

The NRC staff finds that the*GPC has submitted an IRP to the GPSC that contains a detailed

review of the Need for Power in the State of Georgia and parts of the surrounding area. The

NRC staff reviewed the IRP, and the Need for Power contained within, and determined it is

(1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to confirmation, and (4) responsive to forecasting

uncertainty (NRC 2000). The NRC staff reviewed and accepts the Need for Power evaluation

contained in the IRP submitted to the GPSC.

The NRC staff has considered the past, present, and planned power-producing capability and

the predicted load demands from GPC's IRP, the Annual Energy Outlook (DOE/EIA 2007b), the

U.S. Census Bureau, and the SERC. The NRC staff has concluded that the GPC's detailed

prediction of its (proprietary) future load demand is a reasonable basis for planning for 2007 to

2030 and that the GPC cannot expect to satisfy a significant portion of that demand load by

additional electric purchases from neighboring producers.

Based on this analysis, the staff concludes that there is a justified Need for Power in the region

of interest.

8.5 References

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

61 FR 21540. May 10, 1996. "Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access NonDiscriminating Transmission Services by Public Utilities: Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public

Utilities and Transmitting Utilities." Federal Register, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2007. Order Adopting Stipulation in Re: Georgia

Power Company's Application of Its 2007 Integrated Resources Plan. Docket Number 24505.

Accessed July 30, 2007 at http://www.psc.state.ga.us.

Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) Act. Official Code of Georgia (OCGA) Section 46-3A-1

et seq. vol. 34, 2004 ed.

Official Code of Georgia (OCGA). Accessed at

http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp.

Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia. Accessed at

http://s6s.georgia.gov/rulesregs.htm.

NUREG-1872 8-10 August 2008
Need for Power

SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). 2006. SERC Regional Boundaries. Accessed at

http://www.serc1 .org/Documents/Regional%20Entity%20Documents1 /Regional%20Entity%20D

ocuments%20(All)/SERC%20DA%2OExhibit%20A%20-%2ORegional%2OBoundaries%2011-17-

06.pdf.

SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). 2007. Information Summary 2007. Accessed July 15,

2007 at

http://www.sercl .org/documents/SERC/SERC%20Publications/lnformation%2OSummary/SERC

%202007%201nformation%20Summary%20-%20July%2019%202007.pdf.

Southern Company. 2007. Electricity Generating Facilities Owned and Operated by Southern

Company. Accessed August 12, 2007 at

http://www.southerncompany.comfaboutus/images/maplayered.gif.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008a. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Revision 4. Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008b. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Application for a Combined Operating License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Units 3 and 4. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081050133.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007. State Interim Population Projections by Age and Sex

2004-2030. Accessed July 25, 2007 at

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/projectionsagesex. html.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency (DOE/EIA). 2007a. Nuclear Power

Plants Operating in the United States as of September 30, 2005. Accessed February 4, 2008 at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at-a_glance/reactors/nu ke 1 .html.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency (DOE/EIA). 2007b. Annual Energy

Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030. Accessed at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo07/index.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan:

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

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://www.nrc.govfreading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/srl 555/.

August 2008 8-11 NUREG-1872

9.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

This chapter describes alternatives to the proposed action and discusses the environmental

impacts of those alternatives. Section 9.1 discusses the no-action alternative. Section 9.2

addresses alternative energy sources. Section 9.3 examines plant design alternatives.

Section 9.4 reviews Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.'s (Southern's) region of interest

(ROI) and examines its suitability and the suitability of Southern's alternative site-selection

process. Section 9.5 summarizes the environmental impacts for the alternative sites.

Section9.6 examines issues that are common to all of the alternative sites and addresses them

collectively for all the alternative sites. Section 9.7 summarizes the impacts at the alternative

sites. The comparison of the alternative sites with the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP)

site is made in Chapter 10.

The environmental impacts of the alternatives are evaluated using the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC's)'s three-level standard of significance - SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE -

developed using Council on Environmental Quality guidelines (CEQ 1997) and set forth in the

footnotes to Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B. The impact categories evaluated in this chapter are the same as those used in the

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GElS),

NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999)(a) with the additional impact category of

environmental justice. While NUREG-1437 was developed for license renewal, it provides

useful information for this review and is referenced throughout this chapter.

The evaluation of alternative sites is a two-step process, as set forth in NUREG-1 555,

Section 9.3 (NRC 2000), and stems from the NRC decision related to licensing the Seabrook

Nuclear Power Plant (Public Service Company of New Hampshire 1977). The first step looks at

a full suite of environmental issues, using reconnaissance-level information to determine if any

of the alternative sites are environmentally preferable to the proposed VEGP site. If an

alternative site appears environmentally preferable to the proposed site, the analysis proceeds

to the second step. If not, then the evaluation of alternative sites ends at the first step. The

second step considers economic, technological, and institutional factors among the

environmentally preferred sites to determine if any are obviously superior to the proposed site.

If there is no obviously superior site, then the proposed site prevails. A staff conclusion that an

alternative site is obviously superior to the early site permit (ESP) site proposed by Southern

would normally lead to a recommendation that the ESP application be denied.

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999.

Hereafter, all references to the "GELS" include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1.

August 2008 9-1 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

9.1 No-Action Alternative

For purposes of an ESP application, the no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which the

NRC would deny the ESP request. Upon such a denial, the construction and operation of one

or more new nuclear units at the proposed location on the VEGP site in accordance with the

10 CFR Part 52 process referencing an approved ESP would not occur.

The no-action alternative generally consists of two parts. First, under the no-action alternative

the NRC would not issue the ESP. There are no environmental impacts associated with not

issuing the ESP, except that the impacts associated with construction activities authorized by a

limited work authorization that could be allowed pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(c) and 10 CFR 52.25

would be avoided.

Second, given that this environmental impact statement (EIS) addresses the environmental

effects of construction and operation of new nuclear generating units as directed by the

Commission in 10 CFR 52.18, the no-action alternative would result in no such construction and

operation. Therefore, the impacts predicted in this EIS would not occur.

In this context, the no-action alternative would accomplish none of the benefits intended by the

ESP process, which would include

" early resolution of siting issues before large investments of financial capital and human

resources in new plant design and construction are made

" early resolution of issues on the environmental impacts of construction and operation of new

nuclear generating units

" the ability to bank sites on which nuclear plants may be located

" the facilitation of future decisions on whether to construct new nuclear power generation

facilities.

9.2 Energy Alternatives

The objective of Southern in seeking an ESP for the VEGP site is to secure a site for new

baseload electric power generation (Southern 2008). This section examines the potential

environmental impacts associated with alternatives to construction of a new baseload nuclear

generating facility. Section 9.2.1 discusses energy alternatives not requiring new generating

capacity. Section 9.2.2 discusses energy alternatives requiring new generating capacity. Other

alternatives are discussed in Section 9.2.3. A combination of alternatives is discussed in

Section 9.2.4. Section 9.2.5 compares the environmental impacts from new nuclear, coal-fired,

and natural-gas-fired generating units at the VEGP site.

NUREG-1872 9-2 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

For analysis of energy alternatives, Southern assumed a bounding electrical output target value

of 2234 megawatts electric (MW[e]) (Southern 2008). The staff also used this level of output in

its analysis of energy alternatives.

9.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity

Four alternatives to the proposed action that do not require Southern to construct new

generating capacity are to

* Purchase the needed electric power from other suppliers.

" Reactivate retired power plants.

" Extend the operating life of existing power plants.

" Implement conservation or demand-side management programs.

The viability of these four alternatives depends on when Southern would seek a construction

permit (CP) or combined license (COL) from the NRC (assuming an ESP is granted). For

example, the status of existing and retired nuclear power plants varies over time. If Southern is

granted an ESP, the duration of the permit would be for 10 to 20 years (10 CFR.52.27(a)). In

addition, if Southern is granted an ESP, it would be able to apply for renewal of the permit under

the procedures in 10 CFR 52.29 through 52.33.

The staff concluded in Section 8.4.3 of the EIS that GPC's detailed prediction of its future load

demand is a reasonable basis for planning for 2007 to 2030 and that GPC cannot expect to

satisfy a significant portion of that demand load by additional electric purchases from

neighboring producers. However, if power-to replace the capacity of the new nuclear units was

to be purchased from sources within the United States or from a foreign country, the generating

technology likely would be one of those described in the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GELS) for license renewal (e.g., coal, natural

gas, or nuclear) (NRC 1996). The description of the environmental impacts of other

technologies described in NUREG-1437 for license renewal is representative of the impacts

associated with the construction and operation of new generating units at the VEGP site. Under

the purchased power alternative, the environmental impacts of power production would still

occur but would be located elsewhere within the region, nation, or in another country. The

environmental impacts of coal-fired and natural-gas-fired plants are discussed in Section 9.2.2.

If the purchased power alternative is implemented, the only environmental unknown is whether

new transmission line rights-of-way would be required. The construction of new lines could

have both environmental and aesthetic consequences, particularly if new transmission line

rights-of-way have to be acquired. The staff concludes that the local environmental impacts

from purchased power would be SMALL when existing transmission line rights-of-way are used

and could range from SMALL to LARGE if acquisition of new rights-of-way is required. The

August 2008 9-3 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

environmental impacts of power generation would depend on the generation technology and

location of the generation site and, therefore, are unknown.

Nuclear power facilities are initially licensed by the NRC for a period of 40 years. The operating

license can be renewed for up to 20 years, and NRC regulations permit additional license

renewal. Southern currently operates three nuclear power plants. The Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear

Plant (Plant Hatch) and the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Plant Farley) have received

renewed operating licenses from the NRC. Southern submitted an application to the NRC to

renew the operating licenses for VEGP Units 1 and 2 on June 29, 2007 (Southern 2007a). The

environmental impacts of continued operation of a nuclear power plant are significantly less

than construction of a new plant. However, continued operation of an existing nuclear plant

does not provide additional generating capacity.

The only power plants that GPC is currently proposing for retirement are Plant McDonough

Units 1 and 2 (GPSC 2007). The coal-fired Plant McDonough units have a combined capacity

of approximately 517 MW(e) (GPC 2007). The units are located close to downtown Atlanta and

were installed in 1963 and 1964. The staff concludes that extending the life of the two Plant

McDonough units would not be a reasonable alternative to the proposed action. Fossil-fueled

plants slated for extensive refurbishment, predominately coal-fired and natural-gas-fired plants,

tend to be old enough to have economic difficulty meeting the current and more restrictive

environmental standards. As a result, Southern concluded that the environmental impacts of a

refurbishment scenario are bounded by the coal-fired and natural-gas-fired alternatives

(Southern 2008).

Georgia Power Company (GPC) expects to achieve approximately 1000 MW(e) of demand

reduction by 2010 through the implementation of existing and new demand-side management

programs. This load reduction represents more than 5 percent of the company's current load

(GPC 2007). The 1000 MW(e) is accounted for in GPC's Integrated Resource Plan (see

Section 8.3 of the EIS) and is therefore not available to offset the need for two new nuclear

generating units that would generate baseload power.

GPC offers several conservation and demand-side management programs to its customers to

reduce peak electricity demands and daily power consumption. In its most recent Integrated

Resource Plan filing to the Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC), GPC proposed the

following five new demand-side management pilot programs: (1) the Power Credit Multifamily

Program, (2) the Programmable Thermostat with Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

Program, (3) the Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb Program, (4) the Electric Water Heater

Insulation Program, and (5) the Commercial Tax Incentive Program. In a July 2007 order, the

GPSC found that each program should be approved on a pilot basis as proposed by GPC

(GPSC 2007). As part of the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR pilot program, GPC also

will provide customer incentives for making home improvements or home improvement

financing interest rate buy-downs (GPC 2008). In the July 2007 order, GPSC also directed

NUREG-1872 9-4 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

GPC to expand several of its demand-side management programs in an effort to capture more

of the economic and achievable potential to improve end-use energy efficiency. The staff

considers conservation and demand-side programs in section 9.2.4 of the EIS as part of a

combination of alternatives.

The staff believes it would be unreasonable for an applicant to request a CP or COL if (1) the

power could be purchased from other electricity suppliers at a reasonable cost, (2) the power

could be obtained by reactivating one or more retired generating plants or by extending the life

of one or more existing generating plants, or (3) conservation or demand-side management

programs could make the additional power from the new nuclear units unnecessary.

Based on the preceding discussion, the staff concludes that the options of purchasing electric

power from other suppliers, reactivating retired power plants, extending the operating life of

existing power plants, and conservation and demand-side programs are not reasonable

alternatives to providing new baseload power generation capacity.

9.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity

In keeping with the NRC's evaluation of alternatives to operating license renewal, a reasonable

set of energy alternatives to the construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units at

the VEGP site should be limited to analysis of discrete power generation sources and those

power generation technologies that are technically reasonable and commercially viable

(NRC 1996). The current mix of baseload power generation options in Georgia is one indicator

of the feasible choices for power generation technology within the State.

This section discusses the environmental impacts of energy alternatives to the proposed action

that would require Southern to construct new generating capacity. The discussion in

Section 9.2.2 is limited to the individual alternatives that Southern identified as viable: coal-fired

and natural-gas-fired generation. The impacts discussed in this section are estimates based on

present technology.

The staff assumed that new generation capacity would be located at the VEGP site for the coalfired and natural-gas-fired alternatives. Either natural draft or mechanical draft cooling towers

would be used for the coal-fired and natural-gas-fired alternatives (Southern 2008). Southern

estimates that one new 500-kV electric power transmission line in a new right-of-way would be

needed to serve a new baseload generating facility at the VEGP site (Southern 2008).

Each year, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE), issues an annual energy outlook. In its Annual Energy Outlook 2007 (DOE/EIA

2007), the EIA reference case projects that coal-fired capacity would account for approximately

54 percent of total electric generating capacity additions between 2006 and 2030. Coal-fired

plants generally are used to meet baseload requirements. EIA projects that natural-gas-fired

August 2008 9-5 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

plants would account for approximately 36 percent of new capacity additions during this period.

EIA projects that renewable energy sources would account for approximately 6 percent of new

capacity additions during the period and that new nuclear plants would account for

approximately 4 percent (DOE/EIA 2007). The EIA projections are based on the assumption

that providers of new generating capacity would seek to minimize cost while meeting applicable

environmental requirements.

9.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Power Generation

For the coal-fired generation alternative, the staff assumed construction of four pulverized coalfired units, each with a net capacity of 530 MW(e) at the VEGP site. These assumptions are

consistent with the ESP application submitted by Southern (Southern 2008). The staff also

assumed the construction of an additional transmission line right-of-way, as discussed in

Section 3.3. The plant is assumed to have an operating life of 40 years.

The staff also considered an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal-fired plant.

IGCC is an emerging technology for generating electricity with coal that combines modern coal

gasification technology with both gas turbine and steam turbine power generation

(Southern 2008). The technology is cleaner than conventional pulverized coal plants because

major pollutants can be removed from the gas stream before combustion. The IGCC alternative

also generates less solid waste than the pulverized coal-fired alternative. The largest solid

waste stream produced by IGCC installations is slag, a black, glassy, sand-like material that is

potentially a marketable by-product. The other large-volume by-product produced by IGCC

plants is sulfur, which is extracted during the gasification process and can be marketed rather

than placed in a landfill. IGCC units do not produce ash or scrubber wastes (Southern 2008).

In spite of the preceding advantages, the staff concludes that, at present, a new IGCC plant is

not a reasonable alternative to a 2234-MW(e) nuclear power generation facility for the following

reasons: (1) IGCC plants are more expensive than comparable pulverized coal plants

(DOE/EIA 2007), (2) existing(a) IGCC plants have considerably smaller capacity than the

proposed 2234-MW(e) nuclear plant, (3) system reliability of existing IGCC plants has been

lower than pulverized coal plants, (4) the existing IGCC plants have had an extended (though

ultimately successful) shakedown period (NPCC 2005), and (5) a lack of overall plant

performance warranties for IGCC plants has hindered commercial financing (NPCC 2005). For

these reasons, IGCC plants are not considered further in this EIS.

Coal and limestone (calcium carbonate) for a pulverized coal-fired plant would be delivered to

the plant by train. Southern estimates that the plant would consume approximately 7 million MT

(7.3 million tons) per year of pulverized bituminous coal with an ash content of approximately

(a) Currently operating coal gasification power plants in the United States are the Tampa Electric IGCC

Project (Polk Power Station), using the Chevron-Texaco gasification process, and the Wabash River

Coal Gasification Repowering Project, using the ConocoPhilips E-Gas process (NPCC 2005).

NUREG-1872 9-6 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

11 percent (Southern 2008). Lime or limestone, used in the scrubbing process for control of

sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emissions, is injected as a slurry into the hot effluent combustion gases to

remove entrained SO2 . The lime-based scrubbing solution reacts with SO2 to form calcium

sulfite, which precipitates and is removed from the process as sludge. Southern estimates that

approximately 166,000 MT (183,000 tons) per year of limestone would be used for flue gas

desulfurization (Southern 2008).

Air Quality

Southern assumed a plant design that would minimize air emissions through a combination of

boiler technology and post-combustion pollutant removal. Southern estimates that the coal-fired

alternative emissions for SO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate

matter (PM) would be as follows (Southern 2008):

" So 2 - 5068 MT (5587 tons) per year

" NOx - 1647 MT (1815 tons) per year

" CO - 1647 MT (1815 tons) per year

* PM10 - 83 MT (91 tons) per year

" PM2.

5 - 0.35 MT (0.39 tons) per year.

PM10 is particulate matter with a diameter equal to or less than 10 microns (40 CFR 50.6).

PM2.

5 is particulate matter with a diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns (40 CFR 50.7).

The impacts on air quality from coal-fired generation would vary considerably from those of

nuclear generation because of emissions of SO2, NO., CO, PM, and hazardous air pollutants

such as mercury. A coal-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that

could contribute to global warming.

The acid rain requirements of the Clean Air Act capped the nation's SO 2 emissions from power

plants. Southern would need to obtain sufficient pollution credits either from a set-aside pool or

purchases on the open market to cover annual emissions from the plant. The market-based

allowance system used for SO2 emissions is not used for NO. emissions.

A new coal-fired generation plant at the VEGP site would likely need a prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act. The plant would

need to comply with the new source performance standards (NSPS) for such plants in

40 CFR 60, Subpart Da. The standards establish emission limits for PM and opacity

(40 CFR 60.42Da), SO2 (40 CFR 60.43Da), NOx (40 CFR 60.44Da), and mercury

(40 CFR 60.45Da).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has various regulatory requirements for

visibility protection in 40 CFR 51, Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any

August 2008 9-7 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

new major stationary source in an area designated as in attainment or unclassified for criteria

pollutants under the Clean Air Act (40 CFR 51.307(a)). Criteria pollutants under the Clean Air

Act are lead, ozone, particulates, CO, NO2, and S02. Ambient air-quality standards for criteria

pollutants are in 40 CFR Part 50. The VEGP site is in an area designated as in attainment or

unclassified for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.311).

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing

future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when

impairment occurs because of air pollution resulting from human activities. In addition, EPA

regulations provide that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a State, the

State must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress toward achieving natural

visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility

for those days on which visibility is most impaired over the period of the implementation plan

and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least visibility-impaired days over the same period

(40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). If a new coal-fired power generation station were located close to a

mandatory Class I area, additional air-pollution control requirements could be imposed. There

are no mandatory Class I Federal areas within 160 km (100 mi) of the VEGP site.

The fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be mitigated using best

management practices (BMPs); such emissions would be temporary.

NUREG-1437 for license renewal (NRC 1996) did not quantify emissions from coal-fired power

plants, but suggested that air impacts would be substantial. NUREG-1437 also mentioned

global warming from unregulated carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from sulfur oxides and

nitrogen oxide emissions as a potential impact (NRC 1996). Adverse human health effects,

such as cancer and emphysema, have been associated with the byproducts of coal combustion.

Overall, the staff concludes that air-quality impacts from coal-fired generation at the VEGP site

would be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize air

quality.

Waste Management

NUREG-1437 for license renewal (NRC 1996) and the NRC's experience from operating license

renewal analyses indicate that coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and

equipment for controlling air pollution generates additional ash, spent selective catalytic

reduction (SCR) catalyst, and scrubber sludge. In its Environmental Report (ER) (Southern

2008), Southern estimates that a coal-fired plant would generate approximately 715,000 MT

(788,000 tons) per year of ash. Southern would expect to recycle approximately 35 percent of

the ash (Southern 2008). The coal plant would also generate approximately 197,800 MT

(218,000 tons) per year of scrubber sludge. Southern estimates that disposal of the ash and

NUREG-1872 9-8 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

scrubber sludge over a 40-year plant life would require approximately 164 ha (406 ac)

(Southern 2008).

In May 2000, EPA issued a "Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the

Combustion of Fossil Fuels" (65 FR 32214). EPA concluded that some form of national

regulation is warranted to address coal combustion waste products because of health concerns.

Accordingly, EPA announced its intention to issue regulations for disposal of coal-combustion

waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976.

Waste impacts on groundwater and surface water could extend beyond the operating life of the

plant if leachate and runoff from the waste storage area occurs. Disposal of the waste could

noticeablyaffect land use and groundwater quality, but with appropriate management and

monitoring, it would not destabilize any resources. After closure of the waste site and

re-vegetation, the land could be available for other uses. Construction-related debris would be

generated during plant construction activities.

For the reasons stated above, the staff concludes that the impacts from waste generated at a

coal-fired plant would be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable but would not

destabilize any important resource.

Human Health

Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, worker and

public risk from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risk from disposal of

coal-combustion waste, and public risk from inhalation of stack emissions. In addition, the

discharges of uranium and thorium from coal-fired plants can potentially produce radiological

doses in excess of those arising from nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 1993).

Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, base air emission standards and

requirements on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific emission

limits as needed to protect human health. Given the regulatory oversight exercised by the EPA

and State agencies, the staff concludes that the human health impacts from radiological doses

and inhaled toxins and particulates generated from coal-fired generation would be SMALL.

Other Impacts

Approximately 450 ha (1100 ac) of land would need to be converted to industrial use for the

powerblock, infrastructure and support facilities, coal and limestone storage and handling, and

landfill disposal of ash and scrubber sludge (Southern 2008). Additional land would be needed

for a new transmission line right-of-way. Land-use changes would occur offsite in an

undetermined coal-mining area to supply coal for the plant. Overall, the staff concludes that

land-use impacts would be MODERATE.

August 2008 9-9 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

The impacts on water use and quality from constructing and operating a coal-fired plant at the

VEGP site would be comparable to the impacts associated with a new nuclear plant. Cooling

water would likely be withdrawn directly from the Savannah River. Plant discharges would

consist mostly of cooling tower blowdown, characterized primarily by an increased temperature

and concentration of dissolved solids relative to the receiving waterbody and intermittent low

concentrations of biocides (e.g., chlorine). Treated process waste streams and sanitary

wastewater may also be discharged. All discharges would be regulated by the Georgia

Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) through a National Pollution Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permit. Indirectly, water quality could be affected by acids and mercury from

air emissions. The water would be consumed because of evaporation from the cooling towers.

In NUREG-1437 for license renewal, the staff determined that some erosion and sedimentation

would likely occur during construction of new facilities (NRC 1996). Overall, the staff concludes

that the water-use and water-quality impacts would be SMALL.

The coal-fired generation alternative would introduce impacts from construction and new

incremental impacts from operations. The impacts could include wildlife habitat loss and

fragmentation, reduced productivity, and a local reduction in biological diversity. The impacts

could occur at the ESP site and at the sites used for coal and limestone mining. Extraction of

cooling make-up water could have adverse impacts on aquatic resources. Construction and

maintenance of a new transmission line would have ecological impacts. Cooling tower drift

would have minimal impacts on terrestrial ecology. Disposal of fly ash could affect water quality

and the aquatic environment. The impacts on threatened and endangered species at the VEGP

site would be similar to the impacts from a new nuclear facility. Overall, the staff concludes that

the ecological impacts would be MODERATE.

Socioeconomic impacts would result from the approximately 200 workers needed to operate the

coal-fired facility, demands on housing and public services during construction, and the loss of

jobs after construction. Overall, the staff concludes that these impacts would be SMALL to

MODERATE, resulting from the mitigating influence of the site's proximity to the surrounding

population area and the relatively small number of workers needed to operate the plant. The

plant would pay significant property taxes to Burke County. Considering the population and

economic condition of the county, the staff concludes that the taxes would have a LARGE

beneficial impact on the county.

The four coal-fired powerblock units would be as much as 60 m (200 ft) tall and would be visible

offsite during daylight hours. The four exhaust stacks would be as much as 180 m (600 ft) high.

The stacks and associated emissions would likely be visible in daylight hours for distances

greater than 16 km (10 mi). Cooling towers and associated plumes also would have aesthetic

impacts. Natural draft towers could be up to 180 m (600 ft) high. The powerblock units and

associated stacks and cooling towers would also be visible at night because of outside lighting.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) generally requires that all structures exceeding an

NUREG-1 872 9-10 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

overall height of 200 ft above ground level have markings and/or lighting so as not to impair

aviation safety (FAA 2000). A mitigating factor is that the VEGP site is currently an industrial

site located in a rural, forested area. The visual impacts of a new coal-fired plant could be

further mitigated by landscaping and color selection for buildings that is consistent with the

environment. Visual impacts at night could be mitigated by reduced use of lighting, provided the

lighting meets FAA requirements, and appropriate use of shielding. The new transmission line

would have a larger aesthetic impact. Overall, the staff concludes that the aesthetic impacts

associated with new coal-fired power generation at the VEGP site would be SMALL, but the

aesthetic impacts of the transmission lines would be MODERATE.

Coal-fired power generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible

offsite. Sources contributing to the noise produced by plant operation are classified as

continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment associated

with normal plant operations and mechanical draft cooling towers. Intermittent sources include

the equipment related to coal handling, solid-waste disposal, transportation related to coal and

lime/limestone delivery, use of outside loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant employees.

Noise impacts associated with rail delivery of coal and lime/limestone would be most significant

for residents living in the vicinity of the facility and along the rail route. Although noise from

'passing trains significantly increases noise levels near the rail corridor, the short duration of the

noise reduces the impacts. Nevertheless, given the frequency of train transport and the fact

that many people are likely to be within hearing distance of the rail line, the impacts of noise on

residents in the vicinity of the facility and of the rail line are considered MODERATE. Noise and

light from the plant would be detectable offsite.

Historic and cultural resource impacts for a new coal-fired plant located at the VEGP site would

be similar to the impacts for a new nuclear plant as discussed in Sections 4.6 and 5.6. A

cultural resources inventory would likely be needed for any onsite property that has not been

previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to support the plant would also likely

need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and recording of existing historic and

archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of the adverse effect from ground-disturbing

actions. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the plant

site, any offsite affected areas, such as mining and waste-disposal sites, and along associated

rights-of-way where new construction would occur, for example, roads and transmission line

rights-of-way. The staff concludes that the historic and cultural resource impacts would be

MODERATE.

As discussed in Section 2.10, there are large proportions of minority and low-income persons in

the population near the VEGP site. Environmental impacts on minority and low-income

populations associated with a coal-fired plant at the VEGP site could be SMALL to MODERATE,

depending on the distribution and intensity of adverse air-quality impacts on the local

population.

August 2008 9-11 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

The construction and operation impacts of coal-fired power generation at the VEGP site are

summarized in Table 9-1.

9.2.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation

For the natural gas alternative, the staff assumed construction and operation of a natural-gasfired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system and cooling towers located at the VEGP site. The

staff assumed that the natural-gas-fired plant would use combined-cycle combustion turbines,

which is consistent with the Southern ESP application (Southern 2008). The staff used the

Southern assumption of four units with a net capacity of 530 MW(e) per unit (Southern 2008).

The staff also assumed the construction of an additional transmission line right-of-way, as

discussed in Section 3.3 of this EIS.

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation

Impact Category Impact Comment

Land use MODERATE Uses approximately 450 ha (1100 ac) for powerblock; coal

handling, storage, and transportation facilities; infrastructure

facilities; waste disposal; and cooling-water facilities. Additional

land needed for a new transmission line right-of-way. Mining

activities would have additional impacts offsite.

Air quality MODERATE SO 2- 5068 MT (5587 tons) per year

NO, - 1647 MT (1815 tons) per year

CO- 1647 MT (1815 tons) per year

PM10 - 82.6 MT (91 tons) per year

PM2,

5 - 0.35 MT (0.39 tons) per year

Small amounts of hazardous air pollutants

Water use and quality SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for a new nuclear

power plant located at the VEGP site.

Ecology MODERATE Uses the undeveloped upland area of the VEGP site and

probably some adjacent offsite undeveloped land. Potential

upland hardwood forest loss and fragmentation, reduced

productivity and biological diversity, and impacts on terrestrial

ecology from cooling tower drift. Additional impacts are

associated with coal mining and construction of a rail spur.

Waste management MODERATE Total waste volume would be approximately 715,000 MT

(788,000 tons) per year of ash and an additional 197,800 MT

(218,000 tons) per year of scrubber sludge.

Socioeconomics LARGE Construction-related impacts would be noticeable. Impacts

Beneficial to during operation would be minor. Local property tax base

MODERATE would benefit mainly during operations. Depending on where

Adverse the workforce lives, the construction-related impacts would be

noticeable or minor. Impacts during operation likely would be

smaller than during construction. The plant and new

NUREG-1872 9-12 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Table 9-1. (contd)

Impact Category Impact Comment

transmission line would have aesthetic impacts. Some offsite

noise impacts would occur.

Human health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of

human health.

Historic and cultural MODERATE Any potential impacts could likely be effectively managed.

resources Most of the facility and infrastructure would be built on

previously disturbed ground.

Environmental justice SMALL to There is a high proportion of minority and low-income persons

MODERATE in the local population. Impacts would depend on the

distribution and intensity of adverse air-quality impacts on this

population.

Air Quality

Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel. When compared to a coal-fired plant, a naturalgas-fired plant would release similar types of emissions but in lower quantities.

A new natural-gas-fired power generation plant would likely need a prevention of significant

deterioration permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act. A new natural-gas-fired,

combined-cycle plant would also be subject to the new source performance standards specified

in 40 CFR 60, Subparts Da and GG. These regulations establish emission limits for

particulates, opacity, S02, and NOx.

The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR 51, Subpart P,

including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in areas

designated as in attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act. The VEGP site is in an

area designated as in attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.311).

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing

future impairment of visibility and remedying existing impairment in mandatory Class I Federal

areas when impairment is from air pollution caused by human activities. In addition, EPA

regulations provide that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a State, State

regulatory agencies must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress toward 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 new natural-gas-fired power plant were. located close to a mandatory Class I area, additional

August 2008 9-13 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

air-pollution control requirements could be imposed. There are no mandatory Class I Federal

areas within 160 km (100 mi) of the VEGP site.

Southern estimates that a natural-gas-fired plant equipped with appropriate pollution control

technology would have approximately the following emissions (Southern 2008):

* SO2 - 153 MT (169 tons) per year

" NO, - 490 MT (540 tons) per year

" CO- 102 MT (112 tons) per year

* PM2.

5 - 85 MT (94 tons) per year.

A natural-gas-fired power plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that

could contribute to global warming.

The combustion turbine portion of the combined-cycle plant would be subject to EPA's National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Combustion Turbines

(40 CFR 63, Subpart YYYY) if the site is a major source of hazardous air pollutants. Major

sources have the potential to emit 9 MT/yr (10 tons/yr) or more of any single hazardous air

pollutant or 23 MT/yt (25 tons/yr) or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants

(40 CFR 63.6085(b)).

The fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be mitigated using BMPs; such

emissions would be temporary.

The impacts of emissions from a natural-gas-fired power generation plant would be clearly

noticeable, but would not be sufficient to destabilize air resources. Overall, the staff concludes

that air-quality impacts resulting from construction and operation of new natural-gas-fired power

generation at the VEGP site would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Waste Management

In NUREG-1437, the staff concluded that waste generation from natural-gas-fired technology

would be minimal (NRC 1996). The only significant waste generated at a natural-gas-fired

power plant would be spent SCR catalyst, which is used to control NO, emissions. The spent

catalyst would be regenerated or disposed of offsite. Other than spent SCR catalyst, waste

generation at an operating natural-gas-fired plant would be largely limited to typical operations

and maintenance waste. Construction-related debris would be generated during construction

activities. Overall, the staff concludes that waste impacts from natural-gas-fired power

generation would be SMALL.

Human Health

In NUREG-1437, the staff identified cancer and emphysema as a potential health risk from

natural-gas-fired plants (NRC 1996). The risk may be attributable to NO, emissions that

NUREG-1872 9-14 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

contribute to ozone formation, which in turn contribute to health risk. Air emissions from a

natural-gas-fired power generation plant located at the VEGP site would be regulated by the

GDNR. The human health effect is expected to be either undetectable or sufficiently minor.

Overall, the staff concludes that the impacts on human health from natural-gas-fired power

generation would be SMALL.

Other Impacts

The natural-gas-fired generating plant would require approximately 64 ha (159 ac) for the

power-block and support facilities (Southern 2008). Construction of a natural gas pipeline from

the VEGP site to the closest natural gas distribution line would require approximately 99 ha

(242 ac) (Southern 2008). Thus, the total land-use commitment would be approximately 160 ha

(400 ac). Additional land would be needed for a new transmission line right-of-way. For any

new natural-gas-fired power plant, additional land would also be required for natural gas wells

and collection stations. In NUREG-1437, the staff estimated that approximately 1460 ha

(3600 ac) would be needed for a 1000-MW(e) plant (NRC 1996). Overall, the land-use impacts

from new natural-gas-fired power generation would be MODERATE.

The impacts on water use and quality from constructing and operating a natural-gas-fired plant

at the VEGP site would be comparable to the impacts associated with constructing and

operating a new nuclear facility. Closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers is assumed. The

impacts on water quality from sedimentation during construction of a natural-gas-fired plant

were characterized in NUREG-1437 as SMALL (NRC 1996). NRC also noted in NUREG-1437

that the impacts on water quality from operations would be similar to, or less than, the impacts

from other generating technologies. Overall, the staff concludes that impacts on water use and

quality would be SMALL.

Siting of the natural-gas-fired plant would have ecological impacts that would be comparable to

a new nuclear facility. Much of the impact would occur in areas that were previously disturbed

during the construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2. Constructing a new underground gas pipeline to

the site would cause temporary ecological impacts. Ecological impacts on the plant site and

utility easements would not affect threatened and endangered species, although some wildlife

habitat loss and fragmentation, reduced productivity, and a local reduction in biological diversity

would be likely. Withdrawal and discharge of make-up water for the cooling system could affect

aquatic resources, and drift of condensation from the cooling towers could affect terrestrial

ecology. Overall, the staff concludes that ecological impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Socioeconomic impacts would result from the approximately 88 workers needed to operate the

natural-gas-fired facility, demands on housing and public services during construction, and the

loss of jobs after construction. Overall, the staff concludes that these impacts would be SMALL

because of the mitigating influence of the site's proximity to the surrounding population area and

the relatively small number of workers needed to construct and operate the plant in comparison

August 2008 9-15 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

to nuclear and coal-fired generation alternatives. The plant would pay property taxes to Burke

County. Considering the population and economic condition of the county, the staff concludes

that the taxes would have a MODERATE beneficial impact on the county.

The turbine buildings, four exhaust stacks (approximately 60 m [200 ft] tall) and associated

emissions, cooling towers, condensation plumes from the cooling towers, and the gas pipeline

compressors would be visible during daylight hours from offsite. Noise and light from the plant

would be detectable offsite. A mitigating factor is that the VEGP site is currently an industrial

site located in a rural, forested area. The new transmission line would have a greater aesthetic

impact. Overall, the staff concludes that the aesthetic impacts associated with new natural-gasfired power generation at the VEGP site would be SMALL, but the impact along new transmission

lines would be MODERATE.

Historic and cultural resource impacts for a new natural gas-fired plant located at the VEGP site

would be similar to the impacts for a new nuclear plant as discussed in Sections 4.6 and 5.6.

A cultural resources inventory would likely be needed for any onsite property that has not been

previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to support the plant would also likely

need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification, and recording of existing historic and

archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of the adverse effect from ground-disturbing

actions. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the plant

site, any offsite affected areas, such as mining and waste-disposal sites, and along associated

rights-of-way where new construction would occur, for example, roads and transmission line

rights-of-way. The staff concludes that the historic and cultural resource impacts would be

MODERATE.

As described in Section 2.10, there are large proportions of minority and low-income persons in

the population around the VEGP site. The impacts of a natural-gas-fired plant at the VEGP site

on minority or low-income populations would depend on the distribution and magnitude of

adverse air-quality impacts, but would likely be SMALL.

Other construction and operation impacts would be SMALL. In most cases, the impacts would

be detectable, but they would not destabilize any important attributes of the resources involved.

Because of the minor nature of these impacts, mitigation beyond that discussed would not be

warranted. The impacts of natural-gas-fired power generation at the VEGP site are summarized

in Table 9-2.

9.2.3 Other Alternatives

This section discusses energy alternatives that Southern determined are not reasonable, the

staff's conclusions about the overall environmental impacts of each alternative, and the staffs

basis for the conclusions. New nuclear units at the VEGP site would be a baseload generation

plant. Any feasible alternative to the new units would need to generate baseload power. In

NUREG-1872 9-16 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

performing its initial evaluation in its ER, Southern relied on NUREG-1437 for license renewal

(NRC 1996). The staff reviewed the information submitted by Southern and conducted an

independent review and finds that Southern's conclusion that these generation options are not

reasonable alternatives to one or more new nuclear units is acceptable.

The staff has not assigned significance levels to the environmental impacts associated with the

alternatives discussed in this section because, in general, the generation alternatives would

have to be installed at a location other than the VEGP site. Any attempt to assign significance

levels would require the staffs speculation about the unknown site.

9.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Power Generation

EIA's reference case projects that oil-fired power plants would not account for any new electric

power generation capacity in the United States through the year 2030 (DOE/EIA 2007). Oilfired generation is more expensive than nuclear, natural-gas-fired, or coal-fired generation

options. In addition, future increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-fired generation

increasingly more expensive. The high cost of oil has resulted in a decline in its use for

electricity generation. In Section 8.3.11 of NUREG-1437 for license renewal, the staff estimated

that construction of a 1000-MW(e) oil-fired plant would require about 49 ha (120 ac) of land

(NRC 1996). Operation of an oil-fired power plant would have environmental impacts that would

be similar to those of a comparably sized coal-fired plant (NRC 1996).

Table 9-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation

Impact Category

Land use

Air quality

Impact

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Comment

Approximately 160 ha (400 ac) would be needed for powerblock, cooling towers and support systems, and connection to

a natural gas pipeline. Additional land needed for transmission

line right-of-way, infrastructure, and other facilities.

SO 2 - 153 MT (169 tons) per year

NO, - 490 MT (540 tons) per year

CO - 102 MT (112 tons) per year

PM2.

5 - 85 MT (94 tons) per year

Some hazardous air pollutants

Water use and quality

Ecology

Waste management

SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for a new nuclear

power plant located at the VEGP site.

SMALL to Many of the impacts would occur in areas that were previously

MODERATE disturbed during the construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2.

Thus, potential habitat loss and fragmentation and reduced

productivity and biological diversity would be small. Impacts

on terrestrial ecology from cooling tower drift could occur.

SMALL The only significant waste would be from spent SCR catalyst

used for control of NO. emissions.

August 2008 9-17 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

I Table 9-2. (contd)

Impact Category

Socioeconomics

Human health

Historic and cultural

resources

Environmental justice

Impact

MODERATE

Beneficial to

MODERATE

Adverse

Table 

9. (cotd)

Comment

Construction and operations workforces would be relatively

small. Addition to property tax base, while smaller than for a

nuclear or coal-fired plant, might still be quite noticeable.

Construction-related impacts would be noticeable. Impacts

during operation would be minor because of the small workforce involved. The plant and new transmission line would

have aesthetic impacts.

SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of

human health.

MODERATE Any potential impacts could likely be effectively managed.

Most of the facility and infrastructure would be built on

previously disturbed ground.

SMALL High proportion of minority and low-income in local population,

but adverse health impacts would not be likely.

For the preceding economic and environmental reasons, the staff concludes that an oil-fired

power plant at or in the vicinity of the VEGP site would not be a reasonable alternative to

construction of a 2234-MW(e) nuclear power generation facility that would be operated as a

baseload plant.

9.2.3.2 Wind Power

Most of Georgia and South Carolina are in a wind power Class 1 region (average wind speeds

lower than 5.6 m/s) (DOE 2005). Class 1 regions have the lowest potential for wind energy

generation. Class 1 areas are unsuitable for wind energy development (DOE 2005). Wind

turbines typically operate at a 25 to 40 percent capacity factor compared to 90 to 95 percent for

a baseload plant such as a nuclear plant (AWEA 1998). The largest operating wind farm is over

700 MW (AWEA 2007a), but most are well under 200 MW. A utility-scale wind generation plant

would generally require about 24 ha (60 ac) per MW of installed capacity, although much of this

land could be used for other purposes (AWEA 2007b). With modern wind turbine designs, well

over 1000 wind turbines would be required to produce the 2234 MW(e) of the proposed nuclear

units.

Southern Company and the Georgia Institute of Technology studied the viability of offshore wind

turbines in the southeast (Southern Company and GIT 2007). Among the conclusions of the

study authors were the following: (1) the available wind data indicates that a wind farm located

offshore in Georgia would likely have an adequate wind speed to support a project, although

offshore project costs run approximately 50-100 percent higher than land based systems;

(2) based on today's prices for wind turbines, the 20-year levelized cost of electricity produced

from an offshore wind farm would be above the current production costs from existing power

NUREG-1872 9-18 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

generation facilities; (3) the current commercially available offshore wind turbines are not built to

withstand major hurricanes above a Category 3 or a 1-min sustained wind speed of 200 km/h

(124 mph); and (4) the U.S. Department of Interior Minerals Management Service (MMS) has

jurisdiction, as authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, over alternative energy-related

projects on the outer continental shelf, including wind power developments. MMS has been

authorized to complete a rulemaking process outlining the permitting requirements for such

projects. Until these regulations are finalized, only limited activities toward the development of

an offshore wind farm in Federal waters can be conducted.

For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that a wind energy facility at or in the vicinity

of the VEGP site would not currently be a reasonable alternative to construction of a

2234-MW(e) nuclear power generation facility that would be operated as a baseload plant.

9.2.3.3 Solar Power

Solar technologies use energy and light from the sun to provide heating and cooling, light,

hot water, and electricity for consumers. Solar power technologies (both photovoltaic and

thermal) cannot currently compete with conventional nuclear and fossil-fueled technologies

in grid-connected applications because of solar power's higher capital cost per kilowatt of

capacity. Energy storage requirements also limit the use of solar energy systems as

baseload electricity supply. In NUREG-1437 for license renewal, the staff determined that the

average capacity factor of photovoltaic cells is about 25 percent, and the capacity factor for

solar thermal systems is about 25 to 40 percent (NRC 1996).

Construction of solar generating facilities has substantial impacts on natural resources (such as

wildlife habitat, land use, and aesthetics). As stated in NUREG-1437, land requirements are

high - 142 km 2 (55 mi2) per 1000 MW(e) for photovoltaic (NRC 1996) and approximately 57 km 2

(22 mi2) per 1000 MW(e) for solar thermal systems (NRC 1996). Neither type of solar electric

system would fit the land area footprint available at the VEGP site.

For flat-plate solar collectors, Georgia has good available resources throughout the State. For

concentrating solar collectors, Georgia could pursue some types of technologies, but largescale thermal utility systems would not be effective (DOE 2006a).

For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that a solar energy facility at or in the vicinity of

the VEGP site would not currently be a reasonable alternative to construction of a 2234-MW(e)

nuclear power generation facility that would be operated as a baseload plant.

9.2.3.4 Hydropower

Georgia has an estimated 613 MW of developable hydroelectric resources (INEEL 1998). As

stated in Section 8.3.4 of NUREG-1437 for license renewal (NRC 1996), the percentage of

August 2008 9-19 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

U.S. generating capacity supplied by hydropower is expected to decline because hydroelectric

facilities have become difficult to site as a result of public concerns about flooding, destruction of

natural habitat, and alteration of natural river courses. In NUREG-1437, the staff estimated that

land requirements for hydroelectric power are approximately 400,000 ha (1 million ac) per

1000 MW(e) (NRC 1996).

Because of the relatively low amount of undeveloped hydropower resource in Georgia and the

large land-use and related environmental and ecological resource impacts associated with siting

hydroelectric facilities large enough to produce 2234 MW(e), the staff concludes that local

hydropower is not a feasible alternative to construction of a new nuclear power generation

facility operated as a baseload plant at the VEGP site.

9.2.3.5 Geothermal Energy

Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload

power where available. However, geothermal technology is not widely used as baseload power

generation because of the limited geographical availability of the resource and immature status

of the technology (NRC 1996). Geothermal plants are most likely to be sited in the western

continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii, where hydrothermal reservoirs are prevalent

(DOE 2006c). Geothermal systems have a relatively small footprint and minimal emissions

(MIT 2006). Georgia does have high-temperature geothermal resources that are suitable for

direct heating applications (DOE 2006a). A recent study led by the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology concluded that a $300-$400 million investment over 15 years would be needed to

make early-generation enhanced geothermal system power plant installations competitive in the

evolving U.S. electricity supply markets (MIT 2006).

For these reasons, the staff concludes that a geothermal energy facility at or in the vicinity of the

VEGP site would not currently be a reasonable alternative to construction of a 2234-MW(e)

nuclear power generation facility operated as a baseload plant.

9.2.3.6 Wood Waste

In NUREG-1437 for license renewal, the staff determined that a wood-burning facility can

provide baseload power and operate with an average annual capacity factor of around 70 to

80 percent and with 20 to 25 percent efficiency (NRC 1996). The fuels required are variable

and site-specific. A significant impediment to the use of wood waste to generate electricity is

the high cost of fuel delivery and high construction cost per megawatt of generating capacity.

The larger wood-waste power plants are only 40 to 50 MW(e) in size. Estimates in

NUREG-1437 suggest that the overall level of construction impacts per megawatt of installed

capacity would be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities using

wood waste for fuel would be built at smaller scales (NRC 1996). Similar to coal-fired plants,

NUREG-1872 9-20 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

wood-waste plants require large areas for fuel storage and processing and involve the same

type of combustion equipment.

Because of uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a

baseload power plant, the ecological impacts of large-scale timber cutting (for example, soil

erosion and loss of wildlife habitat), and high inefficiency, the staff determined that wood waste

would not be a reasonable alternative to a 2234-MW(e) nuclear power generation facility

operated as a baseload plant.

9.2.3.7 Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal solid-waste combustors incinerate the waste and use the resultant heat to produce

steam, hot water, or electricity. The combustion process can reduce the volume of waste by up

to 90 percent and the weight of the waste by up to 75 percent (EPA 2006). Municipal waste

combustors use three basic types of technologies: mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived fuel

(DOE/EIA 2001). Mass burning technologies are most commonly used in the United States.

This group of technologies processes raw municipal solid waste "as is," with little or no sizing,

shredding, or separation before combustion. In NUREG-1437 for license renewal, the staff

determined that the initial capital cost for municipal solid-waste plants is greater than for

comparable steam-turbine technology at wood-waste facilities because of the need for

specialized waste-separation and waste-handling equipment for municipal solid waste

(NRC 1996).

Municipal solid-waste combustors generate an ash residue that is buried in landfills. The ash

residue is composed of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash refers to that portion of the

unburned waste that falls to the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly ash represents the small

particles that rise from the furnace during the combustion process. Fly ash is generally

removed from flue gases using fabric filters and/or scrubbers (DOE/EIA 2001).

Currently, approximately 89 waste-to-energy plants are operating in the United States. These

plants generate approximately 2700 MW(e), or an average of approximately 30 MW(e) per plant

(IWSA 2007). Given the small size of the plants, the staff concludes that generating electricity

from municipal solid waste would not be a reasonable alternative to a 2234-MW(e) nuclear

power generation facility operated as a baseload plant.

9.2.3.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels

In addition to wood and municipal solid-waste fuel, several other biomass-derived fuels are

available for fueling electric generators, including burning crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel

such as ethanol, and gasifying crops (including wood waste). In NUREG-1437 for license

renewal, the staff determined that none of these technologies has progressed to the point of

being competitive on a large scale or of being reliable enough to replace a large baseload

August 2008 9-21 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

generating plant (NRC 1996). EIA states that biomass is the largest source of renewable

electricity generation among the nonhydropower renewable fuels (DOE/EIA 2007). Co-firing

biomass with coal is relatively inexpensive when low-cost biomass resources are available

(DOE/EIA 2007). A 2003 study concluded that use of biomass-derived fuels for electricity

generation in Georgia was not currently economically competitive with existing generation

technologies (Curtis et al. 2003).

In its January 2007 Integrated Resource Plan filed with the GPSC, GPC stated that biomass

(i.e., wood, wood waste, and agricultural residues) are widely available in the southeast and that

a dedicated biomass-fired power plant capable of generating 50 MW to 100 MW of power is

feasible. A major consideration is obtaining fuel under a long-term contract and at a reasonable

price. The plant may convert the biomass to a gas for combustion in a turbine that would drive

a generator to produce electricity. Because of its low energy-density in raw form, raw biomass

tends to have a high transportation cost. This places an upper limit on the size of a dedicated

biomass-consuming power plant (GPC 2007).

Although biomass can potentially provide some new baseload power in Georgia, the staff

concludes that biomass-derived fuels do not offer a reasonable alternative to a 2234-MW(e)

nuclear power generation facility operated as a baseload plant.

9.2.3.9 Fuel Cells

Fuel cells work without combustion and its associated environmental side effects. Power is

produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode, air over a cathode,

and then separating the two by an electrolyte. The only by-products are heat, water, and

carbon dioxide. Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon resources by subjecting

them to steam under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the source of hydrogen.

Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. Highertemperature, second-generation fuel cells achieve higher fuel-to-electricity and thermal

efficiencies. The higher temperatures contribute to improved efficiencies and give the secondgeneration fuel cells the capability to generate steam for cogeneration and combined-cycle

operations.

During the past three decades, significant efforts have been made to develop more practical

and affordable fuel cell designs for stationary power applications, but progress has been slow.

The cost of fuel cell power systems must be reduced before they can be competitive with

conventional technologies (DOE 2006b).

The staff concludes that, at the present time, fuel cells are not economically or technologically

competitive with other alternatives for baseload electricity generation. Future gains in cost

competitiveness for fuel cells compared to other fuels are speculative.

NUREG-1 872 9-22 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that a fuel cell energy facility located at or in the

vicinity of the VEGP site would not currently be a reasonable alternative to construction of a

2234-MW(e) nuclear power generation facility operated as a baseload plant.

9.2.4 Combination of Alternatives

Individual alternatives to the construction of one or more new nuclear units at the VEGP site

might not be sufficient on their own to generate Southern's target value of 2234 MW(e) because

of the small size of the resource or lack of cost-effective opportunities. Nevertheless, it is

conceivable that a combination of alternatives might be cost effective. There are many possible

combinations of alternatives.

Section 9.2.2.2 assumes the construction of four 530-MW(e) natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle

generating units at the VEGP site using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers. For a combined

alternatives option, the staff assessed the environmental impacts of an assumed combination of

three 530-MW(e) natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle generating units at the VEGP site using

closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers, 60 MW of wind energy, 60 MW of hydropower, 100 MW

from biomass sources including municipal solid waste, and 424 MW from conservation and

demand-side management programs. A summary of the environmental impacts associated with

the construction and operation of this combination of alternatives is in Table 9-3.

Table 9-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources

Impact

Category Impact Comment

Land use M

Air quality

Water use and

quality

M

ODERATE A natural-gas-fired plant would have land-use impacts for the powerblock, new transmission line right-of-way, cooling towers and support

systems, and-connection to a natural gas pipeline. Wind, hydro, and

biomass facilities and associated transmission lines would also have

land-use impacts.

3MALL to Emissions from the. natural-gas-fired plant would be approximately:

ODERATE S02- 115 MT (127 tons) per year

NO, - 367 MT (405 tons) per year

CO - 76 MT (84 tons) per year

PM2.

5 - 64 MT (71 tons) per year

Municipal solid waste and biomass facilities would also have

emissions.

SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for a new nuclear power

plant located at the VEGP site.

August 2008 9-23 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Table 9-3. (contd)

Impact

Category Impact Comment

biological diversity would likely be minimal. Impacts on terrestrial

ecology from cooling tower drift could occur. Wind energy facilities

could result in some avian mortality. Hydropower facilities would

impact terrestrial and aquatic habitat.

Waste SMALL to The only significant waste would be from spent SCR catalyst used for

management MODERATE control of NO, emissions and ash from biomass and municipal solidwaste sources.

Socioeconomics MODERATE Construction and operations workforces would be relatively small.

Beneficial to Addition to property tax base, while smaller than for a nuclear or coalMODERATE fired plant, might still be quite noticeable. Construction-related impacts

Adverse would be noticeable. Impacts during operation would be minor

because of the small workforce involved. The plant and new

transmission line would have aesthetic impacts.

Human health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of human health.

Historic and MODERATE Any potential impacts could likely be effectively managed. Most of the

cultural facilities and infrastructure at the site would likely be built on previously

resources disturbed ground.

Environmental SMALL Some impacts on housing availability and prices during construction

justice may occur, as might beneficial impacts from property tax revenues.

9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Table 9-4 contains a summary of the staffs environmental impact characterizations for

constructing and operating new nuclear, coal-fired, and natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle

generating units at the VEGP site. The combination of alternatives shown in Table 9-4 assumes

siting of natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle units at the ESP site and siting of other generating

units in the general vicinity (within 160 km [100 mi]) of the site. Closed-cycle cooling with

natural draft or mechanical cooling towers is assumed for all thermal plants.

The staff reviewed the available information on the environmental impacts of power generation

alternatives compared to the construction of new nuclear units at the VEGP site. Based on this

review, the staff concludes that, from an environmental perspective, none of the viable energy

alternatives are clearly preferable to construction of a new baseload nuclear power generation

plant.

NUREG-1872 9-24 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

9.3 System Design Alternatives

Sections 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 contain information regarding alternative plant cooling systems for the

proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site. Section 9.3.1 discusses use of a once-through

cooling system and Section 9.3.2 discusses use of a dry or hybrid wet/dry heat dissipation

system.

Table 9-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Construction and Operation of New

Nuclear, Coal-Fired, and Natural-Gas-Fired Generating Units, and a Combination

of Alternatives

Impact Category

Land use

Air quality

Water use and quality

Ecology

Waste management

Socioeconomics

Human health

Historic and cultural resources

Environmental justice

Nuclear

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

LARGE

Beneficial to

MODERATE

Adverse

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL

Coal

MODERATE

MODERATE

SMALL

MODERATE

MODERATE

LARGE

Beneficial to

MODERATE

Adverse

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Natural Gas

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

MODERATE

Beneficial to

MODERATE

Adverse

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL

Combination of

Alternatives

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE

Beneficial to

MODERATE

Adverse

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL

The purpose of the plant cooling system is to dissipate heat to the environment. The various

cooling system options differ in how and where the heat transfer takes place and, hence, have

different environmental impacts. For the natural draft wet tower cooling system proposed for

both VEGP Units 3 and 4, waste heat is transferred to the atmosphere primarily through

evaporation and conduction. Water would be lost from the cooling system due to evaporation,

drift, and tower blowdown discharge, and make-up water would be supplied from the

Savannah River. Southern states in its ER that approximately 50 to 75 percent of the make-up

water flow would be used to replace evaporative water losses with the remaining 25 to

50 percent of the water losses resulting from tower blowdown (Southern 2008). Cooling

system water losses resulting from drift are minor in comparison to evaporative and

August 2008 9-25 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

blowdown discharge losses, and the maximum drift rate reported by Southern is 24 gpm when

both towers are operating (Southern 2008).

9.3.1 Plant Cooling System - Once-Through Operation

A once-through cooling system for VEGP Units 3 and 4 would not employ cooling towers,

instead it would transfer waste heat to the atmosphere and aquatic environment of the

Savannah River by convection, evaporation, long-wave radiation, and conduction. This type of

cooling design would withdraw a larger volume of water from the Savannah River through the

intakes as compared to the proposed wet tower design.

Southern states in its ER that the water withdrawal requirements for a once-through cooling

system would be 53.5 m3

/s (1890 cfs) per unit (Southern 2008). Therefore, if both VEGP Units

3 and 4 were operating with once-through cooling, the combined water withdrawal rate would be

107 m3/s (3780 cfs). Staff computed the Savannah River flow statistics for the Jackson, South

Carolina, streamflow gage, which is approximately 6 mi upstream of the site, between October

1971 and when the gage was discontinued (September 2002). The average daily Savannah

River flow rate during the period-of-record was 250 m3

/s (8830 cfs), and the minimum discharge

was 91.18 m3/s (3220 cfs). Surface-water withdrawals for VEGP Units 3 and 4 using oncethrough cooling represent 43 percent of the average Savannah River discharge passing the site,

and could potentially be greater than the river discharge during times of drought. As discussed

on Section 2.6.1.1 of this EIS, the once-through cooling system withdrawal would also

approximately equal the total discharge released from Thurmond Dam 108 m3/s (3800 cfs)

under Drought Level 3 conditions.

Based on the quantity of water that would be withdrawn from the Savannah River to cool the

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 using once-through cooling, the staff concludes that a wet tower

cooling system would be preferable to a once-through cooling system. See Sections 7.3.1 and

7.5 for additional information.

9.3.2 Dry or Hybrid Wet/Dry Cooling Towers

The use of a dry cooling system design versus the proposed combination wet tower design for

VEGP Units 3 and 4 would largely eliminate the impacts on aquatic biota in the Savannah River.

Dry cooling towers would eliminate thermal and chemical discharges associated with the plant

cooling system as well as any losses to aquatic organisms due to impingement and

entrainment.

However, a dry cooling tower also has some disadvantages. In comparing dry cooling and wet

cooling, EPA (66 FR 65256) found there are additional expenses associated with dry cooling,

making this technology less cost effective. In addition, to achieve the necessary cooling, dry

systems must move a large amount of air through a heat exchanger, and the fans that move the

NUREG-1872 9-26 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

air consume a significant amount of power. This, in turn, would increase the environmental

impacts of fuel use and spent fuel transport and storage relative to the net electrical power

production. The fans and the large volume of air required for cooling also result in elevated

noise levels. The dry cooling system would also occupy more land than a mechanical or natural

draft wet-cooling tower system, affecting site land use and increasing terrestrial impacts.

Hybrid wet/dry cooling towers employ both a wet section and a dry section and reduce or

eliminate the visible plumes associated with wet cooling towers. Consumptive water use for the

hybrid wet/dry cooling alternative is bounded by the wet cooling towers water use. Compared to

the wet cooling towers, less evaporation, make-up water, and blowdown are involved in the

hybrid wet/dry process, therefore reducing water-related impacts. However, the disadvantages

of dry cooling still apply to the dry cooling portion of the heat dissipation process. The dry

cooling process is not as efficient as the wet cooling process because it requires the movement

of a large amount of air through the heat exchanger to achieve the necessary cooling. This

results in a net loss of electrical power for distribution, which would increase the environmental

impacts of fuel use and spent fuel transport and storage. In addition, the hybrid wet/dry cooling

towers would occupy more land than a wet cooling tower system, affecting site land use and

increasing terrestrial impacts.

Even with the disadvantages described above, a dry or hybrid wet/dry cooling system could be

a preferred option if a wet tower system would cause significant adverse impacts to water

availability, water quality, or aquatic resources. However, as described in Sections 5.3 and

5.4.2, the staff found that the impacts of the proposed natural draft, wet tower system on

water use, water quality, and aquatic resources would be SMALL. Therefore, the staff

concludes that neither a dry or hybrid wet/dry cooling system would be preferable to the

proposed wet tower system for VEGP Units 3 and 4.

9.4 Region of Interest and Alternative Site-Selection Process

NRC regulations require that the ER submitted in conjunction with an application for an ESP

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

exists to the site proposed (10 CFR 52.17(a)(2)). This section includes a discussion of

Southern's ROI for possible siting of a new nuclear power plant and Southern's alternative siteselection process.

9.4.1 Southern's Region of Interest

Generally, the ROI is the geographic area considered in searching for candidate ESP sites

(NRC 2000). The ROI is typically the State in which the proposed site is located or the relevant

service area for the proposed plant (NRC 2000).

August 2008 9-27 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Southern selected its three-state service area (Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi) as its ROI

(Southern 2008). Southern's designated ROI is consistent with the preceding ROI description in

NRC's Environmental Standard Review Plan (NRC 2000). The staff concludes that the ROI

used in Southern's ESP application is reasonable for consideration and analysis of potential

ESP sites. The staff also finds that Southern's basis for defining its ROI did not arbitrarily

exclude desirable candidate ESP locations.

9.4.2 Southern's Site-Selection Process

Southern determined that the advantages of co-locating new nuclear generating units with an

existing power plant owned by Southern outweighed the potential advantages of other possible

siting alternatives (Southern 2008). The following potential advantages of co-location were

identified by Southern (Southern 2008):

* The total number of required generating sites is reduced.

" Construction of new transmission line rights-of-way may not be required due to potential use

of existing rights-of-way.

" No additional land acquisitions would be necessary, and Southern can readily obtain control

of the property.

* The site has already gone through the alternatives review process mandated by the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and was the subject of extensive environmental

screening during the original site-selection process.

" The site development costs and environmental impact of any preconstruction activities

would be reduced.

" Construction, installation, and operation and maintenance costs would be reduced because

of existing site infrastructure.

Based on the preceding advantages, Southern limited its identification of potential sites for new

nuclear generation units to sites with existing electric power generation facilities owned by

Southern. Within its ROI, Southern selected the following existing Southern plant sites as

potential sites for new nuclear units (Southern 2007b):

Alabama Georgia

Plant Barry (coal) Plant Bowen (coal)

Plant Gaston (coal) Plant Branch (coal)

Plant Gorgas (coal) Plant Hammond (coal)

Plant Greene County (coal) Plant Scherer (coal)

Plant Miller (coal) Plant Hatch (nuclear)

Plant Farley (nuclear) Plant Vogtle (nuclear)

The Barton Site (nuclear greenfield)

NUREG-1872 9-28 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

The Barton site is an undeveloped greenfield site in central Alabama that was originally

proposed for a four-unit nuclear plant in the 1970s, but never developed (Southern 2008).

Southern's principal criteria for selecting the potential sites were the availability of sufficient land

for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors and the availability of sufficient cooling water for the

units (Southern 2007b).

Southern screened its list of potential sites to the following candidate sites: Plant Farley, Plant

Hatch, the Barton greenfield site, and the VEGP site. In selecting the four candidate sites,

Southern's existing plant sites with coal-fired power plants were eliminated for the following

reasons (Southern 2007b):

" Co-located nuclear plants offer distinct advantages because of existing infrastructure and

support facilities.

" The environmental impacts of the existing Southern nuclear facilities are known and the

impacts of a co-located new facility should be comparable to those of the operating nuclear

plant.

" Site physical criteria, primarily geologic/seismic suitability, have been characterized at the

existing Southern nuclear sites; these factors are very important in determining site

suitability.

" Electric power transmission infrastructure is available at the existing Southern nuclear sites

and the sites have nearby power markets.

* The existing Southern nuclear sites have local support and the availability of experienced

personnel.

For the screening of the four candidate sites to a proposed site, Southern performed an

environmental analysis for each candidate site. The analysis is documented in Section 9.3

of Southern's ER and the results are summarized in Tables 9.3-2 and 9.3-3 of the ER

(Southern 2008). Southern's analysis considered the land use, water-related, ecological, and

socioeconomic impacts of locating two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at each candidate

site. On the basis of its environmental analysis, Southern selected the VEGP site as its

proposed ESP site. In making this selection, Southern determined that none of the other three

candidate sites was obviously superior to the proposed VEGP site (Southern 2008).

The staff reviewed the siting methodology used by Southern and concluded that Southern's

process for selecting potential and candidate sites and its proposed site was reasonable. In

conducting its review, the staff took into account that the NRC's environmental review guidance

for alternative nuclear plant sites (Environmental Standard Review Plan 9.3) recognizes there

would be special cases for which the proposed site for a new nuclear generating plant was not

selected on the basis of a systematic site-selection process (NRC 2000). One example cited in

August 2008 9-29 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

the guidance is when an existing nuclear power plant site previously found acceptable on the

basis of a review conducted under NEPA is proposed for the siting of a new nuclear plant.

9.5 Evaluation of Alternative Sites

The three alternative ESP sites examined in detail in this section are Plant Hatch, located in

Appling and Toombs Counties, Georgia; Plant Farley, located in Houston County, Alabama; and

the Barton greenfield site, located in Chilton and Elmore Counties, Alabama. The staff visited

each of the three alternative sites and the proposed VEGP site. The staff collected and

analyzed reconnaissance-level information for each of the three alternative sites. Section 9.7

contains tables of the staff s characterization of the impacts at the alternative sites.

As mentioned previously, the staff analyzes the impacts of construction and operation of the

proposed action in Chapters 4 and 5, and discusses cumulative impacts in Chapter 7. As a

result of the NRC's recent new rule on limited work authorizations for nuclear power plants (see

72 FR 57416), the definition of construction activities in 10 CFR 50.10 has changed to more

clearly reflect NRC's jurisdiction. The staffs draft EIS for the Vogtle ESP review was published

prior to the issuance of the final rule. To reflect the effects of the new rule, site-preparation and

preconstruction activities would most appropriately be analyzed in the staffs EIS as cumulative

impacts rather than as impacts of construction or operation of the proposed facility. However, in

this instance, to ensure appropriate consideration of public comments on the draft EIS and to

avoid confusion that might result from reorganizing the document following those comments, the

staff will keep discussions of such impacts (e.g., those no longer defined by regulation as

construction activities) in the chapters in which they were discussed in the draft EIS. While the

staffs analysis of construction activities in the draft EIS and its discussion of cumulative impacts

are different, they are generally at a similar depth of analysis. The staff believes this approach

will allow effective consideration of public comments while still ensuring that impacts relevant to

the NEPA analysis are disclosed and fully evaluated. Accordingly, this chapter of the final EIS,

including the analysis of alternative sites, continues to contain the staffs analysis of those

impacts discussed in Chapter 4 of the draft EIS, such as site-preparation activities and

construction of transmission lines.

9.5.1 Plant Hatch

This section covers the staffs evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting two

new nuclear units at Plant Hatch.

9.5.1.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Plant Hatch is located in Appling and Toombs Counties, Georgia. The plant is located

southeast of where U.S. Highway 1 crosses the Altamaha River (Figure 9-1). The Plant Hatch

site encompasses approximately 906 ha (2240 ac). All of the industrial facilities are located in

NUREG-1872 9-30 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Appling County on a 542-ha (1340-ac) parcel south of the Altamaha River. The site also

includes approximately 360 ha (900 ac) in Toombs County on the north side of the Altamaha

River. Approximately 142 ha (350 ac) of the plant site are composed of wetlands and

transmission rights-of-way. Approximately 650 ha (1600 ac) are managed for timber production

and wildlife habitat (Southern 2008).

The land in the site vicinity is rural and characterized by low, rolling, sandy hills that are

predominately forested. The Plant Hatch site is not subject to the Georgia Coastal Zone

Management Act because the plant is not located within one of the designated Georgia coastal

zone counties (GDNR 2003a).

No new land would be required for the siting of new nuclear reactor units at Plant Hatch. The

footprint of new generating units would be approximately 120 ha (300 ac). An additional 101 ha

(250 ac) would be needed for temporary facilities and laydown yards (Southern 2008).

Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that the land-use impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear reactor units

at the Plant Hatch site would be SMALL.

There are six transmission lines in four transmission line rights-of-way that exit the Plant Hatch

site. The transmission line rights-of-way pass through rolling hills that are primarily a mixture of

cultivated land, grazing land, and managed timberlands. Southern assumed that if new nuclear

reactor units were located at Plant Hatch, one new 500-kV transmission line would be needed

(Southern 2008). The new transmission line would be at least 80 km (50 mi) in length and

would either be installed in a new right-of-way or an expansion of an existing right-of-way

(Southern 2007c). Two of the existing transmission line rights-of-way run through counties

designated under the Georgia Coastal Management Program (GDNR 2003a). Any expansion

of these transmission line rights-of-way would require review under the procedures established

under the Georgia Coastal Management Act. Procedures for siting new transmission lines in

Georgia are discussed in Section 4.1.2 of this EIS.

Because detailed information concerning the routing of the possible new transmission line rightof-way is not known at this time, a complete evaluation of potential land-use impacts cannot be

made. Nevertheless, based on the information it has available, the staff concludes that the

transmission line land-use impacts of constructing two new nuclear power units at the Plant

Hatch site would be SMALL to MODERATE. Operational impacts would be SMALL.

Similar to Burke County, where the VEGP site is located, Appling and Toombs Counties are

designated as being unclassified or in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (40 CFR 81.311). The air-quality impacts of constructing and operating two new

nuclear reactor units at Plant Hatch would be similar to the air-quality impacts at the VEGP site.

August 2008 9-31 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Figure 9-1. Plant Hatch 80-km (50-mi) Vicinity (Southern 2008)

NUREG-1872 9-32 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Therefore, the staff concludes that the air-quality impacts of constructing and operating two new

nuclear generating units at the Plant Hatch site would be SMALL.

9.5.1.2 Water Use and Quality

The staff assumed that a new nuclear facility at Plant Hatch would withdraw make-up water

from the Altamaha River, and that facility cooling water demands would be satisfied with wet

towers. The staff computed the 7Q10 (lowest streamflow that occurs on 7 consecutive days

and has a 10-year recurrence interval period, or a 1-in-1 0 chance of occurring in any one year)

and the 30Q2 (lowest streamfiow that occurs on 30 consecutive days and has a 2-year

recurrence interval period, or a 1-in-2 chance of occurring in any one year) based on data from

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage 02225000 (Altamaha River near Baxley,

Georgia). Data collected from October 1970 to April 2007 were used to estimate the 7Q1 0 and

30Q2 values. This gage is approximately 19 km (12 mi) north of Baxley (Plant Hatch is located

approximately 18 km [11 mi] north), and the drainage area upstream of the flow gage was

reported by the USGS to be 30,000 km 2 (11,600 mi2). The 7Q10 and 30Q2 values computed by

the staff were 47 m3/s (1660 cfs) and 76.2 m3

/s (2690 cfs), respectively. For the calendar years

1971 through 2006, the average annual-mean discharge at the gage was 319.56 m3/s

(11,285 cfs), and the minimum annual-mean discharge was 106.5 m3

/s (3762 cfs).

The net consumptive water loss for the wet towers proposed at the VEGP site was 62 cfs.

Expressed as a percentage of the 7Q1 0 and 30Q2, the consumptive water loss for two

additional units represents 4 and 2 percent, respectively, of the total flow in the Altamaha River.

Southern (2008) estimated cumulative consumptive water loss for the existing and two new

units as 3.1 m3/s (109 cfs), which represents 7 and 4 percent, respectively, of the 7Q10 and

30Q2 flows on the Altamaha River.

Any releases of contaminants to the waters of the State of Georgia would be regulated by

GDNR through the NPDES permit process to ensure that water quality is protected.

Based on the requirements of the NPDES permit and the above analysis, the staff concludes

that the water-use and water-quality impacts of two additional units at Plant Hatch would be

SMALL.

9.5.1.3 Terrestrial Resources

The Plant Hatch site encompasses approximately 906 ha (2240 ac), including 360 ha (900 ac)

in southern Toombs County and 542 ha (1340 ac) south of the Altamaha River in northern

Appling County, Georgia. Approximately 120 ha (300 ac) are currently used for general

operation and maintenance. Approximately 142 ha (350 ac) are composed of wetlands and

transmission line rights-of-way, and approximately 650 ha (1600 ac) are actively managed for

wildlife and timber production (Southern 2008).

August 2008 9-33 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

The largest wetlands area covers approximately 40 ha (100 ac) just east of the generating

facilities and cooling towers. Wetlands on the site are typically dominated by bald cypress

(Taxodium distichum) and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). There are approximately 280 ha

(700 ac) of deciduous floodplain forest onsite in the Altamaha River floodplain; this forest is

dominated by blackgum, cypress, oak (Quercus spp.), and hickory (Carya spp.) trees. There

are approximately 160 ha (400 ac) of planted pine forests (loblolly [Pinus taeda] and longleaf

[P. palustris] pines) on the Plant Hatch site, mostly south and southwest of the generating

facilities (NRC 2001).

Southern assumed that structures required for the construction of the proposed project at the Plant

Hatch site would be situated in abandoned fields or developed areas of the existing plant site, and

would avoid sensitive areas such as wetlands and mature forests (Southern 2008).

Several State-listed species of concern were identified on the Plant Hatch site or within the

transmission line rights-of-way during the 1998 and 1999 threatened and endangered species

surveys. Bachman's sparrows (Aimophila aestivalis) (listed as "rare" by GDNR) were observed

in the Florida and Thalmann rights-of-way. One State-listed plant species (yellow pitcherplant

(Sarracenia flava), listed as "unusual" by GDNR) was found on the Plant Hatch site, and five

State-listed species were identified on the transmission line rights-of-way. These consisted

of the parrot pitcherplant (S. psittacina) (threatened), purple honeycomb head

(Balduina atropurpurea) (rare), cutleaf beardtongue (Penstemon dissectus) (rare), yellow

pitcherplant (unusual), and hooded pitcherplant (S. minor) (unusual) (NRC 2001). In addition,

the gopher tortoise (Gopherus Polyphemus) is known to occur in undeveloped portions of Plant

Hatch (Southern 2008). Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (state-threatened) have been

observed by GPC biologists in the vicinity of Plant Hatch (Southern 2008).

Six transmission lines encompassing about 2910 ha (7200 ac) make up the transmission system

connected to the Plant Hatch site. These transmission lines occur in four rights-of-way. The

Plant Hatch transmission lines are primarily within the Coastal Plain physiographic province, but

the western portion of the Bonaire 500-kV transmission line enters the Sandhills physiographic

province. The transmission lines extend for a distance of nearly 160 km (100 mi) in several

different directions from the plant site, and therefore traverse the full range of habitat types and

geophysical conditions typically found in south-central Georgia (NRC 2001). These lines traverse

a variety of land-use areas including urban and suburban, agricultural, forested, sandhills,

floodplains, and abandoned fields. The lines cross three designated Wildlife Management Areas:

Ocmulgee, Paulk's Pasture, and the Little Satilla. Otherwise, the lines do not cross any State or

Federal parks, National wildlife refuges, or State wildlife management areas. The lines do not

cross any "critical habitats" as defined in the Endangered Species Act (Southern 2008).

NUREG-1872 9-34 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Construction Impacts

The footprint of a new plant would be approximately 120 ha (300 ac) and an additional 101 ha

(250 ac) would be required for temporary facilities and laydown yards. The proposed project

could be configured to fit within the existing, previously disturbed area of the Plant Hatch site

(Southern 2008).

Southern assumed that construction of new nuclear units at Plant Hatch would require the

addition of one 500-kV transmission line, within a 60-m (200-ft) wide, 80-km (50-mi) long,

transmission line right-of-way. The additional transmission line could be installed via expansion

of an existing right-of-way, or it could follow a new right-of-way (Southern 2008). At this time,

the location and total number of acres and habitats that would be removed to upgrade the

transmission system are not known.

Southern stated that land clearing associated with construction of the plant and transmission

lines would be conducted according to Federal and State regulations, permit conditions,

existing Southern procedures, good construction practices, and established BMPs

(Southern 2008). Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own

independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from

construction of two new nuclear units at the Plant Hatch site would be SMALL. Because of the

uncertainty concerning the possible routing of a new transmission line right-of-way, the staff

concludes that the terrestrial resource impacts associated with construction of the new

transmission line at the Plant Hatch site could be SMALL to MODERATE.

Operational Impacts

Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the Plant

Hatch site include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. Impacts

resulting from the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines would be of similar

magnitude at all the alternative sites and, thus, cannot be used to discriminate between them.

Therefore, operational impacts to terrestrial. resources are discussed generically in Section

9.6.1.

Threatened and Endangered Species - Terrestrial

Threatened and endangered species surveys were conducted in 1998 and 1999 to evaluate the

presence of plant and animal species listed or proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) as endangered or threatened, or listed by GDNR as endangered, threatened, rare, or

unusual on the Plant Hatch site and associated transmission lines. Several Federally listed

species were observed (or evidence of these species was found) in or adjacent to existing

transmission line rights-of-way during these surveys. The shed skin of an Eastern indigo snake

(Drymarchon corals couperi) (listed as "threatened" by FWS and GDNR), was found in the North

August 2008 9-35 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Tifton transmission line right-of-way. American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) (listed as

"threatened due to similarity of appearance" by FWS), were observed at survey locations in

three transmission line rights-of-way. Red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) (listed as

"endangered" by FWS and GDNR) were observed at two locations adjacent to the Florida

transmission line right-of-way (Southern 2008).

Endangered wood storks (Mycteria americana) were not detected during the 1998 and 1999

field surveys, but have been observed by GPC biologists and natural resources managers in the

general area of the Plant Hatch site. This species is not believed to be nesting in the vicinity of

the plant. Wood storks have been observed in a beaver pond wetlands just east of the existing

cooling towers. Southern stated that land clearing associated with construction of the plant and

transmission lines would be conducted according to Federal and State regulations, permit

conditions, existing Southern procedures, good construction practices, and established BMPs

(Southern 2008).

Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that the impacts to threatened and endangered species from construction of two new

nuclear units at the Plant Hatch site would be SMALL. Because of uncertainty concerning the

possible routing of the transmission line right-of-way, the staff concludes that the threatened and

endangered species impacts associated with construction of the new transmission lines at the

Plant Hatch site could be SMALL to MODERATE.

9.5.1.4 Aquatic Resources

The Altamaha River is the major source of water for Plant Hatch. The Altamaha River, is

relatively undisturbed and has no channelization, dredging or major reservoirs. The existing

Plant Hatch withdraws cooling water from the Altamaha River through a single intake structure

located on the southern shoreline. The intake structure was designed and located to have the

ability to intake water under all river conditions including low flow and probable flood levels.

Water is discharged back into the river via two lines 384 m (1260 ft) downstream from the intake

and approximately 1.2 m (4 ft) below low flow levels (NRC 2001).

The GDNR has classified the Altamaha River as a "High-Priority Water" of the State because of

the presence of high-priority species and diverse aquatic communities within the river's

watershed. The designation is designed to protect aquatic biodiversity in the State and is part of

the state's comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy, which is detailed in "Georgia's Wildlife

Action Plan" (GDNR 2007a).

The Altamaha River supports 74 species of fish representing 25 different families. The

predominant families of fish found in the river include sunfish (Centrarchidae), minnows

(Cyprinidae), suckers (Catostomidae), and catfish (Ictaluridae). Those species available for

recreational fishing in the river include the redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), largemouth bass

NUREG-1872 .9-36 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

(Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus),

black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), and channel

catfish (ictalurus punctatus). The flathead catfish is an exotic species introduced into the

Altamaha River system in the 1970s and it appears to be causing the decline in several native

fish species populations (GDNR 2003b).

In addition to the freshwater species noted above, several species of anadromous fish are also

found in the Altamaha River. Anadromous fish hatch in freshwater, migrate to saltwater to

grow and mature, and then return to freshwater to spawn. The anadromous species found in

the Altamaha include American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (A. mediocris),

blueback herring (A. aestivalis), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) and the shortnose

sturgeon (A. brevirostrum). The American shad is an important commercial species in Georgia

and the Altamaha River supports the largest shad harvest in the State. At one time, the two

species of sturgeon were also fished commercially from the river, but due to declining

populations the shortnose sturgeon is now listed as a Federally endangered species and the

commercial fishery is closed for both species (GDNR 2003b).

Five years of data were collected from 1975 to 1980 for monitoring of entrained and

impinged fish at the intake structure of Plant Hatch. The total number of individual fish

collected during the five years was 165 specimens representing 22 different species. The

majority of the species were collected only once during each of the five years. The most

abundant species collected was the hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus) (NRC 2001). One

sturgeon larva was collected in the vicinity of Plant Hatch in the 1970s. Identification of the

specimen to species was not possible (NRC 2004a).

In 1998, Southern commissioned a freshwater mussel survey of the Altamaha River throughout

a 19-km (12-mi) reach upstream and downstream of Plant Hatch. The survey documented

viable populations of 12 different mussel species, most of which were considered by FWS and

GDNR to be "species of concern" (Southern 2008). Species of concern are those species

whose population numbers are in decline, whose habitat is rapidly disappearing, or whose

status is unknown.

Construction Impacts

New cooling water intake and discharge structures would be required to support additional units

at Plant Hatch. Construction of a new intake would result in the temporary displacement of

aquatic biota within the vicinity of the intake. It is expected that affected biota would return to

the area after construction is complete. Sedimentation due to disturbances of the river bank

and bottom could impact local benthic populations. However, the impacts on aquatic organisms

would be temporary and largely mitigable through the use of BMPs. The staff concludes that

the impact on the aquatic biota of the Altamaha River from construction of two additional units at

the Plant Hatch would be SMALL.

August 2008 9-37 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

In addition, a new 500-kV transmission line with a 60-m (200-ft) wide, 80-km (50-mi) long, rightof-way would be needed. The additional transmission line could be installed via expansion of

an existing right-of-way, or it could follow a new right-of-way (Southern 2008). Because no

information on routing has been provided, the impacts to the aquatic ecosystem in waterbodies

crossed by the new right-of-way is not known. However, assuming the use of BMPs during

construction, the staff concludes that construction of the new transmission lines for Plant Hatch

could be SMALL to MODERATE depending on where the right-of-way is routed and whether a

new or existing right-of-way is used.

Operational Impacts

The staff evaluated the potential for impacts to aquatic populations in the Altamaha River due to

impingement and entrainment resulting from the operation of two nuclear units at Plant Hatch.

The NRC has found that entrainment and impingement of fish'and shellfish has not resulted in

population level effects in facilities that use the cooling system found at Plant Hatch

(closed-cycle with cooling towers). During the license renewal of Plant Hatch, the staff did not

find any significant new information that would cause them to conclude otherwise (NRC 2001).

Thermal effects due to the discharge of heated effluents are expected to be negligible due to the

low discharge flow rates from the new units relative to the river flow. Assuming closed-cycle

cooling system that meets the EPA's Phase I regulations for new facilities (66 FR 65256), with a

maximum through-screen velocity of 0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s) at the cooling water intake, an intake

flow of less than or equal to 5 percent of the mean annual flow of the Altamaha River, and a

design and location of the new intake consistent with the existing intake, then anticipated

impacts to aquatic populations from entrainment and impingement are expected to be minor.

Therefore operation of two additional units at Plant Hatch site is expected to have a SMALL

impact.

Threatened and Endangered Species

The shortnose sturgeon is the only federally listed (endangered or threatened) aquatic species

in the Altamaha River in the vicinity of Plant Hatch. It is listed as a Federal and

State-endangered species. A biological assessment was initiated by the NRC in 2000 to

determine the potential impact from Plant Hatch to the shortnose sturgeon in the Altamaha

River. The assessment was provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) by the

NRC in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The staff specifically

evaluated the potential impacts from impingement, entrainment, thermal effects, and periodic

river maintenance dredging associated with continued plant operation (NRC 2004a). The staff

concluded that Plant Hatch may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the shortnose

sturgeon. The NMFS responded on August 10, 2005 by concluding that continued operation of

the Hatch Plant with periodic maintenance dredging is not likely to adversely affect shortnose

sturgeon (NMFS 2005).

NUREG-1872 9-38 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Based on the biological opinion and assuming a new intake structure would be of similar design

and location to the existing structure, it is unlikely that construction or operation of additional

units at Plant Hatch would have an impact on the shortnose sturgeon populations of the

Altamaha River. Therefore, impacts to the endangered shortnose sturgeon directly related to

construction or operation of two additional units would be minor.

Two State-listed species of molluscs occur in the vicinity of Plant Hatch. The Altamaha

arcmussel (Alasmidonta arcula) is a freshwater mussel that lives in sandy mud below sand bars

in slow-moving water and eddies. It is listed by the State of Georgia as a threatened species

because of its rarity and vulnerability (GDNR 2007b). The species is endemic to the Altamaha

River system and is susceptible to excessive sedimentation and habitat destruction (NRC

2001).

The Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa) is another freshwater mussel endemic to the

Altamaha River system. It is a State-listed endangered species and a candidate for Federal

listing as an endangered species (GDNR 2007b). This mussel can be found buried in sandbars

in swift current areas of the Altamaha River. The Altamaha spinymussel is the largest

spinymussel in the world. It is also highly susceptible to excessive sedimentation in the river

and destruction of its limited habitat (NRC 2001).

Based on the potential for the presence of threatened mussels and mussels of concern in the

Altamaha River in the vicinity of Plant Hatch, the construction could result in some impacts to

mussel species; however, they would be temporary and could be mitigated by time-of-year

restrictions on dredging, implementation of BMPs, and relocation if needed, depending on the

area of disturbance. Operation of the existing facility has not resulted in an adverse impact to

mussel or shortnose sturgeon populations of the Atlamaha River. Therefore the impacts of

construction and operation of two additional units would be expected to be SMALL.

9.5.1.5 Socioeconomics

In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of construction at Plant Hatch near Baxley, Georgia, in

Appling and Toombs Counties, the staff and Southern undertook a reconnaissance survey of

the site using readily obtainable data from the Internet or published sources. The

socioeconomic subsections follow the organizational structure of the socioeconomic discussions

in Sections 2.8, 4.5, and 5.5. Impacts from both construction and station operation are

discussed.

Physical Impacts

Construction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor,

vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emissions. The use of public

roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport construction materials and

August 2008 9-39 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

equipment. The Georgia State Department of Transportation is planning extensive road

improvement work on the existing roads near the site, including U.S. Routes 1 and 280

(GDOT 2006). Offsite areas that would support construction activities (for example, borrow pits,

quarries, and disposal sites) are expected to be already permitted and operational. Impacts on

those facilities from construction of the new units would be small incremental impacts

associated with their normal operation.

Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and

visual intrusions. New units would produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling towers,

transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site would also be

a source of noise. Any noise coming from the proposed VEGP site would be controlled in

accordance with standard noise protection and abatement procedures (Southern 2008). By

inference, this practice is also expected to apply to the Plant Hatch site. Commuter traffic would

be controlled by speed limits. Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits would

minimize the noise level generated by the workforce commuting to Plant Hatch site

(Southern 2008).

Any new units at the Plant Hatch site would have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power

systems. Permits obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions comply with

applicable regulations. In addition, the generators would be operated on a limited, short-term

basis. During normal plant operation, new units would not use a significant quantity of

chemicals that could generate odors that exceed odor threshold values. Good access roads

and appropriate speed limits would minimize the dust generated by the commuting workforce

(Southern 2008).

Construction activities would be temporary and would occur mainly within the boundaries of the

Plant Hatch site. Offsite impacts would represent small incremental changes to offsite services

supporting the construction activities. During station operations, noise levels would be

managed to State and local ordinances. Air-quality permits would be required for the diesel

generators, and chemical use would be limited, which should limit odors. Based on the

information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff concludes that

the physical impacts of construction and operation would be SMALL.

Aesthetics

The Plant Hatch site encompasses approximately 906 ha (2240 ac) and is characterized by low,

rolling sandy hills that are predominantly forested. The developed area at Plant Hatch is located

near the center of a 542 ha (1340 ac) parcel on the south bank of the Altamaha River. The

existing facilities at Plant Hatch are visible from portions of U.S. Highway 1 and from the

adjacent reach of the Altamaha River (Southern 2008).'

NUREG-1872 9-40 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

The construction of new nuclear units at Plant Hatch could be viewed from offsite at certain

locations, but the addition of another facility would not substantially change the view which

results from the current units. There would be a need to construct cooling-water intake and

discharge structures at the site. Additional mechanical or natural draft cooling towers would be

required. The operation of two new nuclear units probably would have visual impacts similar to

those of the existing Plant Hatch units, with the addition of more visible plumes from cooling

towers. The NRC staff concludes that the marginal impacts of construction and operation of

new nuclear units at Plant Hatch on aesthetics would be SMALL. However, depending on the

specific routing, the aesthetic impact of a new 60-m (200-ft)-wide, 80-km (50-mi)-long

transmission line right-of-way could be MODERATE.

Demography

The Plant Hatch site is located in Appling and Toombs Counties, near the town of Baxley,

Georgia. The population distribution around the site is relatively low and dispersed with

typical rural characteristics. In the year 2000, U.S. Census data indicates that Appling

County had a population of 17,419 and Toombs County had a population of 26,067. The

total population within 80 km (50 mi) of the site was approximately 387,582 people

(19.3 persons per km 2), and the population within 32 km (20 mi) of the site was 58,752 people

(18.3 persons per km 2). The nearest large population center (as defined in 10 CFR 100.3),

is Savannah, Georgia, (population approximately 131,510) located approximately 108 km

(67 mi) northeast of the Plant Hatch site (Southern 2008).

Based on the analysis of construction impacts presented in Section 4.5.2 of this EIS,

construction of new nuclear units at Plant Hatch would increase the population in the 80-km

(50-mi) region during the construction phase by approximately 5500 people. The majority of the

current Plant Hatch workforce lives in Appling (30 percent) or Toombs (41 percent) Counties.

The remaining employee residences are distributed throughout 28 counties, mostly within 80 km

(50 mi) of the site. Southern assumes that the residential distribution of the construction

workforce would resemble the residential distribution of the current Plant Hatch workforce. Of

the total population increase, 1650 people (30 percent of 5500) would settle in Appling County

and 2260 people would settle in Toombs County. These numbers constitute 8.7 percent and

9.5 percent of the 2000 populations of Appling and Toombs Counties, respectively.

Impacts are generally considered to be small if plant-related population growth is less than

5 percent of the study area's total population and moderate if growth is between 5 and

20 percent (NRC 2001). The construction employees and their families would represent

MODERATE increases to population in Appling and Toombs Counties and SMALL elsewhere in

the 80-km (50-mi) region.

Southern assumes that operation of new units at the VEGP site (see Section 5.5.2) would

increase the population by 2152 people in the 80-km (50-mi) region. Once again, assuming that

August 2008 9-41 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

approximately 30 percent would settle in Appling County and 41 percent would settle in Toombs

County, the resulting population increase in the region resulting from plant operation would

represent a 4 percent increase for Appling County and a 3 percent increase for Toombs County

and current population levels. The demographic impacts associated with operation of the two

new units would be SMALL.

Social and Economic Impacts

Economy

Based on 2000 census data, within the region surrounding Plant Hatch, 55,445 persons are in

the labor force. Appling County's business profile is led by manufacturing (18.4 percent of the

county's total employment), followed by educational, health, and social services (17.9 percent),

and construction (11.7 percent). The unemployment rate for Appling County in 2004 was

6.1 percent, compared to 4.6 percent for the State of Georgia. In neighboring Toombs County,

the business profile is led by educational, health, and social services (18.4 percent of the

county's total employment), followed by manufacturing (14.9 percent), and retail trade

(9.9 percent). The unemployment rate in Toombs County was 6.0 percent in 2004

(Southern 2008).

Economic impacts would be spread across the 80-km (50-mi) region but would be greatest in

Appling and Toombs Counties. Impacts are generally considered small if plant-related

employment is less than 5 percent of the study area's total employment and moderate if

employment is between 5 and 10 percent (NRC 1996). During the construction of the new

units, up to 3500 construction workers would be required to build the plant (at the peak

construction phase) and most of these would need to in-migrate to the region. The peak

construction workforce would represent more than 5 percent of the current workforce in the

region and NRC staff concludes that the impacts of construction on the economy of the region

would be MODERATE and beneficial, but temporary.

The wages and salaries of the operating and construction workforce would have a multiplier

effect that could result in increases in business activity, particularly in the retail and service

sectors. This would have a positive impact on the business community and could provide

opportunities for new businesses to get started and increased job opportunities for local

residents.

Once the new units are operational, approximately 812 new operations jobs would be added to

the local economy. Southern assumes that all of these new operations workers would have to

move to the region from outside the region. These new jobs would constitute a small

percentage of the total number of jobs in the region (1 percent within 80 km [50 mi] of the plant).

NUREG-1872 9-42 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that a significant number of construction laborers would need to in-migrate to the

area and the number of jobs added to the region during the construction phase would have

MODERATE impacts on the local economy. Once the new units are operational, 812 jobs

would be added to the local economy; however, this would only constitute a small growth rate in

jobs relative to the total number of existing jobs in the region, and the economic impacts would

be SMALL and beneficial.

Taxes

As with new proposed units at the VEGP site (Sections 4.5.3 and 5.5.3), there would be some

positive sales, use, income, and corporate tax revenue benefits that would be generated as a

result of the construction and operation of new units at Plant Hatch. Sales, use, income, and

corporate taxes would be paid directly to the State general fund; thus, the regional marginal

impacts would be minimal. The primary tax impacts would occur once the new units become

valued as property assets and property tax revenues are collected by Appling County according

to the millage rate negotiated on value of the plant. Southern anticipates that it would begin

paying annual property taxes to Appling County for new units at Plant Hatch during construction

of the project. Assuming a 40-year operational life, property taxes to Appling County could

average between $20,000,000 and $29,000,000 annually during the first decade of operation

and between $3,500,000 and $5,000,000 annually during the last decade of operation, based

on the changing value of the plant (Southern 2008). The current Plant Hatch property taxes

made up 68 percent of Appling County's total property tax revenues in 1998 (NRC 2001). The

NRC staff concludes that the potential beneficial impacts of taxes collected during construction

would be MODERATE and beneficial and LARGE and beneficial during operation in Appling

County, and SMALL and beneficial in the remainder of the 80-km (50-mi) region, assuming

Georgia tax law remains unchanged.

Summary of Social and Economic Impacts

Based on the information provided by Southern, and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that the overall socioeconomic impacts of construction and operation of two new

units at the Plant Hatch site would be LARGE and beneficial to Appling County, MODERATE

and beneficial in Toombs County, and SMALL and beneficial elsewhere in the 80-km (50-mi)

region.

Infrastructure and Community Services

Transportation

Road access to Plant Hatch is via U.S. Highway 1, the major north-south highway route

bisecting Appling and Toombs Counties. U.S. Highway 1 is a four-lane highway from Baxley

August 2008 9-43 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

past Plant Hatch where it enters Toombs County and becomes a two-lane road north of Plant

Hatch to Interstate 16. Interstate 16 is the major east-west freeway serving the area. In 2004,

the annual average daily traffic count for the highway was 5050 vehicles south of the Plant

Hatch site and 4700 vehicles north of the site. The State plans to widen the entire highway to

four lanes, which would provide four-lane access from Baxley all the way to Interstate 16

(GDOT 2006). Right-of-way acquisition for the widening project is anticipated to begin in 2007,

and construction would begin after 2008 (Southern 2008).

Assuming construction shifts as described in Section 4.5.4, an additional 1750 cars could be on

the highway during shift change, causing potential congestion. Also, the traffic of hauling

construction materials (100 trucks per day) to the site could cause additional congestion on

U.S. Highway 1 during certain times of the day. Heavy congestion and delays could be

experienced if planned road improvements on U.S. Highway 1 occur during construction of new

nuclear units at Plant Hatch. Transportation impacts are expected to be MODERATE when

increases in traffic begin to cause delays or other operational problems. Overall, impacts of

construction on transportation would likely be MODERATE and some mitigating actions would

need to be undertaken. With respect to operation of the facility, adding an additional 760 cars

during the afternoon shift (see shift assumptions in Section 5.5.4.1) to the existing traffic on the

road would not strain current road capacity. Shift changes for the current units and new nuclear

units at Plant Hatch could be staggered so that the traffic increase would not cause congestion,

which would be particularly important during the outage periods when nearly 1000 additional

temporary contract workers would be employed to perform outage operations. Impacts of the

operations workforce would be SMALL once the two new units are operational.

Recreation

Recreational facilities located within the boundaries of the Plant Hatch site include a 40-ha

(100-ac) tract of land west of U.S. Highway 1 used as a Boy Scout Camp, a wayside park, an

employee recreation area, and the Plant Hatch Visitors Center. Other recreational facilities

within 16 km (10 mi) of Plant Hatch include the Altamaha River, the Bullard Creek Wildlife

Management Area, Grays Landing, and miscellaneous parks and sports facilities operated by

the city of Baxley. During construction of new nuclear units at Plant Hatch, it is anticipated that

access to onsite recreational facilities could be interrupted during periods of peak activity but

other recreational facilities in the region could accommodate typical users of the onsite facilities.

The attractiveness of the Altamaha River for sport fishing and other recreational uses could be

impacted during construction of intake and discharge structures. Other recreational facilities

could be affected by increased traffic on area roads during peak travel periods, but impacts

could be minimized by informing the public of any potential traffic issues and notable

construction activities (Southern 2008). The NRC staff concludes that the likely impacts of plant

construction and operation on tourism and recreation would be SMALL.

NUREG-1872 9-44 " August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Housinq

According to 2000 U.S. Census data, Appling County had 7854 housing units, 1248 of which

(15.9 percent) were vacant. Toombs County had 11,371 housing units, 1494 of which

(13.1 percent) were vacant. Jeff Davis County had 5581 housing units, 753 of which

(13.5 percent) were vacant. Montgomery County had 3492 housing units, 573 of which

(16.4 percent) were vacant, and Tattnall County had 8578 housing units, 1521 of which

(17.7 percent) were vacant (Southern 2008).

Based on the analysis in Section 4.5.2, approximately 5500 construction workers and their

families would in-migrate to the 80-km (50-mi) region during the construction of two new units at

Plant Hatch. Currently, available housing in the two-county area (Appling and Toombs

Counties) is minimally adequate to accommodate the expected influx of workers. Workers

could also find housing in other parts of the 80-km (50-mi) region or construct new housing;

however, the impacts of in-migrating workers would likely be MODERATE in terms of impacting

housing demand and prices and rental rates in Appling and Toombs Counties and possibly

other neighboring counties, depending on settlement patterns.

Southern assumes that operation of new nuclear units at Plant Hatch would increase the

population in the 80-km (50-mi) region by 2152 people (see Section 5.5.2). Assuming

approximately 30 percent would settle in Appling County and 41 percent would settle in

Toombs County, the current housing supply in each respective county could accommodate

all the new families expected in Appling and Toombs Counties. The impact of operating the

new units on housing is therefore likely to be SMALL.

Public Services

Construction and plant operations would not draw water or produce wastewater that would use

municipal systems; however, the influx of construction workers and plant operations staff

settling in the region would impact local municipal water and water treatment facilities. In

Appling County, the municipalities of Baxley and Surrency are the only county areas served by

public water supply systems. Baxley provides water service within the city and outside the city

limits in certain areas through a distribution system that currently uses four wells screened to

the Floridan Aquifer. According to data collected in 2000, the wells can produce approximately

11.7 million liters per day (L/d) (3.1 million gpd). The estimated demand on the wells is

2.3 million L/d (600,000 gpd). Considering this estimated demand, Baxley has approximately

9.5 million Lid (2.5 million gpd) of available capacity. The town of Surrency has two wells also

pumping from the Floridan Aquifer. In 2000, these wells were capable of producing 1.1 million

Lid (290,000 gpd). Toombs County has three municipal water systems: Vidalia, Lyons, and

Santa Claus. All three municipalities withdraw their water from the Floridan Aquifer. According

to data collected in 2000, Lyons has a capacity of 16.3 Lid (4.3 million gpd), with an estimated

demand of 2.6 million Lid (700,000 gpd). This leaves a reserve capacity of 13.6 million Lid

August 2008 9-45 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

(3.6 million gpd). Vidalia has the capacity to pump 18.5 million Ud (4.9 million gpd) and

estimated demand requires 7.6 million L/d (2.0 million gpd), leaving a reserve capacity of

approximately 11.0 million L/d (2.9 million gpd). Santa Claus is served by one well, for which

capacity and demand data are not available (NRC 2001). Considering the excess capacity in

these systems, the influx of the construction and operations workforce would only have a

SMALL marginal impact on these public services.

For a relatively small community, the major influx of construction workers may produce

moderate impacts on police and fire services, commensurate with demographic and housing

impacts in Appling and Toombs Counties. Medical services would also be expected to be

limited in the region; however, Southern could mitigate use of the local medical systems during

the construction phase of the project by providing extensive first aid onsite to treat minor injuries

and ailments. The employment of additional construction workers and operations staff would

not be expected to significantly strain the social services provided in the region.

Considering the excess capacity in the current water and waste treatment system the public

utility system could easily accommodate the influx of workers to the region. The impacts on

public utilities would likely be SMALL. For many of the other public services provided in the

region, the overall impact would be expected to be SMALL.

Education

Appling County has four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Total

enrollment in all the schools was approximately 3400 during the 2006 school year. Toombs

County has three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Total

enrollment for 2006 was 2840 students. The city of Vidalia has its own school system, including

primary, elementary, and middle schools, and one high school. Total enrollment in the Vidalia

school system for the 2006 school year for preschool through grade twelve was 2606 students

(NCES 2007).

Based on the analysis in Section 4.5.4.5, new nuclear units at Plant Hatch would increase the

school-aged population in the 80-km (50-mi) region by 1100 during the peak of the construction

phase. Assuming that 30 percent would settle in Appling County and 41 percent would settle in

Toombs County, the student population would increase by 330 in Appling County and by 450 in

Toombs County, representing roughly 10 percent of total 2006 enrollment in Appling County and

8 percent in Toombs County. There may potentially be MODERATE impacts on the local

school system during the construction phase of the project at Plant Hatch; however, considering

the corresponding tax benefits that would be received in Appling, it is possible some of these

impacts could be mitigated, depending on the time these benefits are generated and received

by the county.

NUREG-1872 9-46 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Based on the analysis in Section 5.5.4.5, Southern assumes that operation of new nuclear units

at Plant Hatch would increase the school-aged population in the 80-km (50-mi) region by

464 people. Approximately 30 percent would settle in Appling County and 41 percent would

settle in Toombs County. The Appling County student population would increase by 3.2 percent

and the Toombs County student population would increase by 2.8 percent. These increases in

student population are below 4 percent of the total student populations in Appling and Toombs

Counties, hence project-related enrollment increases would constitute a SMALL impact on the

education systems.

Summary of Infrastructure and Community Services

Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC staffs independent review, the staff

concludes that impacts on infrastructure and community services from construction and

operation of two new nuclear units at Plant Hatch would be SMALL to MODERATE and adverse

during the construction phase of the project. During the operation phase of the ESP project,

community service and infrastructure impacts would likely be SMALL.

Summary of Socioeconomics

In summary, on the basis of information provided- by Southern and NRC's own independent

review, the staff concludes that the impacts of the construction and operations at the Plant

Hatch site on socioeconomics would be MODERATE adverse impacts for Toombs and Appling

counties in terms of transportation, housing, and educational impacts during construction phase.

The impacts on the Appling County economy and tax base during plant operation likely would

be beneficial and MODERATE to LARGE. A portion of the tax revenue increase could be used

to improve local transportation infrastructure and educational facilities to accommodate the

population growth.

9.5.1.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The likely footprint for new nuclear units at Plant Hatch does not appear to have any historic

properties located within areas likely to be impacted by new construction and operations.

Miscellaneous archaeological surveys conducted over the years in the area indicate that while

sites may exist on the premises, either the sites are not eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places or are located away from likely areas of new construction. Protective.

measures would be put in place in the event that historic or archaeological materials are

discovered during construction or during operations. In the event that an unanticipated

discovery is made, site personnel would be instructed to notify the Georgia SHPO and would

consult with them in conducting an assessment of the discovery to determine if additional work

is needed. The impacts on historical and cultural resources are predicted to be SMALL at the

Plant Hatch site.

August 2008 9-47 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

9.5.1.7 Environmental Justice

The 2000 Census and block groups were used for ascertaining minority and low-income

populations in the area. There are 337 block groups within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of Plant

Hatch. Black minority populations exist in 55 block groups; "Aggregate of Minority Races"

populations exist in 63 block groups; "Hispanic Ethnicity" minority populations exist in 5 block

groups; and "All Other Single Minorities" exist in 3 block groups. No other minority populations

exist in the geographic area. The Census Bureau data characterize 12.64 percent of Georgia

households as low income. There are 41 block groups out of the possible 337 that contain a

low-income population percentage that exceed that State's average by 20 percent or more.

There are no minority or low-income populations within a 10-km (6-mi) radius of Plant Hatch.

Construction activities (noise, fugitive dust, air emissions, traffic) would not disproportionately

adversely affect minority populations because of their distance from Plant Hatch. Minority and

low-income populations would most likely benefit from construction activities through an

increase in construction-related jobs in the region. The operation of the proposed project at

Plant Hatch is also unlikely to have a disproportionate impact on minority or low-income

populations. In the Plant Hatch License Renewal EIS, the NRC noted that no unusual resource

dependencies or practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing through which

the populations could be disproportionately adversely affected have been identified. In addition,

no location-dependent disproportionate adverse impacts affecting these minority and lowincome populations have been identified or observed (NRC 2001).

The impacts associated with construction and operation of two new units at Plant Hatch on

minority and low-income populations are expected to be SMALL. See Section 5.7 for more

information on environmental justice impacts.

9.5.2 Plant Farley

This section covers the staff's evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting new

nuclear units at Plant Farley.

9.5.2.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Plant Farley is located in Houston County, Alabama (Figure 9-2)..The plant is located on the

west side of the Chattahoochee River about 10 km (6 mi) north of the intersection of

U.S. Highway 84 and State Highway 95. The Plant Farley site encompasses approximately

749 ha (1850 ac) (Southern 2008). Approximately 200 ha (500 ac) are used for nuclear power

generation and maintenance facilities, laydown areas, parking lots, and roads. The remainder

of the site consists of forested areas, ponds, wetlands, and open fields. Approximately 200 ha

(500 ac) of the existing Plant Farley site would be needed if new nuclear reactor units were

located at Plant Farley (Southern 2008).

NUREG-1872 9-48 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Figure 9-2. Plant Farley 80-km (50-mi) Vicinity (Southern 2008)

August 2008 9-49 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

The land in the vicinity of Plant Farley is rural and is forested or used as farmland. The

Plant Farley site is not subject to the Alabama Coastal Zone Program because the Program

only applies in Baldwin and Mobile Counties (ADEM 2005).

Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that the land-use impacts of constructing and operating new nuclear reactor units at

the Plant Farley site would be SMALL.

There are six transmission lines that exit the Plant Farley site. The rights-of-way pass through

rolling hills that are primarily a mixture of forests and farmland. Southern assumed that if two

new nuclear generating units were located at Plant Farley, one new 500-kV transmission line

would be needed (Southern 2008). The new transmission line would be installed in a new 60-m

(200-ft)-wide right-of-way and would be approximately 16 km (10 mi) long. Southern would

obtain needed State and Federal permits related to construction of a new transmission line

(NRC 2007). Based on the information it has available, the staff concludes that the

transmission line right-of-way land-use impacts of constructing two new nuclear reactor units at

the Plant Farley site would be MODERATE. Operational impacts would be SMALL.

Similar to Burke County, Georgia, where the VEGP site is located, Houston County is

designated as being unclassified or in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (40 CFR 81.301). The air-quality impacts of constructing and operating two new

nuclear reactor units at Plant Farley would be similar to the air-quality impacts at the VEGP site.

The staff concludes that the air-quality impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear

reactor units at the Plant Farley site would be SMALL.

9.5.2.2 Water Use and Quality

The staff assumed that two new nuclear units at Plant Farley would withdraw make-up water

from the Chattahoochee River, and that facility cooling water demands would be satisfied with

wet towers. The staff computed the 7Q10 and the 30Q2 based on data from USGS stream

gage 02343801 (Chattahoochee River near Columbia, Alabama). Data collected from October

1975 to September 2005 were used to estimate the 7Q10 and 30Q2 values. This gage is

approximately 3 km (2 mi) south of Columbia, and the drainage area upstream of the flow gage

was reported by the USGS to be 21,264 km 2 (8210 mi2). The 7Q1 0 and 30Q2 values computed

by the staff were 56.4 m3/s (1990 cfs) and 119 m3/s (4200 cfs), respectively. For the calendar

years 1976 through 2005, the average annual-mean discharge at the gage was 308.60 m3

/s

(10,898 cfs), and the minimum annual-mean discharge was 140.17 m3/s (4950 cfs).

The net consumptive water loss for the wet towers proposed at the VEGP site would be

1.76 m3/s (62 cfs) (Southern 2008). Expressed as a percentage of the 7Q10 and 30Q2, the

NUREG-1872 9-50 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

consumptive water loss for two additional units sited at Plant Farley represents 3 and 1 percent,

respectively, of the total flow in the Chattahoochee River. Southern (2008) estimated

cumulative consumption net loss for the existing and two new units at 2.5 m3/s (90 cfs), which

represents 5 and 2 percent, respectively, of the 7Q10 and 30Q2 flows in the Chattahoochee

River.

Any releases of contaminants to the waters of the State of Alabama would be regulated by the

Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) through the NPDES permit

process to ensure that water quality is protected.

Based on the requirements of the NPDES permit and the above analysis, the staff concludes

that the water-use and water-quality impacts of two additional units at Plant Farley would be

SMALL.

9.5.2.3 Terrestrial Resources

Plant Farley encompasses approximately 749 ha (1850 ac) on the west bank of the

Chattahoochee River. It is located near the boundary of the Dougherty Plain and Southern Red

Hills physiographic regions of the east Gulf Coastal Plain. Two major topographical

subdivisions occur at the site: (1) gently rolling upland west of the Chattahoochee River Valley

and (2) the river terraces and floodplain of the Chattahoochee River. This contributes to a

diverse distribution of habitats, with diverse wildlife and plant species. Habitats at Plant Farley

consist of a river bluff forest, ravine forest, flood plain forest, pine-mixed hardwood forest, pine

forest, non-floodplain wetlands and mowed grassy areas (NRC 2005).

Approximately 200 ha (500 ac) of the site are used for nuclear power generation and

maintenance facilities. The developed areas are primarily located on a plateau approximately

one-half mile west of the river, with the area adjacent to the river mostly undeveloped. The

remainder of the site consists of forested areas, ponds, wetlands, and open fields. Alabama

Power Company manages about 530 ha (1300 ac) of this land as a wildlife preserve.

Construction of the proposed project at Plant Farley would require that a portion (up to 223 ha

[550 acd) of the wildlife preserve be cleared for development (Southern 2008). The Farley

Wildlife Management Plan strategies include managing vegetation to promote and protect

diverse habitats, periodic thinning or logging of pine timber stands, mowing grassy areas, and

installing nest boxes. The Wildlife Habitat Council has recognized Plant Farley as a certified

corporate wildlife habitat for its wildlife and land management efforts since 1992 (NRC 2005).

Most of the floodplain forests are dominated by high floodplain or ridge floodplain species.

On the ridges and in the high floodplains, willow oak (Quercus phellos), shumard oak

(Q. shumardii), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),

swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), and American cherrybark oak (Q. pagoda) are present.

Along the river in early successional areas, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), silver maple

(Acer saccharinum), and black willow (Salix nigra) dominate. In sloughs, backwaters, and

August 2008 9-51 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

poorly-drained areas, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), red

maple (Acer rubrum), and laurel oak (Q. laurifolia) are commonly found (NRC 2005).

Several non-floodplain wetlands occur on the Plant Farley site. Most of these are generally

weedy marsh areas with scattered red maple, sweetgum, black willow, and buttonbush

(Cephalanthus occidentalis) woody species. Plume grass (Erianthus sp.), woolgrass bulrush

(Scirpus cyperinus), needlerushes (Juncus spp.), and other wet-site emergent, non-woody

species are also found in these wetlands. One wetlands area has a broad expanse of open

water dominated by water lillies (Nuphar lutea and Nymphaea odorata), water shield

(Brasenia schrebenr, and non-woody marsh grasses such as woolgrass bulrush and common

needlerush (Juncus effusus) (NRC 2005).

The hardwood bottoms in the vicinity of the river include species such as the water oak

(Q. nigra), white oak (Q. alba), and tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera). The hardwood areas and

mixed pine-hardwood areas along the streams and in the upland areas consist of various oaks,

sweetgum, and poplar (NRC 2005).

The forested portions of the site contain terrestrial wildlife species typically found in similar

habitats in southern Alabama. Common mammals at the site include the gray squirrel

(Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), armadillo

(Dasypus novemcinctus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus). Wading birds (egrets and herons) occur in wetlands, along the edges

of ponds, and along the Chattahoochee River. Numerous bird species (e.g., common bobwhite

[Colinus virginianus], blue jay [Cyanocitta cristata], and various warblers), and several reptile

and amphibian species, including the Alabama State-protected gopher tortoise

(Gopherus polyphemus) occur at the site (Southern 2008).

Six transmission lines connect the Plant Farley site to the transmission grid. These include

approximately 525 km (326 mi) of lines that occupy approximately 2403 ha (5938 ac) of the

transmission line rights-of-way (Southern 2008). The transmission line rights-of-way are located

primarily within the east Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province. The region is characterized

by sandy soils and flat to gently rolling terrain. The transmission line rights-of-way traverse

primarily forests or farmland. There'are no areas designated by the FWS as critical habitat for

endangered species at the Plant Farley site or adjacent to any of the associated transmission

line rights-of-way. The Raccoon Creek-Tifton transmission line right-of-way crosses Elmodel

Wildlife Management Area in western Georgia. The South Bainbridge right-of-way crosses the

Lake Seminole Wildlife Management Area in southwestern Georgia. The lines do not cross any

other State or Federal parks, National wildlife refuges, or State wildlife management areas

(Southern 2008; NRC 2005).

Two State-listed plant species (Thome's [swamp] buckthorn [Sideroxylon thornei] and Florida

willow [Salix floridana]), and two plant species listed as unusual by GDNR (yellow pitcherplant

[Sarracenia flava] and hooded pitcherplant [Sarracenia minor]) were found in plant surveys

NUREG-1872 9-52 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

conducted on the Plant Farley site and related transmission line rights-of-way in 2001 to 2002.

Both species of pitcherplants were found along the Farley-Raccoon Creek-Tifton transmission

line. No other State-listed plant species were observed on the transmission line rights-of-way

during the surveys (NRC 2005).

State-listed animal species observed on the Farley site and related transmission line rights-ofway during recent surveys include the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), eastern

coachwhip snake (Masticophis flagellum flagellum), dusky gopher frog (Rana capito), bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and southeastern pocket gopher

(Geomys pineti3). In addition; Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), listed as rare in

Georgia; and the little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), listed as a species of special concern in

Florida; have been observed on Plant Farley transmission line rights-of-way. Bachman's

sparrows were heard singing at two locations on the Farley-South Bainbridge right-of-way. The

little blue heron was observed foraging in a marsh on the Farley-Sinai Cemetery right-of-way

(NRC 2005).

Construction Impacts

Southern assumed that the construction of the proposed project at Plant Farley would require

the addition of one 500-kV transmission line requiring a 60-m (200-ft)-wide transmission

corridor. This line would be 16 km (10 mi) long and connect to the Webb Substation and would

require an additional 96.3 ha (238 ac) of transmission line right-of-way (Southern 2008). The

line may be constructed parallel to an existing corridor but would not share a corridor with the

existing transmission line (Southern 2007c). The land in the vicinity of the Farley-Webb

transmission line right-of-way is mainly agricultural with a few portions of the transmission line

right-of-way traversing small isolated wetlands and forested areas. Widening this transmission

line corridor by 61 m (200 ft) would not result in the crossing of any additional State or Federal

lands or other conservation areas (Southern 2008).

With the exception of the transmission line rights-of-way, all construction activities associated

with the new units at the Plant Farley site would occur on the existing Southern property.

Southern (2007c) stated that "The area proposed for the two unit footprint at Farely is located

within area disturbed by the construction of the existing powerblock in an area that now includes

the ISFSI and old steam generator storage building as well as parking and laydown area. The

cooling towers for the new units will be located in a previously disturbed area of floodplain. The

majority of the impacted area (-90%) has been developed and has no value to the wildlife

preserve. A small amount of revegetated land may be impacted, but it has little habitat value."

During construction of the proposed project at the Plant Farley site, wildlife would be

permanently displaced from 121 ha (300 ac) dedicated to the project and associated support

facilities and temporarily displaced from an additional 101 ha (250 ac). Currently maintained as

a wildlife preserve by Alabama Power Company, clearing this area would result in a reduction of

August 2008 9-53 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

wildlife habitat onsite. Approximately 320 ha (800 ac) of wildlife preserve would remain at the

Plant Farley site (Southern 2008).

Based on the available information regarding the habitats that would be removed during

construction onsite and for the new transmission line right-of-way, information provided by

Southern, and NRC's own independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts on terrestrial

resources from construction of two new nuclear units at the Plant Farley site could be SMALL to

MODERATE and construction associated with the new transmission line right-of-way could be

SMALL to MODERATE.

Operational Impacts

Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from operation of two new nuclear units at Plant Farley

site include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. Impacts resulting from

the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines would be of similar magnitude at all the

alternative sites and, thus, cannot be used to discriminate between them. Therefore, operational

impacts on terrestrial resources are discussed generically in Section 9.6.1.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Thirteen Federally listed threatened and endangered terrestrial species are known to occur

in the vicinity of the Plant Farley site or its transmission lines: the endangered gray bat

(Myotis grisescens), the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), the endangered wood

stork (Mycteria americana), the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis),

the threatened (due to similarity of appearance) American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis),

the threatened Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais coupen), the endangered flatwoods

salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), the threatened crystal lake nailwort

(Paronychia chartacea minima), the endangered chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), the

endangered fringed campion (Silene polypetala), the endangered gentian pinkroot

(Spigelia gentianoides), the endangered Florida torreya (Torreya taxifolia), and the endangered

relict trillium (Trillium reliquum)(Southern 2008).

Land disturbance required to site the proposed nuclear power plants at the Plant Farley site

would take place in Houston County. Two Federally listed terrestrial species are known to occur

in Houston County: the Eastern indigo snake and the flatwoods salamander. Suitable habitat

for the Eastern indigo snake exists at the Plant Farley site and this species could potentially

exist onsite. Before construction activities begin, Southern would perform a detailed survey to

ensure protection of the endangered Eastern indigo snake (Southern 2008).

In fall 2006, the NRC contacted the FWS (Daphne, Alabama) regarding the potential presence

of threatened and endangered species at the VEGP site and three alternative sites for two new

units. The FWS responded that they had recently reviewed listed species present on the Plant

NUREG-1872? 9-54 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Farley site and along existing transmission lines in Alabama, as part of Southern's efforts to

extend the operating license of Plant Farley Units 1 and 2. The FWS stated as long as new

units at the Plant Farley alternative site would be constructed on the existing Plant Farley

property and that the facility would continue to follow FWS guidelines for protecting wildlife and

habitat, Federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species would not likely be adversely

affected. FWS requested that Southern evaluate whether appropriate habitat may exist for the

bald eagle and flatwoods salamander in any newly proposed transmission line right-of-way

(FWS 2006).

Southern stated that habitat preferred by the flatwoods salamander does not exist at the

Plant Farley site or along the Webb transmission line right-of-way and with the exception of

the Eastern indigo snake, it is unlikely that any other Federally listed wildlife species occur at

the Plant Farley site or along the Farley-Webb transmission line right-of-way (Southern 2008).

Based on the information regarding the habitats that would be removed during

construction onsite and for the new transmission corridor, information provided by

Southern, information provided by FWS, and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that the impacts to threatened and endangered species from construction of two

new nuclear units at the Plant Farley site and construction associated with the addition of a

transmission line right-of-way would be SMALL.

9.5.2.4 Aquatic Resources

Southern currently withdraws water from the lower Chattahoochee River for Plant Farley. The

principal aquatic resources at the site are associated with the Chattahoochee River. Other

important aquatic habitats include the 44.1-ha (108-ac) service and make-up water pond (on the

Plant Farley site) and a few small creeks onsite (NRC 2005).

The fish community of the Chattahoochee River in the vicinity of Plant Farley site is diverse,

composed of a mix of common southeastern stream species (many of which adapt well to

reservoir conditions), species typically found in swamps and backwaters of rivers, and a small

number of migratory and semi-migratory species. Approximately 92 species are known to occur

in the Chattahoochee River system and approximately two-thirds of these species can be found

in the lower Chattahoochee (NRC 2005). Some of the fishes commonly observed or collected in

the lower Chattahoochee near the Plant Farley site include longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus),

redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), river redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum), greater jumprock

(Moxostoma lachneri), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), redbreast sunfish (L. auritus),

channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), several common minnow species (Notropis spp.), bowfin

(Amia calva), spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops), chain pickerel (Esox niger) and flier

(Centrarchus macropterus). Several other fish species found in the Chattahoochee River in the

vicinity of the Plant Farley site are adapted to a range of environmental conditions and are

abundant in the rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and swamps across the Southeast. These include

gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), blacktail shiner

August 2008 9-55 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

(Cyprinella venusta), bluegill (L. machrochirus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)

(NRC 2005).

Recreational fisheries in the area harvest several species of bass, including striped bass

(Morone saxatilis), white bass (M. chrysops) and hybrid bass (the palmetto bass, M. saxatilis x

M. chrysops).

Small numbers of catadromous American eels (Anguilla rostrata) are also found in the lower

Chattahoochee River in vicinity of the Plant Farley site. Catadromous species live in freshwater

habitat, and migrate to saltwater to spawn. Small numbers are found year-round in the

Chattahoochee River in the vicinity of the Plant Farley site (NRC 2005).

Studies of the benthic populations in the river indicate that species diversity and abundance

of freshwater mussels have declined since the early 2 0 th century and dramatically over the

last several decades. The decline has been attributed to erosion and sedimentation

(from land clearing and intensive farming in the area), dredging, snag removal, channel

modifications (for navigation), introduction of dams and associated impoundments,

runoff of agricultural chemicals and animal wastes (chiefly poultry), mining activities, and

wastewater treatment facility discharges (NRC 2005).

During the 2004 mussel survey below the Plant Farley outflow, it was noted that the loose sandy

substrate did not provide anchoring for native mussels and that in the total search, only a few

old shells of mussels, and no live specimens, were found (Yokley 2004). The wide-variety of

mussel species that were once abundant in the Chattahoochee River are apparently now

restricted to remnant and isolated populations in small headwater streams, and common, singlespecies populations in impoundments on the river (Brim Box and Williams 2000). In addition,

the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) has become established in the Chattahoochee River

system and is competing with the native mussel populations for resources. The Asiatic clam is

a highly invasive, non-native mussel species that crowds out desirable endemic species. It has

a higher tolerance to pollutants and is known to clog intake pipes, damage industrial water

systems, alter aquatic habitat, and disrupt irrigation canals.

Construction Impacts

Construction of a new cooling water intake for two additional units would result in temporary

displacement of aquatic biota within the Chattahoochee River. It is expected that the

disturbance to aquatic resources would be localized and of short duration and that the aquatic

biota would return to the area once construction is complete. Sedimentation due to

disturbances of the river bank and bottom could impact local benthic populations. However, the

impacts on aquatic organisms would be temporary and largely mitigable through the use of

BMPs. Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review of

NUREG-1872 9-56 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

additional information, the staff concludes that depending on the method of construction and

any need for dredging, the impact on aquatic resources at Plant Farley could be SMALL.

It is assumed that the proposed project would require the addition of one 500-kV transmission

line requiring a new 60-m (200-ft)-wide transmission line right-of-way. This line would connect

to the Webb Substation and would require an additional 96.3 ha (238 ac) of transmission line

right-of-way. The land in the vicinity of the Farley-Webb transmission line right-of-way is largely

agricultural with a few portions of the transmission line right-of-way traversing small isolated

wetlands and forested areas (Southern 2008). The exact location of the transmission line rightof-way is not currently known. Because no information on routing has been provided, the

impacts to the aquatic ecosystem in water bodies that would be crossed by the new right-of-way

is not known. However, assuming the use of BMPs during construction, the staff concludes

that the impacts could be SMALL to MODERATE depending on the specific routing of the rightof-way.

Operational Impacts

Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms from the Chattahoochee River would be the

most likely impacts that could occur from operation of two new units at Plant Farley. The NRC

has found that entrainment and impingement of fish and shellfish has not been a problem at

facilities that use the type of cooling system found at Plant Farley (closed-cycle with cooling

towers).

During license renewal at Plant Farley, the staff determined that the impacts to aquatic

resources from issues such as water use, entrainment and impingement of fish and shellfish,

thermal plume barrier, and low dissolved oxygen, would be minor; no new and significant

information had been identified during the analysis that would have given a different conclusion

(NRC 2005). Assuming a closed-cycle cooling system with a maximum through-screen velocity

of 0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s) at the cooling water intake, an intake flow of less than or equal to 5 percent

of the mean annual flow of the Chattahoochee River, and a design and location of the new

intake that is consistent with the existing intake, there would be no anticipated impacts to

aquatic populations from entrainment and impingement. After reviewing the recent NRC staff

assessment for license renewal at the Farley site and the additional information provided by

Southern, the staff concludes that the potential for adverse operational impacts to aquatic

resources from two additional units at Plant Farley would be SMALL.

The staff also concludes that the operational impacts to aquatic biota from the transmission

lines would also be SMALL, assuming BMPs are used for right-of-way maintenance.

Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species

Several Federally or State-listed protected aquatic species are currently or historically located

within the two counties associated with the Plant Farley site. The site itself is located within

August 2008 9-57 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Houston County, Alabama, and the section of the Chattahoochee River adjacent to the site is

located within Early County, Georgia. Both states and the FWS were contacted regarding the

presence of threatened and endangered species located within those two counties. The

species identified by the agencies are provided in Table 9-5. Based on the information

available, it appears that most, if not all, of these species have been extirpated from this section

of the river due to damming of the river, habitat loss and degradation, siltation, and

sedimentation. Though activities at the Plant Farley site would not directly impact any of these

species, site activities could affect the ability of a species to reestablish itself in the area. Some

species on the list, although known to currently exist within the identified counties, are located in

other parts of the county outside the area of impact.

As part of its review of Southern's application to renew the Plant Farley operating licenses, the

NRC submitted a biological assessment to the FWS (NRC 2004b). The FWS concurred that

renewal of the operating license was not likely to adversely affect any Federally listed

threatened and endangered species (FWS 2004).

Table 9-5. Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species within Vicinity of the Plant Farley Site

Alabama State Status Georgia State

Species (Houston Co.) Status (Early Co.) Federal Status

Fish

Alabama shad Protected

Alosa alabamae

bluenose shiner Threatened

Pteronotropis welaka

Gulf sturgeon Protected Threatened

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

Invertebrates

Choctaw bean Protected Candidate Candidate

Villosa choctawensis

delicate spike Endangered

Elliptio arctata

Gulf moccasinshell Protected Endangered Endangered

Medionidus penicillatus

inflated spike Threatened

Elliptio purpurella

oval pigtoe Protected Endangered Endangered

Pleurobema pyriforme

shiny rayed pocketbook Protected Endangered Endangered

Hamiota subangulata

southern sandshell Protected Candidate

Lampsilis australis

ALNHP 2007; GDNR 2007b; FWS 2007a, b

NUREG-1872 9-58 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

In the fall of 2006, the FWS was again contacted by the NRC regarding the potential presence

of threatened and endangered species at Plant Farley for two new units. The Daphne,

Alabama, field office responded that they had recently reviewed listed species present on the

site, in the mixing zone of the Chattahoochee River, and along existing transmission lines in

Alabama, as part of Plant Farley's relicensing efforts. The FWS concurred with the NRC finding

that reissuance of the operating license for Plant Farley was not likely to adversely affect any

Federally listed threatened and endangered species in Alabama or in the Chattahoochee River.

Based on the assumption that new units at the Plant Farley alternative site would be

constructed on the existing Plant Farley property and that the facility would continue to follow

FWS guidelines for protecting wildlife and habitat, the FWS stated that they could again concur

with a "not likely to adversely affect determination" for Alabama listed species (FWS 2006).

If the new units at Plant Farley were to require expansion of the mixing zone or an increase in

discharge volumes, the FWS requested that surveys be conducted for the presence of the

Southern sandshell (Lampsilis australis) and Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis), if suitable

habitat exists within the area of impact. These two species are currently candidate species.

Candidate species are not afforded protection through the Endangered Species Act; however, it

is possible that their listing status could change before completion of the permitting process and

beginning of construction. The FWS further requested that habitat surveys for Federally listed

species be conducted for any new transmission line rights-of-way (FWS 2006).

The impacts on aquatic organisms would be temporary and largely mitigable through the use of

BMPs. However, disturbances of the riverbank and bottom and resulting sedimentation could

result in a detectable impact to rare native mussel species. Although the staff believes that the

habitat present in the vicinity of the area may not be optimal for rare mussels, without a survey

the staff cannot say with certainty that rare mussels are not present. Based on the information

provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review of the Plant Farley operating license

renewal EIS and associated studies, and opinion from the FWS, the staff concludes that the

overall impact to Federally listed threatened and endangered species from construction and

operation of two new nuclear units at the Plant Farley site would be SMALL.

9.5.2.5 Socioeconomics

In evaluating'the socioeconomic impacts of construction at Plant Farley, -Southern undertook a

"reconnaissance" survey of the site using readily obtainable data from the Internet or published

sources. The NRC staff performed its own review of the data. The socioeconomic subsections

follow the organizational structure of the socioeconomic discussions in Sections 2.8, 4.5, and

5.5. The impacts expected from both construction and station operation are discussed.

August 2008 9-59 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Physical Impacts

The potential construction activities associated with constructing two new units at Plant Farley

could potentially cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor, vehicle

exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emissions. The use of public roadways and

waterways would be necessary to transport construction materials and equipment. All

construction activities would occur within the existing Plant Farley site. Offsite areas that would

support construction activities (for example, borrow pits, quarries, and disposal sites) are

expected to be already permitted and operational. Impacts on those facilities from construction

of new nuclear units would be small incremental impacts associated with their normal operation

(Southern 2008).

Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and

visual intrusions. New nuclear units would produce noise from the operation of pumps, fans,

transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site would also be

a source of noise. However, noise attenuates quickly so ambient noise levels would be minimal

at the site boundary. Also, Plant Farley is located in a rural area surrounded by forests and

agricultural land, so residents in the area are sparse. Commuter traffic would be controlled by

speed limits. Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits would minimize the noise level

generated by the workforce commuting to the site (Southern 2008).

New nuclear units would have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power systems. Permits

obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions comply with applicable

regulations. In addition, the generators would be operated on a limited, short-term basis.

During normal plant operation, the proposed project would not use a significant quantity of

chemicals that could generate odors that exceed odor threshold values. Good access roads

and appropriate speed limits would minimize the dust generated by the commuting workforce.

Construction activities would be temporary and would occur mainly within the boundaries of the

Plant Farley site. Offsite impacts would represent small incremental changes to offsite services

supporting the construction activities. During station operations, ambient noise levels would be

minimal at the site boundary. Air-quality permits would be required for the diesel generators,

and chemical use would be limited, which would limit odors. Therefore, based on the

information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff concludes that

the physical impacts of construction and operation would be SMALL.

Aesthetics

The developed areas at Plant Farley are primarily located on a plateau approximately one-half

mile west of the Chattahoochee River, with the area immediately adjacent to the river mostly

undeveloped. The remainder of the site consists of forested areas, ponds, wetlands, and open

fields. Two major topographical subdivisions exist at the site: (1) gently rolling upland west of

NUREG-1872 9-60 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

the Chattahoochee River Valley and (2) the river terraces and flood plain of the Chattahoochee

River. Habitats at the Plant Farley site consist of river bluff, forest, ravine forest, flood plain

forest, pine-mixed hardwood forest, pine forest, non-flood plain wetlands, and mechanically

maintained grassy areas (NRC 2005).

Construction of new nuclear units at Plant Farley could be viewed from offsite at certain

locations, but the addition of new units would not substantially change the view given the

existence of the current units. There would be a need to construct cooling-water intake and

discharge structures at the site. Additional mechanical or natural draft cooling towers would be

required. The operation of new nuclear units would have visual impacts similar to those of the

existing Plant Farley units, with the addition of more visible plumes from cooling towers.

Impacts of construction and operation of new nuclear units on aesthetics near Plant Farley

would be expected to be SMALL. However, depending on the specific routing, the aesthetic

impact of the new transmission line could be MODERATE.

Demography

Plant Farley is in Houston County, Alabama on the Chattahoochee River approximately 160 km

(100 mi) southeast of Montgomery, Alabama. Based on 2000 Census data, Geneva County,

located southwest of the plant, had a population of 25,764; Henry County, located north of

the plant, had a population of 16,310; and Houston County had a population of 88,787

(Southern 2008). The population within 80 km (50 mi) of the site was approximately

393,639 people (20 persons per km 2). The city of Dothan, located 27 km (17 mi) from Plant

Farley, which is the city where most Plant Farley employees live, had a population of

57,737 (Southern 2008). The population within 32 km (20 mi) of the site was 93,120 people

(29 persons per km2).

Based on the analysis of construction impacts presented in Section 4.5.2 of this EIS, new

nuclear units at Plant Farley would increase the population in the 80-km (50-mi) region during

the construction phase by approximately 5500 people The majority of the Plant Farley

workforce lives in Houston County (77 percent) and the remaining employee residences are

distributed across 22 counties in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, mostly within 80 km (50 mi) of

the site. Assuming the residential distribution of the construction workforce would resemble the

residential distribution of the current Plant Farley workforce, approximately 4235 people

(77 percent of 5500) or 4.4 percent of the 2000 population would settle in Houston County.

Overall, the population increase from in-migration of construction workers would constitute

1.3 percent of the 2000 population of the 80-km (50-mi) region. The NRC staff concludes that

the impacts of plant construction on increases in population could potentially be MODERATE in

Houston County; however, given that it is likely that most of the in-migrating construction

employees would choose to live in and around Dothan, and considering that a portion of the

suburban growth in Dothan is now spreading into Dale and Henry Counties, it is more likely that

August 2008 9-61 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

this impact would be dispersed over these three counties and the impacts would be SMALL.

The demographic impacts are considered SMALL in the remainder of the 80-km (50-mi) region.

Based on the analysis in Section 5.5.2, Southern assumes that operation of new nuclear units at

Plant Farley would increase the population in the 80-km (50-mi) region by 2152 people. Once

again, assuming that approximately 77 percent would settle in Houston County, the addition of

the new employees and their families would equate to a 2 percent increase for Houston County.

Overall, the potential increases in population would represent a SMALL increase in the total

population.

Social and Economic Impacts

Economy

According to a 2006 report produced by the Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and

Development Commission (SEARPDC), the southeast Alabama region where Plant Farley is

located, has experienced a reduction in labor force due to numerous industrial plant closings in

recent years. These closings primarily affected low-skill textile workers with limited

opportunities elsewhere. The economy has also been negatively impacted by the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which increased competition in the peanut industry with

importation of foreign peanuts into the United States. Layoffs, downsizing, and closures have

eliminated thousands of jobs in the region (SEARPDC 2006). Houston County's economy has

seen a major shift from manufacturing to services and retail trade and the service sector now

comprises a much larger percentage of the county's earnings than does manufacturing.

Dothan, in Houston County, remains a regional retail and medical services center. Henry

County has shown strong growth in employment and earnings attributable to manufacturing.

While the percentage of employees in the manufacturing sector has decreased, the number

employed has increased. Income earnings from farming continue to decrease throughout the

region with the exception of Geneva County, which has benefitted from its economically

profitable poultry production in recent years (SEARPDC 2006).

The total number of employees in 2000 for Houston County was nearly 60,000. Henry and

Geneva Counties had 6822 and 9606, respectively (Southern 2008). The economic impacts

would likely be spread across the 80-km (50-mi) region, but would be greatest in Houston

County, particularly around Dothan. During the construction of the new units, up to

3500 construction workers would be required to build the plant (at the peak construction phase)

and most of these would need to in-migrate to the region. The peak construction workforce

would represent approximately 6 percent of the current workforce in the region and the NRC

staff concludes that the impacts of construction on the economy of the region would be

MODERATE and beneficial, but temporary.

The wages and salaries of the operating and construction workforce would have a multiplier

effect that could result in increases in business activity, particularly in the retail and service

NUREG-1 872 9-62 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

sectors. This would have a positive impact on the business community and could provide

opportunities for increases in new business startups and increased job opportunities for local

residents.

Once the new units are operational, approximately 812 new operations jobs would be added to

the local economy. Southern assumes that all of these new operations workers would have to

move to the region from outside the region. These new jobs would constitute a small

percentage of the total number of jobs in the region (1 percent of Houston County jobs).

Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that a significant number of construction laborers would need to in-migrate to the

area and the number of jobs added to the region during the construction phase would have

MODERATE and beneficial impacts on the local economy. Once the new units are operational,

812 jobs would be added to the local economy; however, this would only constitute a small

growth rate in jobs relative to the total number of existing jobs in the region, and the economic

impacts would be SMALL and beneficial.

Taxes

As with the new proposed units at the VEGP site (Sections 4.5.3 and 5.5.3), there would be

some positive sales, use, income, and corporate tax revenue benefits that would be generated

as the result of the construction and operation of new units at Plant Farley. These benefits,

however, would be paid directly to the State general fund, and thus the marginal regional

impacts would be minimal. The primary tax impacts would occur once the new units become

valued as property assets and property tax revenues are collected by Houston County,

according to the millage rate negotiated on value of the plant. Southern anticipates that it would

begin paying annual property taxes to Houston County during construction of the proposed

project at Plant Farley. Assuming a 40-year operational life, property taxes to Houston County

could average between $15 million and $21.5 million annually during the first decade of

operation and between $3 million and $4 million during the last decade of operation, based on

the changing value of the plant (Southern 2008). The current Plant Farley property taxes

produced between 31 and 39 percent of Houston County's tax revenue base between 1995 and

2002 (NRC" 2005). The NRC staff concludes that the potential beneficial impacts of taxes

collected during construction would be MODERATE and beneficial. During operation the

impacts would be LARGE and beneficial in Houston County and SMALL in the remainder of the

80-km (50-mi) region, assuming Alabama tax law remains unchanged.

Summary of Social and Economic Impacts

Based on information provided by Southern and NRC staff's independent review, the staff

concludes that impacts on social and economic resources from construction and operation of

two new nuclear units at the Plant Farley site would be MODERATE to LARGE beneficial

August 2008 9-63 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

impacts in Houston County and SMALL in the remainder of the 80-km (50-mi) region around the

plant.

Infrastructure and Community Services

Transportation

Road access to Plant Farley is via State Road 95, a two-lane paved road with a north-south

orientation. State Road 95 passes through the towns of Columbia to the north and Gordon to

the south. Employees traveling from Dothan, Alabama, use either U.S. 84 or State Road 52.

U.S. 84 is a four-lane highway that intersects State Road 95 near Gordon. State Road 52

crosses State Road 95 southwest of Columbia. The Alabama Department of Transportation

does not maintain level-of-service designation for roadways in the State. However, a daily

average of 870 cars traveled State Road 95 near Plant Farley in 2004 (Southern 2008).

I Assuming construction shifts as described in Section 4.5.1, an additional 1750 cars could be on

the highway during shift change, causing potential congestion. Also, the traffic of hauling

construction materials (100 trucks per day) to the site could cause additional congestion to State

Road 95, and State Road 52 and U.S. Route 84 from Dothan during certain times of the day.

Transportation impacts are generally considered SMALL when increases in traffic do not result

in delays or other operational problems, and MODERATE when increases in traffic begin to

cause delays or other operational problems (NRC 2005). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes

that impacts of construction on transportation would be MODERATE during the peak

construction period because delays or other operational problems are anticipated.

With respect to operation of the facility, adding an additional 760 cars during the afternoon shift

(see shift assumptions Section 5.5.4.1) to the existing traffic on the road would not strain current

road capacity. Shift changes for the current units and new units at Plant Farley could be

staggered so that the traffic increase would not cause congestion, which would be particularly

important during the outage periods when nearly 1000 additional temporary contract workers

are employed to perform outage operations. Impacts of the commuting workforce on

transportation would be SMALL during operation of the plant.

Recreation

Three U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoirs are in the vicinity of Plant Farley: Walter F.

George Lake, George W. Andrews Lake, and Lake Seminole. All have recreational uses in

including camping, boat ramps, marinas, picnic areas, playgrounds, swimming areas, and trails

(Southern 2008). Walter F. George Lake and George W. Andrews Lake are located more than

30 mi upstream of Plant Farley in Henry and Barbour Counties, Alabama, and Clay, Quitman,

and Stewart Counties, Georgia. Seminole Lake is located almost 40 km (25 mi) downstream of

Plant Farley on the border of Georgia and Florida, in Jackson County, Florida and Seminole and

Decatur Counties, Georgia. Construction and operation of new nuclear units at Plant Farley

NUREG-1872 9-64 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

would not impact these recreation areas because of their distance from Plant Farley. Therefore,

the impacts of facility construction and operation on recreation would be SMALL.

Housing

In 2005, Houston County had 42,220 housing units, 4536 of which (10.7 percent) were vacant.

In 2000, Henry County had 8037 housing units, 1512 of which (18.8 percent) were vacant, and

Geneva County had 10,477 housing units with 1638 vacant (13.5 percent) (USCB 2007a).

Based on the analysis in Section 4.5.2, approximately 5500 construction workers and their

families would in-migrate to the 80-km (50-mi) region. Currently, available housing in the threecounty area is adequate to accommodate the expected influx of workers. Workers could also

find housing in other parts of the 80-km (50-mi) region or construct new housing. Given this

increased demand for housing, prices of existing housing could rise; however, the overall

dispersed impacts on housing within the 80-km (50-mi) region are expected to be SMALL.

Southern assumes that operation of the new units at Plant Farley would increase the population

in the 80-km (50-mi) region by 2152 people, and approximately 77 percent would settle in

Houston County. The current housing supply in Houston County could accommodate all the

new families expected to settle in this county. The impact of operating the new units on housing

is therefore likely to be SMALL.

Public Services

According to studies commissioned by SEARPDC, water related resource problems pose

potential barriers to future development in Houston County due to both residential and industrial

demand. Over the past 20 years, groundwater overdraft areas have developed within the

region. The potentiometric surface in the vicinity of Dothan, Ft. Rucker (Dale County), and

Enterprise (approximately 40 km [25 mi] west of Dothan and 50 km [31 mi] from Plant Farley)

have experienced significant declines in the Nanafalia-Clayton aquifer, which is the major water

supply in the area. The city of Dothan has reported a decline of 30 m (100 ft) in the depth of the

aquifer, and a recommendation has been made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the U.S. Forest Service that all water

systems in the area develop a 10- to 20-year plan for additional water supplies (NRC 2005).

Dothan, which is the nearest urban area to Plant Farley, is serviced by Dothan Utilities, the

largest potable water supplier in Houston County. Water is pumped from various shallow and

deep groundwater wells located throughout the Dothan area. As the city grows and new

development occurs, water mains are constructed and extended to meet the increased demand.

Dothan likely would need additional water sources and conservation measures by as early as

2020. One of the options the city is considering is constructing, by 2011, a 38 million L/d

(10 million gallons per day [gpd]) surface-water treatment plant on the Chattahoochee River

upstream of Plant Farley between Columbia and Plant Farley. This treatment plant would be

August 2008 9-65 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

expandable to 76 million Lid (20 million gpd). The plant would connect to the city via a 91-cm

(36-in) pipe (NRC 2005).

Construction and operation of new nuclear units at the Plant Farley site would not require

municipal water and treatment systems. The planned water system expansions would already

be underway by the time new units would be constructed at Plant Farley; however, it is likely,

considering the current system capacity constraints, that a major influx of construction workers

could temporarily strain the system and impacts could be MODERATE. When the new units

become operational, the minor population increase from the 812 construction workers and

families would likely have SMALL impacts on the public utility system.

Dothan is equipped with police and fire protection services that are currently adequately funded

and keeping up with growth in the county, in part, due to tax revenue benefits from the existing

plant. Thus, the marginal impacts on these services from construction and operation workers

and their families are expected to be minor. Dothan serves as the regional medical center for

parts of Florida, Georgia, and southeastern Alabama; thus, Houston County is well served with

medical services (NRC 2005). In addition, any of the minor injuries incurred during construction

of the units could be treated onsite; thus the construction and operation of new units at Plant

Farley would not be expected to overburden the local medical system. The employment of

additional construction workers and operations staff would not be expected to significantly strain

the social services provided in the region, and therefore such impacts are considered SMALL.

Education

In 2006, 14,870 students attended Houston County mainstream public schools. The Dothan

City district is served with 18 schools (including 10 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, 2 high

schools, 2 magnet schools and 1 vocational school) with enrollment at 8652, while the Houston

County School District has 11 schools (including four elementary schools, one middle school,

four high schools, an alternative school and a vocational school) with enrollment at 6218

(NCES 2007).

Based on the analysis in Section 4.5.4.5, new nuclear units at Plant Farley would increase the

school-aged population in the 80-km (50-mi) region by 1100 during the peak of the construction

phase. Assuming that 77 percent would settle in Houston County, enrollment could increase by

I approximately 850 in Houston County Schools during the peak construction period.

MODERATE impacts on local school systems could be expected during peak construction,

because enrollment could increase as much as 6 percent over current enrollment levels;

however, this county would potentially receive additional tax revenue benefits from Southern

during the construction phase, which could mitigate these impacts.

Based on the analysis in Section 5.5.4.5, Southern assumes that operation of new nuclear units

at Plant Farley would increase the school-aged population in the 80-km (50-mi) region by

NUREG-1872 9-66 August2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

464 people. Assuming approximately 77 percent would settle in Houston County, enrollment

would only increase by 3 percent over current enrollment levels; therefore, impacts would be

expected to be SMALL.

Summary of Infrastructure and Community Services

Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that impacts on infrastructure and community services from construction of two new

nuclear units at the Plant Farley site would be SMALL to MODERATE. Once the two new units

are operational, these impacts on community services and infrastructure would likely be SMALL.

Summary of Socioeconomics

In summary, based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent

review, the staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts of constructing two new nuclear

units on the Plant Farley site would be SMALL, except in Houston County. In Houston County,

the exceptions are as follows: the impacts on the tax base would be beneficial and

MODERATE; the impacts on the economy of Houston County would likely be beneficial and

MODERATE, local transportation could be adversely affected and the effect is likely to be

MODERATE and, similarly, social services could be strained during construction of the plant

such that the impacts would be MODERATE. Schools would see a significant enrollment

increase during the construction phase, which may produce MODERATE adverse impacts;

however, depending on when the beneficial tax revenues from the plant begin to be paid to the

county, these impacts could be fully mitigated. Once the two new reactors are operational, the

socioeconomic impacts on the region would be SMALL, except in Houston County where the

economic and tax impacts would likely be LARGE and beneficial.

9.5.2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The likely footprint for the construction of two new nuclear units at Plant Farley does not appear

to have any historic properties located within areas likely to be impacted by new construction

and operations. Miscellaneous archaeological surveys conducted over the years in the area

indicate that while sites may exist on the premises, either the sites are not eligible for listing on

the National Register of Historic Places or are located away from likely areas of new

construction. Protective measures would be put in place in the event that historic or

archaeological materials are discovered during construction or during operations. In the event

that an unanticipated discovery is made, site personnel would be instructed to notify the Georgia

SHPO and would consult with them in conducting an assessment of the discovery to determine

if additional work is needed. The impacts to historic and cultural resources are predicted to be

SMALL at the Plant Farley site.

August 2008 9-67 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

9.5.2.7 Environmental Justice

The 2000 Census data and block groups were used for ascertaining minority and low-income

populations in the area. Minority populations exist in the vicinity of Plant Farley, including block

groups with significant black races and Hispanic ethnicity populations. Low-income populations

also exist in the 80-km (50-mi) radius. In Houston County, black minority and low-income

minority populations exist in Dothan, approximately 27 km (17 mi) west of Plant Farley. Black

minority and low-income populations also exist in Early County, Georgia, bordering Plant Farley

to the east across the Chattahoochee River. The only block group with a significant hispanic

ethnicity minority population is located in Gadsden County, Florida, approximately 80 km (50 mi)

from Plant Farley. No significant minority or low-income populations exist within 10 km (6 mi) of

Plant Farley (Southern 2008).

Construction activities (noise, fugitive dust, air emissions, traffic, impacts to housing or public

services) would not disproportionately adversely affect minority populations because of their

distance from Plant Farley.

Operation of the proposed project at Plant Farley is also unlikely to have a disproportionate

adverse impact on minority or low-income populations. No unusual resource dependencies,

such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing were identified during the license renewal

process for Plant Farley (NRC 2005). Offsite impacts from operation of the proposed project at

Plant Farley to minority and low-income populations would be SMALL.

9.5.3 Barton Site

This section covers the staffs evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting new

nuclear units at the Barton site.

9.5.3.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Southern's undeveloped Barton site is located in Chilton and Elmore Counties, Alabama

(Figure 9-3). The site is located on the west side of the Coosa River between Chestnut Creek

to the north and Jake Creek to the south. The Barton site encompasses approximately 1130 ha

(2800 ac) (Southern 2008). The site is mainly forested and is characterized by moderately

rolling hills.

The footprint of a new generating plant at the Barton site would be approximately 160 ha

(400 ac) and an additional 61 ha (150 ac) would be required for temporary facilities and laydown

yards (Southern 2008). Because the site is undeveloped, additional land would be required for

roads, parking lots, and a switchyard. State Road 22 passes approximately 6 km (4 mi) north of

the Barton site at its closest point. A 6.4 km (4 mi) paved road with a 30-m (100-ft) right-of-way

would be constructed to State Road 22 to provide vehicle access to the site. Development of

the road would require approximately 20 ha (50 ac). A CSX Transportation railroad line passes

approximately 9 km (6 mi) southwest of the Barton site at its closest point (Southern 2007c). A

NUREG-1872 9-68 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Figure 9-3. The Barton Site 80-km (50-mi) Vicinity (Southern 2008)

August 2008 9-69 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

connecting rail spur, requiring approximately 49 ha (120 ac), would be constructed to transport

materials and equipment to the site.

The land in the vicinity of the Barton site is predominately wooded, with some agricultural land

and a small amount urban. The Barton site is not subject to the Alabama Coastal Zone

Program because the Program only applies in Baldwin and Mobile Counties (ADEM 2005).

Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that the land-use impacts of constructing two new nuclear units at the Barton site

would be MODERATE. Operational impacts would be SMALL.

Southern assumed that two 500-kV transmission lines requiring a 90-m (300-ft)-wide right-ofway would be needed to connect new generating units at the Barton site to Alabama Power

Company's transmission system (Southern 2008). Southern assumed that the lines would

connect to the substation at the Gaston Generating Plant, which is approximately 56 km (35 mi)

north of the Barton site. Routing the new transmission lines to the Gaston Generating Plant

would require about 515.2 ha (1273 ac) of transmission line right-of-way (Southern 2008).

Southern would give consideration to avoiding possible conflicts with any natural or man-made

areas where important environmental resources are located (Southern 2008). Route selection

would also avoid populated areas and residences to the extent possible. Lands which are

currently used for forests or timber production would be altered. Trees would be replaced by

grasses and other low-growing types of ground cover. The new transmission line right-of-way

would not be expected to permanently affect agricultural areas, but would have the potential to

affect residents and forested land along the right:of-way. Southern would obtain needed State

and Federal permits related to construction of a new transmission line. Based on the

information it has available, the staff concludes that the transmission line land-use impacts of

constructing new nuclear units at the Barton site would be MODERATE, and the operational

impacts would be SMALL.

Chilton and Elmore Counties are designated as being unclassified or in attainment with the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 81.301). The air-quality impacts of

constructing and operating two new nuclear units at the Barton site would be similar to the airquality impacts at the VEGP site. The staff concludes that the air-quality impacts of constructing

and operating two new nuclear units at the Barton site would be SMALL.

9.5.3.2 Water Use and Quality

The staff assumed that a new nuclear facility at the Barton site would withdraw all water

required for the plant from the Coosa River upstream from Jordan Dam because groundwater

yields at the site are very small. The staff computed the 7Q10 and 30Q2 based on data from

USGS stream gage 0241100 (Coosa River at Jordan Dam near Wetumpka, Alabama). Data for

the period from October 1974 to September 2005 were used to estimate the 7Q10 and 30Q2

NUREG-1872 9-70 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

values. The drainage area upstream of the flow gage was reported by the USGS to be

10,102 mi 2. The 7Q10 and 30Q2 values computed by the staff were 58.9 m3/s (2080 cfs) and

111 m3/s (3920 cfs), respectively. For the calendar years 1975 through 2005, the average

annual mean discharge at the gage was 464.68 m3

/s (16,410 cfs), and the minimum annual

mean discharge was 152.97 m3

/s (5402 cfs).

The net consumptive water loss for the site was assumed to be sum of the total groundwater

withdrawal for the two nuclear units (0.20 m3

/s [7 cfs; 3,140 gpm]) and the proposed wet tower

consumptive use 1.76 m3

/s (62 cfs), or a total of 1.95 m3

/s (69 cfs). Expressed as a percentage

of the 7Q10 and 30Q2, the consumptive water loss represents 3 percent and 2 percent,

respectively, of the total flow in the Coosa River.

Any releases of contaminants to the waters of the State of Alabama would be regulated by the

ADEM through the NPDES permit process to ensure that water quality is protected.

Based on the requirements of the NPDES permit and the above analysis, the staff concludes

that the water-use and water-quality impacts of two nuclear units at the Barton site would be

SMALL.

9.5.3.3 Terrestrial Resources

The Barton site is approximately 1130 ha (2800 ac) on the west bank of Jordan Reservoir

between Chestnut Creek to the north and Jake Creek to the south. Land on this site is

undeveloped and predominantly forested. Habitat consists of hardwoods, pines, and mixed

hardwood/pine.

Forested habitats occupy the area for about 3.2 km (2 mi) surrounding the site, and land

beyond 3.2 km (2 mi) of the site is predominately a mixture of forest and agriculture. Animal

species that occur on the Barton site are those typically found in similar habitats in central

Alabama, such as the opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus),

gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon Iotor), white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus), and various reptiles, amphibians, and birds. Southern assumed that

at least 223 ha (550 ac) of forest would have to be cleared for the construction of the Barton

Nuclear Plant and associated facilities (Southern 2008).

There are 13 State-listed species that occur in counties within 16 km (10 mi) of the Barton site

(Autauga, Chilton, Coosa, Elmore Counties) or in Talledaga County, which the transmission

line right-of-way would also presumably pass through. The following State-protected species

occur in these counties: seal salamander (Desmognathus monticola), bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), osprey (Pandion haliaetus),

Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), southeastern pocket gopher

(Geomys pinetis), southeastern bat (Myotis austroriparius), meadow jumping mouse

August 2008 9-71 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

(Zapus hudsonius), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), black-knobbed map turtle

(Graptemys nigrinoda), Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra), southern hognose snake

(Heterodon simus), and alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys temminckii) (ALNHP 2007).

Construction Impacts

The footprint of a new plant would be approximately 160 ha (400 ac) and an additional 61 ha

(150 ac) would be required for temporary facilities and laydown yards. In addition, acreage

would be required for roads, parking lots, and a switchyard. A 6.4 km (4 mi) paved road with a

30 m (100 ft) right-of-way would be constructed to provide vehicle access from State Road 22 to

the Barton site. Development of the road would require approximately 20 ha (50 ac). A 9.7 km

(6 mi) connecting rail spur, requiring approximately 49 ha (120 ac), would also be constructed to

transport materials and equipment to the site (Southern 2008). The land surrounding the site is

predominately forested and the staff assumes a large portion of the acreage needed for roads

and the rail spur would require removal of forest habitat.

Southern assumed that two 500-kV transmission lines requiring a 90-m (300-ft)-wide

transmission line right-of-way would be needed to connect new generating units at the Barton

site to Alabama Power Company's transmission system. These lines would connect to the

substation at the Gaston Generating Plant, which is approximately 56 km (35 mi) north of the

Barton site near Wilsonville, Alabama. Routing the new transmission lines to the Gaston

Generating Plant would require about 515.2 ha (1273 ac) of transmission line right-of-way.

During routing, consideration would be given to avoiding possible conflicts with any natural or

man-made areas where important environmental resources are located (Southern 2008).

Southern stated that land clearing associated with construction of the plant and transmission

lines would be conducted according to Federal and State regulations, permit conditions, existing

Southern procedures, good construction practices, and established BMPs (Southern 2008).

Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that the impacts to terrestrial resources from construction of two new nuclear units at

the Barton site would be MODERATE and construction associated with the creation of a new

transmission line right-of-way impacts could be MODERATE.

Operational Impacts

Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the Barton

site include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. Impacts resulting from

the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines would be of similar magnitude at all the

alternative sites and cannot be used to discriminate between them. Therefore, operational

impacts are discussed generically in Section 9.6.1.

NUREG-1872 9-72 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts

Formal surveys for threatened and endangered species on the Barton site (Autauga, Chilton,

Coosa, Elmore Counties) have not been conducted. However, Southern is not aware of any

known occurrences of Federally listed threatened and endangered species onsite

(Southern 2008). There are 13 Federally listed terrestrial plant and animal species recorded in

counties within 16 km (10 mi) of the Barton site as well as Talledaga County, through which

transmission lines from the Barton site would presumably pass. The following Federally listed

terrestrial species occur in these counties: red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), wood

stork (Mycteria americana), Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais coupen), Price's potatobean (Apios priceana), Georgia rockcress (Arabis georgiana), Kral's water-plantain

(Sagittaria secundifolia), green pitcherplant (Sarracenia oreophila), and Alabama canebrake

pitcherplant (Sarracenia rubra alabamensis) (FWS 2007c). In addition, a query of the Alabama

State Element Occurrence database found the Federally protected American alligator

(Alligator mississippiensis), least tern (Sterna antillarum), grey bat (Myotis gnsescens), Indiana

bat (Myotis sodalis), and the Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) as occurring in these

counties (ALNHP 2007).

The NRC contacted the FWS (Daphne, Alabama) field office concerning Federally listed

threatened and endangered species in the vicinity of the Barton site. The FWS provided

preliminary comments on potential impacts to protected species by construction of two units at

the site and the associated transmission lines (FWS 2006).

The FWS requested that surveys for Federally listed threatened and endangered species be

conducted in suitable habitat that may be impacted by construction of the proposed project at

the Barton site, including the new transmission line rights-of-way. Plant surveys need to be

conducted when identifiable above-ground parts are present. These surveys should be

conducted by a qualified botanist prior to any clearing or vegetative maintenance activity in the

proposed transmission line right-of-way (FWS 2006).

Southern stated that field surveys would be conducted for Federally listed and State-protected

species as part of the permitting process before any clearing or construction activities at the site

and along associated transmission line rights-of-way and additional access roads. Land

clearing associated with construction of the plant (including access roads) and transmission

lines would be conducted according to Federal and State regulations, permit conditions, existing

procedures implemented by Southern, good construction practices, and established BMPs

(Southern 2008). Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent

review, the staff concludes that the impacts to threatened and endangered species from

construction of two new nuclear units at the Barton site and construction associated with

addition of a new transmission line right-of-way could be SMALL to MODERATE.

August 2008 9-73 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

9.5.3.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

The Barton site is located on the Jordan Reservoir, a 6800-ac impoundment on the Coosa

River. The lake was created in 1928 by the Alabama Power Company to provide flood control

and hydroelectric power.

The Jordan Reservoir is popular for various types of recreation including boating, swimming,

and fishing. Common sports fish found in Lake Jordan include the Alabama spotted bass

(Micropterus punctatus), largemouth bass (M. salmoides), hybrid striped bass

(Morone chrysops x M. saxatilis), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), readear sunfish

(L. microlophus), and black (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) and white crappie (P. annularis).

Additional non-game fish include channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), blue catfish (I. furcatus),

and flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris). The Alabama Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries

Division regularly stocks Jordan Reservoir with several bass species (ADCNR 2007).

A portion of Chestnut Creek runs through the northern section of the 1050-ha (2600-ac) Barton

site and the entire site lies within the Chestnut Creek watershed. The Lower Coosa River Basin

Management Plan (Delaney 2005) designates the Chestnut Creek watershed as a "high-priority

watershed." The designation of "high priority" means that a watershed has the greatest number

of features that could have a negative impact on the water quality within the watershed and

typically the highest number of features to be protected. The classification is based on an

18-factor rating system that considers features such as land-use character, housing density,

impaired waterbodies, and endangered species. The Chestnut Creek watershed scored the

highest (negative impact) in the following areas: water-quality monitoring data, land-use

character, soil suitability for development, increase in traffic volume, presence of a dam,

housing density, septic system density, and number of endangered species.

The watershed also has water-quality issues associated with high nutrient levels and low

dissolved oxygen (Delaney 2005). High nutrient levels can have a negative impact on oxygen

levels necessary to sustain a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Excessive nutrient levels in a waterbody can result in excessive plant growth. The plants then consume more oxygen than they

produce leading to depleted dissolved oxygen levels which in turn taxes the aquatic species that

are dependent on oxygen for survival. Jordan Reservoir has developed this "eutrophic"

characteristic, in spite of the water movement through the reservoir system (Hearn 1997;

Delaney 2005)

Construction Impacts

If the proposed reactors were to be constructed at the Barton site, it is assumed that Jordan

Reservoir would be, used as a source for cooling water. Construction of a cooling water intake

structure would result in temporary displacement of fish within the vicinity of the intake

construction area. It is expected that these fish would return to the area once construction was

NUREG-1 872 9-74 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

complete. Sedimentation due to disturbances of the river bank and bottom could impact local

benthic species, such as mussels. Surveys of the area of disturbance would be conducted

before construction to characterize the impacted populations and create a plan to mitigate the

temporary construction impacts (Southern 2008). Based on information provided by Southern

and NRC's own independent review, the staff concludes that if BMPsý'are used, construction

impacts to aquatic resources at Barton site would be SMALL.

Construction of two 500-kV transmission lines requiring a 90-m (300-ft)-wide right-of-way could

have impacts to aquatic habitats along the right-of-way. Because no information on the routing

has been provided, the impacts to the aquatic ecosystem in waterbodies crossed by the new

right-of-way is not known. However, Southern has indicated that field surveys would be

conducted-and BMPs would be employed during right-of-way construction. Based on this

information and NRC's own independent review, the staff concludes that construction impacts to

aquatic resources during transmission line construction would be SMALL to MODERATE,

depending on the transmission right-of-way routing.

Operational Impacts

The aquatic impact most likely to occur from operation of a new facility on the Barton site would

be entrainment and impingement of organisms from Jordan Reservoir. Assuming a closedcycle cooling system, a maximum through-screen velocity of 0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s) at the cooling

water intake with an intake flow of less than or equal to 5 percent of the mean annual flow of the

Coosa River, and a design and location of the new intake that is consistent with the existing

intake, the anticipated impacts to aquatic populations from entrainment and impingement are

expected to be minor. Operational impacts associated with water use and discharge cannot be

determined without additional detailed analysis. However, based on the information provided by

Southern and NRC's own independent review of reconnaissance-level information, as well as

the staff's experience from other facilities, the staff concludes that with proper design, the

impacts to aquatic resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the Barton site would

likely be SMALL.

The staff also concludes that operational impacts to aquatic biota from the transmission lines

would also be SMALL assuming that BMPs are used for maintenance.

Threatened and Endangered Species

The FWS and Alabama Natural Heritage Program (ALNHP) list several protected species of

fish, snails, and mussels within the three counties encompassed by the site and counties in

which transmission lines would traverse (Table 9-6). However, none of these species is

recently known to occur within an area that would be directly impacted by the Barton facility

construction. Protected species known to currently inhabit the Coosa River or associated creeks

are found in areas below the Jordan Dam or above the Mitchell Dam.

August 2008 9-75 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

The NRC contacted the FWS (Daphne, Alabama) field office concerning Federally listed

threatened and endangered species in the vicinity of the Barton site. The FWS provided

preliminary comments on potential impacts to protected species by construction of two units at

the site and the associated transmission lines (FWS 2006). The area of greatest concern to the

FWS is within the Coosa River, downstream of Jordan Dam. This reach of the river is a highpriority restoration area for the FWS and State of Alabama and is considered a classic example

of "big river" habitat. The FWS, State, and Alabama Power Company spent many years

coordinating efforts to ensure stabilization of habitat downstream of the dam with hopes of

recolonization or reintroduction of species. This reach of the river is also habitat for several

protected species and is designated as a critical habitat for nine mussel species. Critical habitat

is a specific geographic area that provides essential elements necessary for survival of a

threatened and endangered species. These habitats can be currently occupied by a protected

species or used for reintroduction of a species to aid inits recovery.

Table 9-6. Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species Within Vicinity of the Barton Site

Alabama Federal County of

Species State Status Status Occurrence

Fish

Alabama sturgeon

Alabama shad

blue shiner

coldwater darter

crystal darter

paddlefish

slackwater darter

Invertebrates

Coosa moccasinshell

mussel

fine-lined pocketbook

mussel

interrupted rocksnail

lacy elimia

painted rocksnail

rough, hornsnail

silt elimia

southern clubshell

southern pigtoe

spotted rocksnail

triangular kidneyshell

tulotoma snail

Scaphirhynchus suttkusi

Alosa alabamae

Cyprinella caerulea

Etheostoma ditrema

Crystallaria asprella

Polyodon spathula

Etheostoma boschungi

Medionidus parvulus

Lampsilis altilis

Leptoxis formani

Elimia crenatella

Leptoxis taeniata

Pleurocera foremani

Elimia haysiana

Pleurobema decisum

Pleurobema georgianum

Leptoxis picta

Ptychobranchus greenhi

Tulotoma magnifica

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Protected

Endangered

Threatened

Threatened

Endangered

Autauga, Elmore

Elmore

Coosa, Talladega

Chilton, Coosa,

Talladega

Elmore

Elmore

Talladega

Talladega

Threatened Chilton, Coosa,

Elmore, Talladega

Candidate Elmore

Threatened Talladega

Threatened Chilton, Elmore,

Talladega

Candidate Elmore

Elmore

Endangered Talladega

Endangered Coosa, Talladega

Elmore

Endangered Talladega

Endangered Coosa, Elmore,

Talladega

NUREG-1872 .9-76 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Table 9-6. (contd)

Alabama Federal County of

Species State Status Status Occurrence

Plant

Kral's water-plaintain Sagittara secondifolia Threatened Coosa

FWS 2007c; ALNHP 2007

Water-quality impacts to aquatic populations downstream of the Jordan Dam cannot fully be

determined without additional detailed analysis. Such analysis would be conducted if the Barton

site were selected for the new units. However, based on the location of the threatened and

endangered species in the area (downstream of Jordan Dam) and because no new construction,

would occur in that area, and operational impacts are anticipated to be minor. The NRC staff

concludes that the impacts to threatened and endangered species from construction or

operation at the Barton site would be SMALL.

9.5.3.5 Socioeconomics

In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of construction at the Barton site, Southern undertook

a "reconnaissance" survey of the site using readily obtainable data from the Internet or

published sources. The staff conducted some local interviews with knowledgeable local

officials. The socioeconomic subsections follow the organizational structure of the

socioeconomic discussions in Sections 2.8, 4.5, and 5.5. The impacts expected from both

construction and operation are discussed.

Physical Impacts

Construction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor,

vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emissions. The use of public roadways

and railways would be necessary to transport construction materials and equipment. The

majority of construction activities would occur within the boundaries of the Barton site.

However, an access road and a connecting rail spur (requiring about 69 ha [170 ac]) would be

constructed on lands adjacent to the site. These new transportation rights-of-way would be

routed to avoid residences and populated areas. Offsite areas that would support construction

activities (for example, borrow pits, quarries, and disposal sites) are expected to be already

permitted and operational. Impacts on those facilities from construction of new nuclear units

would be small incremental impacts associated with their normal operation (Southern 2008).

Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and

visual intrusions. The proposed project would produce noise from the operation of pumps, fans,

transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site would also be

a source of noise. However, noise attenuates quickly so ambient noise levels would be minimal

at the site boundary. Also, the Barton site is located in a rural area surrounded by forests and

August 2008 9-77 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

agricultural land, with few residents in the area. Commuter traffic would be controlled by speed

limits. Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits would minimize the noise level

generated by the workforce commuting to the site (Southern 2008).

New nuclear units would have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power systems.

Permits obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions comply with applicable

regulations. In addition, the generators would be operated on a limited, short-term basis.

During normal plant operation, the nuclear units would not use a significant quantity of

chemicals that could generate odors that exceed odor threshold values. Good access

roads and appropriate speed limits would minimize the dust generated by the commuting

workforce. Construction activities would be temporary and would occur mainly within the

boundaries of the Barton site. Offsite impacts would represent small incremental changes to

offsite services supporting the construction activities. During station operations, ambient noise

levels would be minimal at the site boundary. Air-quality permits would be required for the

diesel generators, and chemical use would be limited, which should limit odors. Therefore, the

physical impacts of construction and operation would be SMALL.

Aesthetics

The construction and operation of new nuclear units at the Barton site would have impacts on

aesthetic and scenic resources. With the exception of the intake and outfall structures, which

would be located on the west bank of the Jordan Reservoir, all facility structures would be built

near the center of the site, which is relatively hidden from view of the public with trees and other

foliage. From Jordan Reservoir, the plant may be visible from certain angles, although from

most points the structures would be hidden by elevated terrain, trees, and other foliage. The

intake and outfall would be visible from portions of the reservoir that are near the site.

The upper portions of facility structures may be visible from elevated areas near the site. There

would be occasional visible plumes associated with the cooling towers. The visibility of the

plumes would be dependent upon the weather and wind patterns, and the location of the viewer

within the general topography of the area.

Southern assumed that two 500-kV transmission lines, requiring a 90-m (300-ft) wide right-ofway would be needed to connect new generating units at the Barton site to Alabama Power

Company's transmission system (Southern 2008). MODERATE aesthetic impacts are expected

as a result of building and operating the new transmission line that would be installed in a

515-ha (1273-ac) right-of-way to connect to the substation at Gaston Generating Plant,

approximately 56 km (35 mi) north of the Barton site. Impacts on aesthetic resources are

considered to be moderate if some complaints arise about diminution in the enjoyment of the

physical environment and measurable impacts that do not alter the continued functioning of

socioeconomic institutions and processes. Construction and operation of an industrial facility on

a previously undeveloped site and new transmission lines would likely result in some complaints

NUREG-1872 9-78 August 2.008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

from the affected public regarding diminution in the enjoyment of the physical environment

(Southern 2008). Therefore, impacts of construction and operation of the proposed project at

the Barton site and additional transmission lines on aesthetics would be MODERATE and could

warrant mitigation.

Demography

The Barton site is a greenfield site located in Chilton and Elmore Counties, Alabama. The

population distribution around the site is relatively low and dispersed with typical rural

characteristics. Based on the 2000 Census data, the total population of the four counties in

the site region was approximately 161,340: 43,671 in Autauga County, 39,593 in Chilton

County, 12,202 in Coosa County and 65,874 in Elmore County. The population within

80 km (50 mi) of the site was 735,226 (36.6 persons per km 2), and the population within

32 km (20 mi) of the site was 90,677 (28.2 persons per km 2). The nearest population center,

as defined in 10 CFR 100.3 is Montgomery, Alabama (population 201,568), located

approximately 43 km (27 mi) south of the site (Southern 2008).

Due to the proximity of the Barton site to Montgomery as well as to Birmingham (approximately

80 km [50 mi] to the northwest with a population of 242,820), the most populous metropolitan

areas in Alabama, it is expected that a significant number of the construction workers could be

drawn from the regional labor pool (USCB 2007b). It would also be expected that most of the

in-migrating construction workers would choose to locate in or near these larger cities, because

they are within commuter distance to the plant, and the housing and amenities would be

relatively plentiful. Some employees relocating to the region would also choose to reside in

more rural locations; however, there is no reason to believe they would concentrate in any

particular region; thus, the population impacts would be dispersed. Even when assuming the

relatively high in-migration estimates presented in 4.5.2 (5500), the total influx of workers and

families would represent less than a 1 percent increase in population in the 80-km (50-mi)

region; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the demographic impacts of constructing two

new units at the Barton site would be SMALL.

Approximately 952 workers (812 operations personnel plus 140 security personnel) would be

required for the operation of new generating units at the Barton site (Southern 2008). Most

employees relocating to the region would likely move to the larger metropolitan areas and the

remainder would be scattered throughout the counties in the region. If all 952 employees and

their families were to come from outside the region, the potential increase in population in the

most impacted counties would not be substantial. Overall, the potential increases in population

would represent a SMALL increase in the total population for the most impacted counties.

August 2008 9-79 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Social and Economic Impacts

Economy

Based on 2000 census data within the four counties surrounding the Barton site,

74,683 persons are in the labor force. The overall unemployment rate for the region is lower

than that of the State, which is 6.2 percent. Elmore County's business profile is led by

educational, health, and social services (16.8 percent of the county's total employment),

followed by manufacturing (14.5 percent), and retail trade (12.0 percent). The unemployment

rate for Elmore County in 2000 was 5.0 percent. In neighboring Chilton County, the business

profile is led by manufacturing (16.9 percent of the county's total employment), followed by

educational, health, and social services (14.7 percent), and construction (13.1 percent). The

unemployment rate in Chilton County was 4.3 percent in 2000 (Southern 2008).

The wages and salaries of the operating workforce would have a multiplier effect that could

result in increases in business activity; particularly in the retail and service sectors. This would

have a positive impact on the business community and could provide opportunities for new

businesses to get started, and increased job opportunities for local residents. The economic

effect on the 80-km (50-mi) region would be beneficial. It is likely that the marginal impacts

associated with construction of two new units at the Barton site would be beneficial to the

region; however, considering that the region is relatively economically diverse, with a plentiful

job supply, these impacts would be SMALL and beneficial as a result of interacting with a

relatively robust economic base in the region.

Taxes

Southern anticipates that it would pay annual property taxes to Chilton and Elmore Counties,

beginning during construction of the proposed project at the Barton site. Alabama assesses

property at 30 percent of its value. Assuming a 40-year operational life, property taxes that

would be split between Chilton and Elmore Counties could average between $15,000,000 and

$21,500,000 annually for the first decade of operations and between $3,000,000 and

$4,000,000 for the last decade of operations, based on the changing value of the plant

(Southern 2008). Chilton and Elmore Counties have experienced rapid growth over the past

few years; consequently, it is difficult to predict the degree of impact that the Barton site would

have on the tax base for these counties. Assuming that the valuation of the new nuclear units at

the Barton site would be similar to the Plant Farley Nuclear Plant in Houston County, tax

payments for the site could represent 20 to 30 percent of the tax revenue for these counties

(Southern 2008). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential beneficial impacts of

taxes collected during construction and operation of the proposed project at the Barton site

NUREG-1 872 9-80 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

would be MODERATE and beneficial in Chilton and Elmore Counties and SMALL and beneficial

in the remainder of the 80-km (50-mi) region.

Summary of Social and Economic Impacts

Based on information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that impacts on social and economic resources from construction and operation of

two new nuclear units at the Barton site would be MODERATE and beneficial in Chilton and

Elmore Counties and SMALL and beneficial elsewhere in the 80-km (50-mi) region.

Infrastructure and Community Services

Transportation

Road access to the Barton site would be via State Road 22, which has an east-west orientation.

State Road 22 passes through the town of Rockford, Alabama to the east and merges with

U.S. Highway 31 about one mile north of the town of Verbena, Alabama. Employees traveling

from Birmingham and other towns north of the site would access State Road 22 from

U.S. Highway 31. Employees traveling from Montgomery, Alabama and other towns south of

the site would access State Road 22 from U.S. Highway 31 via State Road 111 or State Road

143. All roads on these travel routes are two-lane paved roads. The Alabama Department of

Transportation does not maintain level-of-service designation for roadways in the State.

However, a daily average of 1580 cars traveled State Road 22 near the Barton site in 2004.

Assuming construction shifts as described in Section 4.5.4.1, an additional 1750 cars could be

on a two-lane highway during shift changes, causing potential congestion. Also, the traffic of

hauling construction materials (100 trucks per day) to the site could bring additional congestion

to State Road 22, U.S. Highway 31 and State Roads 111 and 143 during certain times of the

day (Southern 2008).

Impacts of construction on transportation would be MODERATE and some mitigating actions

would be needed.

With respect to the operations of the facility, adding at most an additional 860 cars (assuming a

single occupant per car and shift changes assumed in Section 5.5.4.1) to the existing 1580 cars

per day on the road would not materially congest the highway. Shift changes for the proposed

project at the Barton site could be staggered so that the traffic increase would not cause

congestion, which would be particularly important during the outage periods when nearly

1000 additional temporary contract workers are employed to perform outage operations.

Impacts of the commuting workforce on transportation would be MODERATE during the

construction phase and SMALL during the operation of the plant.

August 2008 9-81 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Recreation

The Barton site is currently undeveloped and is used by hunters. Construction and operation of

new nuclear units on the site would exclude the entire 1130 ha (2800 ac) from hunting and other

recreational use for at least the estimated 40-year life of the plant.

The developed areas at the Barton site would be located near the center of the property, with

the area immediately adjacent to the Jordan Reservoir mostly undeveloped. The remainder of

the site would consist of forested areas, ponds, and open fields. The Jordan Reservoir is

relatively undeveloped, particularly in the upper half of the reservoir, where the Barton site is

located; however, there are some higher-end homes immediately adjacent to the Barton site.

The reservoir offers opportunities for wildlife viewing, camping, boating, fishing, and other

recreation (Southern 2008).

Two Alabama Power Company reservoirs are in the vicinity of the Barton site in addition to the

Jordan Reservoir: Lay Lake and Mitchell Lake. Both reservoirs have recreational uses including

camping, boat ramps, marinas, picnic areas, playgrounds, swimming areas, and trails. Mitchell

Lake is located about 7.2 km (4.5 mi) upstream of the Barton site in Chilton and Coosa Counties,

Alabama. The upper portions of facility structures and occasional plumes from the cooling

towers may be visible from elevated areas near Mitchell Dam. No other impacts on Mitchell

Lake's recreation areas would be expected. Lay Lake is located more than 29 km (18 mi)

upstream of the Barton site in Chilton, Coosa, and Shelby Counties, Alabama. Construction and

operation of the proposed project at the Barton site would not impact recreation areas on Lay

Lake because of its distance from the Barton site (Southern 2008). Impacts on tourism and

recreation are considered small if current facilities are adequate to handle local levels of

demand. Therefore, impacts of facility construction and operation would be SMALL.

Housing,

In 2000, the U.S. Census reported that Chilton County had 17,651 housing units, 2364 of which

(13.4 percent) were vacant. Elmore County had 8037 housing units, 1512 of which

(18.8 percent) were vacant, Autauga County had 17,660 housing units with 1659 vacant

(9.4 percent), and Coosa County had 6142 housing units with 1460 vacant (23.8 percent).

Assuming that the construction workforce would commute from the area within an 80-km (50-mi)

radius of the Barton site, which has a population of 735,226, there would be few discernible

impacts on housing availability, rental rates or housing values, or housing construction or

conversion. Those who choose to relocate to the region would find adequate housing available

(Southern 2008). Therefore, NRC staff concludes that impacts on housing in the region from

constructing and operating two new reactors on the Barton site would be SMALL.

NUREG-1872 9-82 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Public Services

Public services include water supply and wastewater treatment facilities; police, fire and medical

facilities; and social services. It is likely that new operations and construction- employees

relocating from outside the region would live in residentially developed areas with well

established public utilities and community services. Beyond Birmingham and Montgomery (the

two largest cities in the region), there are several mid-sized communities with public utility and

community services from which an in-migrating family could choose to settle including Clanton

(population 7800) in Chilton County, Milbrook (population 10,386) in Autauga County, Alexander

City (population 15,008) in Tellapoosa County, and Sylacauga (population 12,616) in Talladega

County (USCB 2007b). The construction and operation of new nuclear units at the Barton site

would not likely use municipal water and treatment systems. It is not expected that public

services would be materially impacted by the influx of construction or operations workers and

their families and public service impacts are considered SMALL.

Education

Chilton County has 12 schools with a total enrollment of 7210, while Elmore County has two

school districts with 18 schools between them and a total enrollment of 12,136. In addition,

the neighboring Montgomery school district has 63 schools with a total enrollment of 31,985

(NCES 2007). It is unlikely that the influx of construction workers, even assuming the relatively

high in-migration estimates from 4.5.3.7 (1100 school-aged children), would noticeably impact

this region due to the number of schools and educational resources in the region. Likewise,

the smaller influx of workers and families that would move into the region to operate the plant

would only impose SMALL impacts on education.

Summary of Infrastructure and Community Services

Based on information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that impacts on infrastructure and community services from construction and

operation of two new nuclear reactors at the Barton site would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Summary of Socioeconomics

In summary, based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent

review, the staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts of the construction and operations

on the region surrounding the Barton site would be SMALL with the following exceptions. The

impacts on the tax revenue impacts of Chilton and Elmore Counties would be MODERATE and

beneficial. The impacts on transportation near the plant during construction would likely be

MODERATE during construction. Some additional transportation upgrades may be necessary.

Impacts to aesthetics would be MODERATE and recreational resources would be SMALL and

occur during both construction and operation of the new reactors.

August 2008 9-83 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

9.5.3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The likely footprint for the proposed plant at the Barton greenfield site does not appear to have

any historic properties located within areas likely to be impacted by new construction and

operations. Miscellaneous archaeological surveys conducted over the years in the area indicate

that while sites may exist on the premises, either the sites are not eligible for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places or are located away from likely areas of new construction.

Protective measures would be put in place in the event that historic or archaeological materials

are discovered during construction or during operations. In the event that an unanticipated

discovery is made, site personnel would be instructed to notify the SHPO and would consult

with them in conducting an assessment of the discovery to determine if additional work is

needed. The impacts to historical and cultural resources are predicted to be SMALL at the

Barton site.

9.5.3.7 Environmental Justice

The 2000 Census and block groups were used for ascertaining minority and low-income

populations in the area. There are 577 block groups within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the

Barton site. Black minority populations exist in 207 block groups; and "Aggregate of Minority

Races" populations exist in 200 block groups. No other minority populations exist in the

geographic area. The Census Bureau data characterize 16.67 percent of Alabama households

as low income. There are 59 block groups that contain a low-income population percentage

that exceeds the State average by 20 percent. There are no minority or low-income populations

within a 10-km (6-mi) radius of the Barton site (Southern 2008).

Construction activities (noise, fugitive dust, air emissions, traffic) would not disproportionately

impact minority populations because of their distance from the Barton site. Operation of the

proposed project at the Barton site is also unlikely to have a disproportionate impact on minority

or low-income populations. A review of environmental assessments and planning documents

for projects in the Coosa River basin and adjacent lands identified no unusual resource

dependencies or practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing through which

the populations could be disproportionately affected. In addition, no location-dependent

disproportionate impacts affecting these minority and low-income populations have been

identified (Southern 2008).

Based on the information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that the offsite impacts of construction and operation of two new units at the Barton

site to minority and low-income populations would be SMALL. No adverse and

disproportionately high impacts were identified.

NUREG-1872 9-84 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

9.6 Issues Among Sites Handled Generically

In evaluating the alternative sites, the staff found certain impacts would not vary among sites,

and, as a result, would not affect the evaluation of whether an alternative site is environmentally

preferable to the proposed site. These impacts include some operational terrestrial impacts,

some areas of socieoeconomics; nonradiological and radiological effects on members of the

public, workforce, and biota; postulated accidents. As a result, the impacts of these five impact

categories are not evaluated as part of the site-specific alternatives analysis. In addition, there

were generic aspects of other impact categories that were not included in the discussions of

each site. Instead, they are discussed generically in the following subsections.

9.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology

Terrestrial ecological impacts that may result from operation of new nuclear units at the

alternative sites include those associated with cooling towers, transmission system structures,

and maintenance of transmission line rights-of-way. An evaluation of impacts resulting from

operation of cooling towers and transmission lines and transmission line right-of-way

maintenance cannot be conducted in any detail due to missing information, such as the type,

number, and specific location of cooling towers at each alternative site, and locations of any

new rights-of-way that could result from transmission system upgrades. Consequently,

conclusions in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) were used to assess terrestrial impacts resulting from

the operation of cooling towers and impacts from transmission line rights-of-way maintenance

and operation.

NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) evaluated terrestrial ecological impacts resulting from operation of

existing nuclear power plants. Because the types of terrestrial ecological impacts resulting from

operation of new nuclear units would be similar to those of existing nuclear power plants,

NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) is useful for this analysis.

For impacts resulting from transmission line operation and transmission line right-of-way

maintenance, the staff assumed that the existing transmission lines at the Plant Farley and

Plant Hatch sites would not have the capacity to carry the power that would be generated by

new nuclear units. Construction of the proposed project at either site would require the addition

of a new transmission line that would result in either an expansion of the existing rights-of-way

or construction of a new transmission line right-of-way. Barton is a greenfield site and new

transmission line rights-of-way would be required. Given these assumptions, conclusions in

NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) were used for impacts resulting from transmission line operation and

transmission line right-of-way maintenance.

August2008 9-85 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

9.6.1.1 Cooling Towers

Impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants from cooling tower drift cannot be

evaluated in detail in the absence of information on the type (mechanical or natural draft),

number, and specific location of cooling towers at each alternative site. Similarly, bird collisions

with cooling towers cannot be evaluated in the absence of information on the type (mechanical

or natural draft for a wet cooling system; dry for a dry system) and number of cooling towers at

each alternative site. The impacts of cooling tower drift and bird collisions for existing power

plants were evaluated in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) and found to be of minor significance for all

plants, including those with various numbers and types of cooling towers. On this basis, the

staff concludes, for the purpose of comparing the alternative sites, that the impacts of cooling

tower drift and bird collisions with cooling towers resulting from operation of new nuclear units at

all of the alternative sites would be minor.

The effects of noise on most wildlife species are poorly understood partly because noise

disturbance cannot be generalized across species or genera, and there may be

response differences among individuals or groups of individuals of the same species

(Larkin et al 1996; AMEC Americas Limited 2005). An animal's response to noise can

depend on a variety of factors including the noise level, frequency distribution, duration,

existence of background noise, time of year, animal activity, age, and sex (AMEC Americas

Limited 2005). The potential effects of noise on wildlife include acute or chronic physiological

damage to the auditory system, increased energy expenditure, physical injury incurred during

panicked responses, and interference with normal activities, such as feeding, impaired

communication among individuals and groups (AMEC Americas Limited 2005). The impacts

of these effects might include habitat loss through avoidance, reduced reproductive success

and mortality. Long term noise thresholds are not established for wildlife, evidence for

habituation is limited, long-term effects are generally Unknown, and how observed

behavioral and physiological response might be manifested ecologically and demographically

are poorly understood (AMEC Americas Limited 2005).

The noise levels from natural draft cooling tower operation and diesel generators are estimated

to be approximately 55 decibels (dBA) SPL (Sound Pressure Level) at 300 m (1000 ft)

(Southern 2008a). Researchers have found that dBA measurements contain frequencies out of

the hearing bandwidth of birds and some mammals and are not inclusive of the total hearing

range for other animals. Because of this, the dBA weighting system does not accurately

characterize sound exposure or hearing response for wildlife (Dooling 2002; AMEC Americas

Limited 2005). Natural-draft cooling towers emit broadband noise spectrally very similar to

environmental (wind) noise. In the case of-relatively flat spectra the spectrum level of cooling

tower and diesel generator noise given the estimated dBA SPL would be approximately 15 dB

SPL. Cooling tower noise does not change appreciably with time (steady state) and the

estimated noise level at 300m is well below the 80-to- 85-dBA SPL threshold at which birds and

small mammals are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). Using the startle criterion

NUREG-1 872 9-86 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

reported by Golden et al., the noise level expected to be generated by cooling tower and diesel

generated operations would only approach startle levels in the immediate vicinity (within 5m for

noise with approximately 60 dBA SPL at 300 m) of the tower or generator. In addition, birds and

other animals show habituation to acoustic deterrents (complex sounds designed with spectral

components to be within the hearing band of the target animal). Thus, noise generated by

natural draft cooling towers would be unlikely to disturb transient wildlife beyond the site

perimeter fence. Seasonally or long-term resident wildlife could be expected to habituate to

cooling tower and generator noise.

Wildlife may also be affected by noise "masking" hearing of important sounds to which the

animal would react if they were heard. The approach of a predator would be one such sound.

In general, masking of signals in the frequency range of greatest sensitivity of an animal is

probably more important to the well being of the animal than are sounds which evoke a

behavioral (startle) response causing the animal to move away from the sound source

(Dooling 2002). The potential for some level of masking, particularly at frequencies above 2 or

3 kHz is likely within and external to the site perimeter. Nevertheless, the loss of individuals due

to this phenomenon would be localized and would be expected to have a minimal impact on

overall population health.

Transmission Lines

The impacts associated with transmission line operation consist of bird collisions with

transmission lines and electromagnetic field (EMF) effects on flora and fauna. The impacts

associated with right-of-way maintenance activities are alteration of habitat due to cutting and

herbicide application, and similar related impacts where rights-of-way cross floodplains and

wetlands.

Bird collisions with transmission lines are of minor significance at operating nuclear power

plants, including transmission line rights-of-way with variable numbers of power lines

(NRC 1996). Although additional transmission lines would be required for new nuclear units at

the alternative sites, increases in bird collisions would be minor and these would likely not be

expected to cause a measurable reduction in local bird populations. Consequently, the

incremental number of bird collisions posed by the addition of new transmission lines for new

nuclear units would be negligible at all the alternative sites.

EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing

radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they

exist, are subtle (NRC 1996). A careful review of biological and physical studies of EMFs did

not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures (NRC 1996). The

impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are of small significance at operating nuclear

power plants, including transmission systems with variable numbers of power lines (NRC 1996).

Since 1997, more than a dozen studies have been published that looked at cancer in animals

that were exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives (Moulder 2005). These studies have

August 2008 9-87 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 2005).

Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed by addition of new transmission lines for new

nuclear units would be negligible at all the alternative sites.

Existing roads providing access to the existing transmission line rights-of-way at the alternative

sites would likely be sufficient for use in any expanded rights-of-way; however, new roads would

be required during the construction of new transmission line right-of-way. Transmission line

right-of-way management activities (cutting and herbicide application) and related impacts to

floodplains and wetlands in transmission line rights-of-way are of minor significance at operating

nuclear power plants, including those with transmission line rights-of-way of variable widths

(NRC 1996). Consequently, the incremental effects of transmission line right-of-way

maintenance and associated impacts to floodplains and wetlands posed by expanding existing

rights-of-way or the addition of a new transmission line right-of-way for new nuclear units would

be negligible at all the alternative sites.

Conclusion

Based on information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff

concludes that the impacts from operation of new nuclear units (including cooling towers,

transmission lines, and transmission line rights-of-way) at any of the alternative sites would

be SMALL.

9.6.2 Socioeconomics

There are several physical impacts with socioeconomic consequences where generic treatment

of issues related to construction and operation of new nuclear units is appropriate.

9.6.2.1 Physical Impacts

Many of the physical impacts of construction and operation would be similar regardless of the

sites. People who work or live around the alternative sites could be exposed to noise, fugitive

dust, and gaseous emissions from construction activities. Construction workers and personnel

working onsite could be the most impacted. Air-pollution emissions are expected to be

controlled by applicable BMPs and Federal, State, and local regulations. During station

operation, standby diesel generators used for auxiliary power would have air-pollution

emissions. It is expected that these generators would see limited use and, if used, would be

used for only short time periods. Applicable Federal, State, and local air-pollution requirements

would apply to all fuel-burning engines. At the site boundary for most sites, the annual average

exposure from gaseous emission sources is anticipated not to exceed applicable regulations

during normal operations. The impacts of station operations on air quality are expected to be

minimal. As with construction impacts, potential offsite receptors are generally located well

away from the site boundaries.

NUREG-1 872 9-88 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Residential and commercial areas are located away from the alternative site boundaries,

applicable air-pollution regulations would have to be met by Southern, and applicable BMPs

would be put in place. Therefore, based on information provided by Southern and NRC's own

independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the physical

impacts of station construction and operation on workers and the local public would be SMALL.

Construction activities and station operations are not expected to impact any offsite buildings.

Most buildings not located onsite are well removed from the site boundaries. Buildings most

vulnerable to shock and vibration from pile-driving and other related activities are those located

on the alternative sites. No physical impacts to structures, including any residences near the

site boundaries, would be expected. Therefore, based on NRC's own independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of station

construction and operation on offsite buildings would be SMALL.

Roads

During construction, additional cars and trucks were assumed to use the roads in the vicinity of

each alternative site. This is in addition to the existing operations workforce at most of the

alternative sites and the approximately 1000 temporary workers hired during refueling outages.

Heavy loads of construction materials and equipment and the increased traffic might necessitate

additional maintenance and repair of roads. Certain road upgrades, such as such installing turn

lanes, staggering workforce shifts, and providing incentives to car pool, could mitigate some of

these impacts. Based on NRC's own independent review of reconnaissance-level information,

including visits to the alternative sites, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of

construction on roads in the vicinity of the alternative sites would be MODERATE unless at least

some of the identified mitigation measures are implemented.

During station operations, the roads and highways within the vicinity of the alternative sites

would experience an increase from the addition of operations personnel. This is in addition to

the existing operations workforce at the current operating units at each of the sites, except for

the Barton site, which is a greenfield site. In addition, approximately 1000 temporary workers

are hired for refueling outages. In all cases, the increase in road traffic due to the additional

operations workforce would be well below current road capacities; therefore, the staff concludes

that the physical impacts of operations on roads would be SMALL, and that mitigation would not

be warranted.

Aesthetics

Construction at all the alternative sites could be viewed from outside the sites at certain

locations. All sites are located in rural areas with sparse residential or commercial development

near the site. Construction of cooling-water intake structures could impact the body of water

within which the construction takes place. The impacts could increase suspended solids

August 2008 9-89 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

concentrations in the waterbodies and fish species might be temporarily displaced as a result of

minor disturbances associated with construction activities, including noise, dredging, etc. This

in turn could impact recreation and recreational opportunities such as fishing. However, such

impacts are transitory and are not expected to have any long-term, permanent consequences.

Onsite erosion and stormwater runoff control measures would be expected to be implemented

in accordance with State and Federal regulations. Any construction impacts on the view would

be temporary. Based on NRC's own independent review of reconnaissance-level information,

including visits to the alternative sites, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction on

aesthetics would be SMALL at all sites.

Demography, Infrastructure, and Community Impacts

Because of the dissimilarities among the sites, the demographic, infrastructure and community

impacts of each of the alternative sites has been covered in the site-specific discussions.

9.6.3 Nonradiological Health Impacts

Nonradiological health impacts from construction of two new nuclear units on the construction

workers at the alternative sites would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8. They include

occupational injuries, noise, odor, vehicle exhaust, and dust. Applicable Federal and State

regulations on air quality and noise would be complied with during the plant construction phase.

None of the alternative sites have site characteristics that would be expected to lead to fewer or

more construction accidents than would be expected for any of the other alternative sites. All

the alternative sites are in rural areas and construction impacts would likely be minimal on the

surrounding populations that are classified as medium and low population areas. The staff

concludes that health impacts to construction workers resulting from the construction of two new

nuclear units at any of the alternative sites would be SMALL.

Occupational health impacts to operational employees would likely be the same for all the

alternative sites. Thermophilic microorganisms would not be a concern at the alternative sites

using a closed-cycle, wet cooling system with natural draft cooling towers. Health impacts to

workers from occupational injuries, noise, and electric fields would be similar. None of the

alternative sites has site characteristics that would be expected to lead to fewer or more

operational accidents than would be expected for any of the other alternative sites. Noise and

electric fields would be monitored and controlled in accordance with applicable Occupational

Safety and Health Administration regulations.

The staff expects that the occupational health impacts to operations employees of two new

nuclear units at any of the alternative sites would be SMALL. Similarly, impacts to public health

of two new nuclear units' operation at the VEGP site or any of the alternative sites would be

expected to be minimal. The staff concludes that the public health impacts would be SMALL.

NUREG-1872 9-90 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

9.6.4 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

Exposure pathways for gaseous and liquid effluents from two new nuclear units on the ESP site

or an alternative site would be similar. Gaseous effluent pathways include external exposure to

the airborne plume, external exposure to contaminated ground, inhalation of airborne activity,

and ingestion of contaminated agricultural products. Liquid effluent pathways include ingestion

of aquatic foods, ingestion of drinking water, external exposure to shoreline sediments, and

external exposure to water through boating and swimming.

Section 5.9 discusses the estimates of doses to the maximally exposed individual and the

general population for two'new nuclear units at the proposed VEGP site for both liquid effluent

and gaseous-effluent pathways. The estimated doses to the maximally exposed individual were

well within the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. The same bounding liquid and

gaseous effluent releases would be used to evaluate doses to the maximally exposed individual

and the population at each alternative site. Even with differences in pathways, atmospheric and

water dispersion factors, and population, doses estimated to the maximally exposed individual

for the alternative sites would be expected to be well within the Appendix I design objectives.

Population doses within 80 km (50 mi) of the proposed facility would be similar for the alternative

sites because the VEGP site and the three alternative sites are each medium or low population

areas; however, they would still be small compared to the population dose from natural

background radiation. Therefore, the staff concludes that radiation doses and resultant health

impacts from two new nuclear unit's operations would be SMALL at all of the alternative sites.

Occupational doses to workers at the new units would be the same for the alternative sites as

they would be for the proposed site. The Westinghouse AP1000 advanced reactor design of

the new units would likely result in less occupational exposure annually than from current

operating plants. The staff concludes that the occupational radiation doses from two new

nuclear units' operation would be SMALL for all of the candidate sites.

Table 5-5 provides the annual total body dose estimates to surrogate biota species for a new

nuclear unit. The annual dose for no surrogate species exceeded the dose standard in

40 CFR Part 190. The 40 CFR Part 190 standards apply to members of the public in

unrestricted areas and not specifically to biota. The estimates are conservative because they

not do consider dilution or decay of liquid effluents during transit. Actual doses to biota are

likely to. be much lower. The staff reviewed the available information relative to the radiological

impact on biota other than humans, and performed an independent estimate of dose to the

biota. The staff concludes that no measurable radiological impact on biota is expected from the

radiation and radioactive material released to the environment as a result of the routine

operation of new nuclear units and that the impacts to biota of radiation doses at any one of the

alternative sites would be SMALL.

August 2008 9-91 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

9.6.5 Postulated Accidents

In Section 5.10, the staff considered a suite of design-basis accidents for a new nuclear unit at

the VEGP site. The evaluation involved calculation of doses for specified periods at the

exclusion area and low-population zone boundaries, and comparison of those doses with doses

based on regulatory limits and guidelines. Similar analyses have not been conducted for the

alternative sites. Had such evaluations been conducted, the differences in the results would

only have been the result of meteorological conditions and the'distances to the site boundaries.

The release characteristics would have been the same at all sites.

For the VEGP site and meteorology, the doses for each accident sequence considered were

well below the corresponding regulatory limits and guidelines. The general climatological

conditions at the alternative sites are sufficiently similar to the conditions at the proposed site

that it is highly unlikely that differences in local meteorological conditions would be sufficient to

cause doses from design-basis accidents for a new nuclear unit at any of the alternative sites to

exceed regulatory limits or guidelines. Similarly, because two of the alternative sites are located

at existing nuclear power plant sites and the third in a rural area with relatively low population, it

is unlikely that differences in distances to the exclusion area and low-population zone

boundaries would be sufficient to cause doses from design-basis accidents for a new nuclear

unit at any of the alternative sites to exceed regulatory limits or guidelines. Therefore, the staff

concludes that for the purposes of consideration of alternative sites, the impact of design basis

accidents at each of the alternative sites would be SMALL.

Section 5.10 also includes a detailed analysis of the potential consequences of severe

accidents for the postulated plants for the VEGP site. Similar analyses have not been

conducted for the alternative sites. Had such evaluations been conducted, the differences in

the results would only have been the result of site-specific factors 'such as meteorological

conditions, population distribution, and land-use distribution. The release characteristics would

have been the same at all sites.

The probability-weighted consequences estimated for severe accidents for new nuclear units at

the proposed VEGP site are well below the consequences estimated for severe accidents at

current generation reactors (see Section 5.10). This result suggests that the consequences of

severe accidents at the any of the alternative sites would be less than the consequences of a

severe accident at an existing plant at the site. The Commission has determined that the

probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL for all existing plants

(10 CFR 51, Subpart B, Table B-I). On this basis, the staff concludes that, for the purposes of

consideration of alternative sites, the impact of severe accidents at each of the alternative sites

likely would be SMALL.

NUREG-1872 9-92 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

9.7 Summary of Alternative Site Impacts

Southern selected three sites as alternative sites to the proposed VEGP site. The three sites

selected for detailed review are

" Plant Hatch, located in Appling and Toombs Counties, Georgia

* Plant Farley, located in Houston County, Alabama

" The Barton greenfield site, located in Chilton and Elmore Counties, Alabama.

A summary of the staffs characterizations of locating Southern's proposed nuclear units at each

alternative site is in Section 9.7.1 for construction impacts and Section 9.7.2 for operational

impacts.

9.7.1 Summary of Alternative Site Construction Impacts

The staffs characterizations of the environmental impacts of constructing two new nuclear

power units at the three alternatives sites are provided in Table 9-7.

Table 9-7. Characterization of Construction Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites

Category Plant Hatch Plant Farley Barton Site

Land-Use Impacts

The site and vicinity SMALL SMALL MODERATE

Transmission line rights-of-way SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE

MODERATE(a)

Air quality SMALL SMALL SMALL

Water-Related Impacts

Water use SMALL SMALL SMALL

Water quality SMALL SMALL SMALL

Ecological Impacts

Terrestrial ecosystems

Site

Transmission line right-of-way

Threatened and Endangered Species

Site

Transmission line right-of-way

Aquatic ecosystems

Site

Transmission line right-of-way

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

MODERATE

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

August 2008 9-93 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

I

Table 9-7. (contd)

Category Plant Hatch Plant Farley Barton Site

Aquatic

Threatened and endangered species SMALL SMALL SMALL

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical Impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

Aesthetics SMALL SMALL MODERATE

Demography MODERATE(b) MODERATE(c) SMALL

Impacts to the Community - Social and Economic

Economy MODERATE MODERATE SMALL

Beneficial(d) Beneficial(e) Beneficial

Taxes SMALL to SMALL to MODERATE

MODERATE MODERATE Beneficial(f)

Beneficial(d) Beneficial(e)

Impacts to the Community - Infrastructure and Community

Transportation MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Recreation SMALL SMALL SMALL

Housing MODERATE(b) SMALL SMALL

Public and social services and infrastructure SMALL MODERATE SMALL

Education MODERATE MODERATE SMALL

Historic and cultural resources SMALL SMALL SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL

Nonradiological health SMALL SMALL SMALL

Radiological health SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) Related to transmission system upgrades.

(b) MODERATE impact in Appling and Toombs Counties, SMALL elsewhere.

(c) MODERATE impact in Houston County, SMALL elsewhere.

(d) MODERATE beneficial in Appling County, SMALL beneficial elsewhere.

(e) MODERATE beneficial in Houston County, SMALL beneficial elsewhere.

(f) MODERATE beneficial in Chilton and Elmore Counties, SMALL elsewhere.

9.7.2 Summary of Alternative Site Operation Impacts

The staffs characterizations of the environmental impacts of operating two new nuclear power

units at the three alternatives sites are provided in Table 9-8.

Table 9-8. Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites

Category

Land-Use Impacts

Site and vicinity

Transmission line rights-of-way

Air quality

Water-Related Impacts

Water use

Water quality

Ecological Impacts

Terrestrial ecosystems

Plant Hatch Plant Farley Barton Site

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

NUREG-1872 9-94 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Table 9-8. (contd)

Category Plant Hatch Plant Farley Barton Site

Aquatic ecosystems SMALL SMALL SMALL

Threatened and endangered species SMALL SMALL SMALL

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical Impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

Aesthetics SMALL to SMALL to MODERATE

MODERATE(a) MODERATE(b)

Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL

Impacts to the Community - Social and Economic

Economy SMALL SMALL SMALL

Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial

Taxes LARGE LARGE, MODERATE

Beneficial(c) Beneficial(d) Beneficial(e)

Impacts to the Community - Infrastructure and Community

Transportation SMALL SMALL SMALL

Recreation SMALL SMALL SMALL

Housing SMALL SMALL SMALL

Public and social services and SMALL SMALL SMALL

infrastructure

Education SMALL SMALL SMALL

Historic and cultural resources SMALL SMALL SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL

Nonradiological health SMALL SMALL SMALL

Radiological health SMALL SMALL SMALL

Postulated Accidents

Design-basis accidents SMALL SMALL SMALL

Severe accidents SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) SMALL at Plant Hatch site, MODERATE along transmission lines.

(b) SMALL at Plant Farley site, MODERATE along transmission lines.

(c) LARGE beneficial in Appling County, SMALL beneficial elsewhere.

(d) LARGE beneficial in Houston County, SMALL beneficial elsewhere.

(e) MODERATE beneficial in Chilton and Elmore Counties, SMALL beneficial elsewhere.

I

9.8 References

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

Production and Utilization Facilities."

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses,

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."

August 2008 9-95 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site

Criteria."

40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50,

"National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards."

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51,

"Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans."

40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60,

"Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources."

40 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 63,

"National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories."

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."

65 FR 32214. May 22, 2000. "Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the

Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Final Rule." Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency.

66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System:

Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities." Federal Register,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

72 FR 57416. November 8, 2007. "Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants."

Federal Register, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Alabama Natural Heritage Program (ALNHP). 2007. "Sensitive Species Information Request."

Letter from Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery,

Alabama, to Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. March 22, 2007. Alabama Natural

Heritage Program, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML070851933.

AMEC Americas Limited. 2005. Mackenzie Gas project: Effects of Noise on Wildlife.

Prepared for Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited. Accessed June 11, 2008 at

http://www.ngps.nt.ca/upload/proponent/imperial%20oil%20resources%20ventures%20limited/b

irdfieldwildlife/documents/noisewildlife report filed.pdf.

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR). 2007. Lake Jordan.

Fish and Fishing in Jordan Lake. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,

NUREG-1 872 9-96 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Montgomery, Alabama. Accessed April 23, 2007 at

http://www.outdooralabama.com/fishing/freshwater/where/reservoirs/jordanl.

Alabama Department of Environment Management (ADEM). 2005. Alabama Coastal Area

Management Program. Alabama Department of Environment Management, Montgomery,

Alabama. Accessed April 18, 2007 at http://www.adem.state.al.us/fieldops/coastallcoastal.htm.

Alabama National Heritage Program (ALNHP). 2007. "Sensitive Species Information Request."

Letter from Alabama Department of Conversation and Natural Resources, Montgomery,

Alabama, to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (March 22, 2007). Birmingham, Alabama.

Accession No. ML 070851933.

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 1998. How Does A Wind Turbine's Energy

Production Differ from Its Power Production? American Wind Energy Association, Washington,

D.C. Accessed February 23, 2007 at http://www.awea.org/faq/basicen.html.

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2007a. Largest Wind Farms. Accessed July 31,

2007 at http://www.awea.org/Projects/.

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2007b. Wind Energy and the Environment.

Accessed July 30, 2007 at http://www.awea.org/faq/wwtenvironment.html.

Brim Box J. and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid Mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Alabama,

Florida, and Georgia. Bulletin 21, Alabama Museum of Natural History, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401., et seq.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

Curtis W., C. Ferland, and J. McKissick. 2003. The Feasibility of Generating Electricity from

Biomass Fuel Sources in Georgia. FR-03-06, University of Georgia Center for Agribusiness and

Economic Development, Athens, Georgia.

Delaney Consultant Services, Inc (Delaney). 2005. Lower Coosa River Basin Management

Plan. Prepared for Alabama Clean Water Partnership, Montgomery, Alabama. Accessed

July 8, 2008 at http://www.cleanwaterpartnership.org/old/index-learn.html.

Dooling R. 2002. Avian Hearing and the Avoidance of Wind Turbines. NRELITP-500-30844,

National Renwable Energy laboroatory, Golden Colorado. Accessed July 8, 2008 at

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/30844.pdf.

August 2008 9-97 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Energy Policy Act of 2005. Public Law 109-58. August 8, 2005. Accessed on June 26, 2008,

at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1 09,cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2000. Obstruction Marking and Lighting. Advisory

Circular AC 70/7460-1K. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Accessed

February 4, 2008 at

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory-and-Guidance-Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/O/b993dcdfc37fcdc4

86257251005c4e21/$FILE/AC70_7460_1 K.pdf.

Gabbard A. 1993. Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger. Oak Ridge National

Laboratory Review. Summer/Fall 1993. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,

Tennessee. Accessed February 4, 2008 at http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-

34/text/colmain.html.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2003a. Overview of the Coastal

Management Program. Coastal Resources Division, Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Brunswick, Georgia. Accessed February 23, 2007 at

http://crd.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=54.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2003b. Altamaha River Basin

Management Plan 2003. Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed at http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/altamaha.html.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007a. Georgia Rare Species and Natural

Community Information. High Priority Waters. Georgia Department of Natural Resources,

Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed April 18, 2007 at

http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage= 13.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007b. Georgia Rare Species and Natural

Community Information. Rare Species Locations. Georgia Department of Natural Resources,

Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed April 17, 2007 at

http ://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage=6.

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). 2006. Govemor's Road Improvement Program

(GRIP) System Summary Fact Sheet. Office of Transportation Data, Atlanta, Georgia.

Accessed March 2007 at http://www.dot.state.ga.us/Pages/default.aspx.

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2007. Integrated Resource Plan. Georgia Public Service

Commission under Docket No. 24505. Accessed at http://www.psc.state.ga.us/.

NUREG-1872 9-98 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2008. Informational Filing - 2007 Integrated Resource Plan

(IRP): Docket 24505-U. Georgia Public Service Commission under Docket No. 24505.

Accessed at http://www.psc.state.ga.us/.

Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2007. In Re" Georgia Power Company's

Application for Approval of Its 2007 Integrated Resource Plan. Georgia Public Service

Commission under Docket No. 24505. Accessed at http://www.psc.state.ga.us/.

Golden J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data

Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Hearn R. 1997. Alabama's Lakes May Be Fertilized to Death Without New Water Quality

Regulations. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Office of Communications, News

Release, Auburn, Alabama. Accessed April 24, 2007 at

http://www.ag.auburn.edu/aaes/webpress/l1997/lakes.htm.

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 1998. U.S. Hydropower

Resource Assessment for Georgia. DOE/ID-10430(GA), U.S. Department of Energy,

Washington, D.C. Accessed February 23, 2007 at

http://hydropower.id.doe.gov/resourceassessment/pdfs/states/ga.pdf.

Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA). 2007. Energy. Integrated Waste Services

Association, Washington, D.C. Accessed February 23, 2007 at http://www.wte.org/energy/.

Larkin R.P. 1996. Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. Technical Report

96/21, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois. Accessed at

http://nhsbig.inhs.uiuc.edu/bioacoustics/noiseandwildlife.txt.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2006. The Future of Geothermal Energy, Impact

of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 2 1st Century. Accessed

February 4, 2008 at http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of geothermalenergy.pdf.

Moulder J.E. 2005. Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health: Power Lines and Cancer FAQs.

Accessed at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/powerlines-cancer-faq/.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2007. Search for Public School Districts.

U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. Accessed in April 2007 at

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/.

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

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005. Letter from National Marine Fisheries

Service to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Savannah District Corps of Engineers

August 2008 9-99 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

regarding potential impact on shortnose sturgeon resulting from the continued operation of the

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. August 10, 2005. Accession No. ML052640354.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2005. The Fifth Northwest Electric Power

and Conservation Plan. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon.

Accessed March 5, 2007 at http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/plan/Default.htm.

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire. 1977. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook

Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 526 (1977), affirmed, New England Coalition on

Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1 st Circuit 1978).

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). 42 USC 6901, et seq.

Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission (SEARPDC). 2006.

Southeast Alabama Economic Development District Comprehensive Economic Development

Strategy, Annual Report for 2005-2006. Accessed April 26, 2007 at

http://www.sanman.net/searpdc/CEDS%202006.pdf.

Southern Company and Georgia Institute of Technology (Southern Company and GIT). 2007.

Southern Winds: A Study of Wind Power Generation Potential of the Georgia Coast. Accessed

February 21, 2008 at http://www.energy.gatech.edu/news-events/release.php?id=1622.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007a. Vogtle Electric Generating

Plants Units 1 and 2 License Renewal Application. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

Accession No ML071840354.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007b. Description of SNC Selection

Process for Candidate Sites to Support Environmental Report Chapter 9 Alternate Site

Selection. August 8, 2007. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No.

ML072270351.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007c. 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.), January 31, 2007. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession

No. ML070460323.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Revision 4. Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

NUREG-1872 9-100 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007a. Table QT-H1. General Housing Characteristics: 2000.

American FactFinder- Select Geography, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent

Data, Geographic Area: [Location Varies]. Accessed April 23, 2007 at

http://factfinder.census.govlservlet/QTTable?-bm=y&state=qt&context=qt&qr-name=DEC-200

0_SF1 U QTH1&-dsname=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-treeid=05000US22037&-

geoid=05000US22077&-geojid=05000US2212&-geo id=05000US22125&-

searchresults=01 000US&-format=&-_language=en.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007b. Table DP-1 General Demographic Characteristics:

2000. American FactFinder - Select Geography, Census 2000 Summary File I (SF 1) 100-

Percent Data, Geographic Area: [Location Varies]. Accessed April 16, 2007 at

http://factfinder.census.govlservlet/QTSelectedDatasetPageServlet?_Iang=en&_

ts=99320447326.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005. Wind Energy Resource Potential. Accessed

February 23, 2007 at http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpotential..html.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2006a. Alternative Energy Resources in Georgia.

Accessed on February 23, 2007 at

http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/resources ga.cfm.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2006b. Fuel Cell Technology Challenges. Accessed on

February 23, 2007 at

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcellslfc_challenges.html.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2006c. U.S. Geothermal Resource Map. Accessed July

30, 2007 at http://www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geomap.html.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001. Renewable

Energy 2000: Issues and Trends. DOE/EIA-0628(2000), U.S. Department of Energy,

Washington, D.C. Accessed February 23, 2007 at

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/renewables/06282000.pdf.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2007. Annual

Energy Outlook 2007 With Projections to 2030. DOE/EIS-0383(2007), U.S. Department of

Energy, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Basic Information: Municipal Solid Waste

(MSW). Accessed February 23, 2007 at http://www.epa.gov/msw/facts.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. Letter from Daphne Alabama Field Office U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding concurrence with

August 2008 9-101 NUREG-1872
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

biological assessment of License Renewal for plant Farley. October 27, 2004. Accession

No. ML043200355.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006. Letter from Daphne Alabama Field Office U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding federally-listed species

that may occur in the vicinity of Farley and Barton sites in Alabama. November 2, 2006.

Accession No. ML070100197.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007a. Alabama's Federally Listed Species. Accessed

May 23, 2007 at http://www.fws.gov/daphne/es/specieslst.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007b. Listed Species in Early County (updated May

2004). Accessed May 1, 2008 at

http://www.fws.gov/athens/endangered/counties/earlycounty.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007c. Federally Listed Species in Chilton, Coosa,

Elmore, and Talladega Counties, Alabama. Accessed April 19 and April 25, 2007 at

http://www.fws.gov/daphneles/specieslst.html.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/stafflsrl437/.

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

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

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

NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan:

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

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/stafflsrl 555/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Reactor, Units I & 2.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 4, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/stafflsrl 437/supplement4/.

NUREG-1872 9-102 August 2008
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Biological Assessment of the Potential

Impact on Shortnose Sturgeon Resulting from Continued Operation of the Edwin I. Hatch

Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. Letter report from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, St.

Petersburg, Florida. July 9, 2004. Accession No. ML041910254.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Biological Assessment for License

Renewal of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, and a Request for Informal

Consultation. Letter report from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama Field Office. July 2, 2004. Accession No. ML041890197.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units I and

2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 18, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Accessed July 10, 2008 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/farley.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Conference Call Summary from June 20,

2007; Discussion with Southern Nuclear Operating Company Concerning Inconsistencies

Between RAI Responses and the Environmental Report for the Plant Vogtle Early Site Permit.

August 2, 2007. Accession No. ML071840243.

Yokley, P. Jr. 2004. Freshwater Mussel Survey of Chattahoochee River below the Farley

Nuclear Waste Water Oufflow, Houston County, Alabama. Florence, Alabama.

August 2008 9-103 NUREG-1872

10.0 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed

Action and the Alternative Sites

The need to compare the proposed site with alternative sites arises from the requirement in

Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 USC 4332)

that environmental impact statements include an analysis of alternatives to the proposed action.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) criteria to be employed in assessing whether a

proposed site is to be rejected in favor of an alternative site is based on whether the alternative

site is "obviously superior" to the site proposed by the applicant (Public Service Co. of New

Hampshire 1977). An alternative site is "obviously superior" to the proposed site if it is "clearly

and substantially" superior to the proposed site (Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978). The

standard of obviously superior "...is designed to guarantee that a proposed site will not be

rejected in favor of an alternate unless, on the basis of appropriate study, the Commission can

be confident that such action is called for (New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 1978)."

The "obviously superior" test is appropriate for two reasons. First, the analysis performed by the

NRC in evaluating alternative sites is necessarily imprecise. Key factors considered in the

alternative site analysis, such as population distribution and density, hydrology, air quality,

aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources, aesthetics, land use, and socioeconomics are

difficult to quantify in common metrics. Given this difficulty, any evaluation of a particular site

must have a wide range of uncertainty. Second, the applicant's proposed site has been

analyzed in detail, with the expectation that most adverse environmental impacts associated

with the site have been identified. The alternative sites have not undergone a comparable level

of detailed study. For these reasons, a proposed site may not be rejected in favor of an

alternative site when the alternative site is marginally better than the proposed site, but only

when it is obviously superior (Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978). NEPA does not require

that a nuclear plant be constructed on the single best site for environmental purposes. Rather,

"...all that NEPA requires is that alternative sites be considered and that the effects on the

environment of building the plant at the alternative sites be carefully studied and factored into

the ultimate decision (New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 1978)."

The NRC staffs review of alternative sites consists of a two-part sequential test (NRC 2000).

The first part of the test determines whether any environmentally preferred sites are among the

candidate sites. The staff considers whether the applicant has (1) reasonably identified

candidate sites, (2) evaluated the likely environmental impacts of construction and operation at

these sites, and (3) used a logical means of comparing sites that led to the applicant's selection

of the proposed site. Based on NRC's own independent review, the staff then determines

whether any of the alternative sites are environmentally preferable to the applicant's proposed

site. If the staff determines that one or more alternative sites are environmentally preferable,

then it would compare the estimated costs (i.e., environmental, economic, and time) of

August 2008 110-1 NUREG-1872
Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites

constructing the proposed plant at the proposed site and at the environmentally preferable site

or sites (NRC 2000). The second part of the test determines if an alternative site is obviously

superior to the proposed site. The staff must determine that (1) one or more important aspects,

either singly or in combination, of a reasonably available alternative site are obviously superior

to the corresponding aspects of the applicant's proposed site, and (2) the alternative site does

not have offsetting deficiencies in other important areas. A staff conclusion that an alternative

site is obviously superior to the applicant's proposed site would normally lead to a

recommendation that the application for the permit be denied.

10.1 Comparison of the Proposed Site with the Alternative

Sites

The staff reviewed the Environmental Report submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Inc. (Southern 2008) and supporting documentation and conducted site visits at the

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site and the alternative sites. The staff found that

Southern had reasonably identified alternative sites, evaluated the environmental impacts of

construction and operation, and used a logical means of comparing sites. The following section

summarizes NRC's own independent assessment of the proposed and alternative sites.

The staffs characterization of the expected environmental impacts of constructing and operating

new units at the VEGP site and alternative sites is summarized in Tables 10-1 and 10-2.

Table 10-1 compares the alternatives' construction impacts, and Table 10-2 the operational

impacts. Full explanations for the particular characterizations are in Chapters 4 and 5 for the

proposed site and in Sections 9.5 and 9.6 for the alternative sites. In the following analysis, the

staff indicated a likely impact level based on professional judgment, experience, and

consideration of controls likely to be imposed under required Federal, State, or local permits that

would not be acquired until an application for a construction permit or combined construction

and operating license is underway. These considerations and assumptions were similarly

applied at each of the alternative sites to provide a common basis for comparison.

Some environmental impacts considered are generic to all sites and, therefore, do not influence

the comparison of impacts between the applicant's proposed site and the alternative sites. The

generic environmental impacts common to all sites are nonradiological and radiological health

impacts, environmental impacts from postulated accidents, and some aspects of ecology and

socioeconomics.

The environmental impact areas shown in Tables 10-1 and 10-2 have been evaluated using the

NRC's three-level standard of significance - SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE - developed

using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines and set forth in the footnotes to

Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

NUREG-1872 10-2 August 2008
Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites

SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would

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.

Table 10-1. Comparison of Construction Impacts at the VEGP Site and Alternative Sites

Category VEGP Plant Hatch Plant Farley Barton Site

Land-Use Impacts

The site and vicinity

Transmission line

SMALL SMALL

MODERATE SMALL to

MODERATE~a)

Air quality SMALL SMALL

Water-Related Impacts

Water use

Water quality

Ecological Impacts

Terrestrial ecosystems

Site

Transmission line right-of-way

Terrestrial Threatened and Endangered

Species

Site

Transmission line right-of-way

Aquatic ecosystems

Site

Transmission line right-of-way

Threatened and Endangered Species

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical impacts

Aesthetics

Demography

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(b)

MODERATE(C)

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(b)

MODERATE(d)

MODERATE

beneficial(d)

MODERATE

beneficial(d)

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

MODERATE

MODERATE

SMALL to

SMALL MODERATE

SMALL to

SMALL MODERATE(a)

SMALL SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(b)

MODERATE(e)

MODERATE

beneficial(')

MODERATE

beneficial(')

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

beneficial

MODERATE

beneficial(o

Impacts to the Community - Social and Economic

Economy MODERATE

beneficial(c)

Taxes MODERATE

beneficial(c)

August 2008 10-3 NUREG-1872
Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites

Table 10-1. (contd)

Category VEGP Plant Hatch Plant Farley Barton Site

Impacts to the Community - Infrastructure and Community

Transportation MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Recreation SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Housing SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL

Public and social services SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL

and infrastructure

Education SMALL MODERATE MODERATE SMALL

Historic and cultural resources MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Nonradiological health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Radiological health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) Depends on location of transmission line right-of-way

(b) SMALL at plant site SMALL to MODERATE along transmission right-of-way

(c) MODERATE in Burke County, SMALL elsewhere

(d) MODERATE in Appling and Toombs Counties, SMALL elsewhere

(e) MODERATE in Houston County, SMALL elsewhere

(f) MODERATE in Chilton and Elmore Counties, SMALL elsewhere

The staff determined that the impact level from construction for most of the environmental

categories at most of the sites is SMALL (see Table 10-1). However, transmission line land use

is MODERATE and terrestrial ecosystems is SMALL to MODERATE for all sites because of

potential changes in the transmission systems at all sites. Aesthetic impacts of transmission

lines is likely to be MODERATE at all sites. Land-use impacts at the Barton site would be

greater than at the proposed VEGP site or the other two alternative sites. More detailed

information on these issues is presented in Chapter 4 for the VEGP site, and in Chapter 9 for

the alternative sites.

Similarly, the staff found that the impact level from operations from most of the environmental

issues at most sites is SMALL (see Table 10-2).

Table 10-2. Comparison of Operational Impacts at the VEGP Site and Alternative Sites

Category VEGP Plant Hatch Plant Farley Barton Site

Land-use Impacts

The site and vicinity

Transmission-line rights-of-way

Air quality

Water-related Impacts

Water use

Water quality

Ecological Impacts

Terrestrial ecosystems

Aquatic ecosystems

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

NUREG-1872 10-4 August 2008
Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites

Table 10-2. (contd)

Category VEGP Plant Hatch Plant Farley Barton Site

Threatened and endangered species SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical Impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Aesthetics SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to MODERATE

MODERATE(a) MODERATE(") MODERATE(a)

Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Impacts to the Community - Social and Economic

Economy MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL

beneficial(b) beneficial beneficial beneficial

Taxes LARGE LARGE LARGE MODERATE

beneficial(c) beneficial(d) beneficial(e) beneficial(f)

Impacts to the Community - Infrastructure and Community

Transportation SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Recreation SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Housing SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Public and social services and SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

infrastructure

Education SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Historic and Cultural resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Nonradiological health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Radiological health SMALL SMALL. SMALL SMALL

Postulated Accidents

Design-basis accidents SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Severe accidents SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) Aesthetics impact at the plant site would be SMALL, but the impact would be MODERATE along new transmission line rightof-way.

(b) MODERATE beneficial in Burke County, SMALL elsewhere

(c) LARGE beneficial in Burke County, SMALL elsewhere

(d) LARGE beneficial in Appling County, SMALL elsewhere

(e) LARGE beneficial in Houston County, SMALL elsewhere

(f) MODERATE beneficial in Chilton and Elmore Counties, SMALL elsewhere

10.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites

10.2.1 Construction

The impacts of construction at the VEGP site are generally SMALL for most impact categories.

However, as noted in Chapter 4, there could be MODERATE land-use, ecological, and aesthetic

impacts associated with the new transmission line rights-of-way. In addition, as noted in

Section 4.5, there are some impact subcategories under infrastructure and community services

(i.e., transportation, recreation, housing, public services, and education) for which the impacts

could be MODERATE if most of the construction workers move into Burke County.

August 2008 10-5 NUREG-1872
Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites

Although SMALL in most surrounding counties, the tax and economic benefits to Burke County

during the construction phase could be beneficially MODERATE. The installation of the water

intake pipeline may result in MODERATE impacts to archeological resources.

The impacts of construction at the Plant Hatch alternative site are considered SMALL for most

impact categories except land-use and aesthetic impacts of the transmission line rights-of-way

which may be MODERATE, terrestrial ecosystems including threatened and endangered

species along the transmission rights-of-way, which could be MODERATE, and some impact

categories under socioeconomic impacts (i.e., demography, transportation, public services, and

education), which could be MODERATE if a significant number of the construction workers

move into Appling County. Although SMALL in most of the affected counties, the overall

economic and tax benefits in Appling County during the construction phase would be

beneficially MODERATE as noted in Section 9.5.1.5.

The impacts of construction at the Plant Farley alternative site are considered SMALL for most

impact categories except land-use and aesthetic impacts of new transmission line rights-of-way

which may be MODERATE, and some impact categories under socioeconomic impacts (i.e.,

demography, transportation, public and social services, and education), which could be

MODERATE in Houston County. Although the impacts to the economy and taxes would be

SMALL in most counties near the Plant Farley site, the impacts to the economy and taxes would

be beneficially MODERATE as noted in Section 9.5.2.5.

The impacts of construction at the Barton site are considered SMALL for most impact categories

except the land use at the site and the vicinity, the land-use impacts of new transmission line

rights-of-way, terrestrial ecosystems, including threatened and endangered species,

transportation, and aesthetics, which could be MODERATE. Although the tax impacts of

construction in most counties near the Barton site would be SMALL, in Chilton and Elmore

Counties tax benefits would be beneficially MODERATE in Houston County, as noted in Section

9.5.3.5.

Although there are some differences in the environmental impacts of construction at the

VEGP site and the alternative sites, the staff concludes that none of these differences is

sufficient to determine that any of the alternative sites is environmentally preferable to the

proposed VEGP site.

10.2.2 Operations

The impacts of operations at the VEGP site would be SMALL for all major impact categories

except for the SMALL to MODERATE beneficial impacts on the economy, the SMALL to

LARGE beneficial impacts on taxes (discussed in Section 5.5.3), and a MODERATE aesthetic

impacts along the new transmission line.

NUREG-1872 10-6 August 2008
Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites

The impacts of operations at the Plant Hatch alternative site would be SMALL for almost all

impact categories. The impact on the economy and taxes would be SMALL beneficial except in

Appling County, which would experience LARGE beneficial impacts, as noted in Section 9.5.1.5.

The aesthetic impact along the new transmission line is likely to be MODERATE.

The impacts of operations at the Plant Farley alternative site would be SMALL for almost all

impact categories. The impact on taxes would be SMALL beneficial except in Houston County,

where it could be LARGE beneficial, as noted in Section 9.5.2.5. The aesthetic impact along

the new transmission line would likely be MODERATE.

The impacts of operations at the Barton alternative site would be SMALL for all impact

categories except aesthetics, which could be MODERATE, as discussed in Section 9.5.3.5.

The impact on taxes would be SMALL beneficial except in Chilton and Elmore Counties, where

it could be MODERATE beneficial, as noted in Section 9.5.3.5.

Although there would be some differences in the environmental impacts of operation at the

VEGP site and the alternative sites, the staff concludes that none of these differences is

sufficient to determine that any of the alternative sites are environmentally preferable to the

VEGP site.

10.3 Obviously Superior Sites

None of the alternative sites were determined to be environmentally preferable to the VEGP

site. Therefore, none of the alternative sites is obviously superior to the VEGP site.

10.4 Comparison with the No-Action Alternative

The no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which NRC denies the applicant's request. If

the application for the proposed VEGP ESP were denied, the impacts of the construction

activities would not occur. Further, denial of the application would prevent early resolution of

safety and environmental issues for the site. These issues would have to be addressed during

a future licensing action (i.e., ESP, construction permit, or combined license), should the

applicant decide to pursue construction and operation activities for a nuclear facility at the site at

a later time.

In the event that the NRC denies the ESP application, the applicant could follow any of several

paths to satisfy its electric power generation needs. The following paths could be pursued

individually or in combination, and each would have associated environmental impacts.

August 2008 10-7 NUREG-1872
Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites

" Reapply with a revised application for the same proposed site.

" Seek an ESP, a construction permit, or combined license for a new nuclear unit for a

different location.

" Purchase power from other electricity providers.

* Establish conservation and demand-side management programs.

" Construct new generation facilities other than nuclear at the currently proposed site.

" Construct new generation facilities at other locations.

* Delay retirement of existing generating facilities.

" Reactivate previously retired generating facilities.

The activities that are permissible under an ESP are limited to construction activities defined by

10 CFR 50.10(a) if the applicant has requested a limited work authorization and has a site

redress plan. These construction activities are permissible only if the final environmental impact

statement concludes that the activities would not result in any significant environmental impacts

that could not be redressed. The results of the staffs assessment of the site redress plan are

discussed in Section 4.11. As discussed in that section, the staff concludes that the potential

limited construction activities described in Southern's site redress plan would not result in any

significant adverse impacts that could not be redressed.

10.5 References

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

Production and Utilization Facilities."

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

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

Law 91-190.

New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. 1978. New England Coalition on Nuclear

Pollution v. NRC. 582 F.2d 87 ( 1 st Circuit 1978).

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire. 1977. Public Service Company of New Hampshire

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-8. 5 NRC 503, 526 (1977), affirmed, New England

Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC. 582 F.2d 87 (Ist Circuit 1978).

NUREG-1872 10-8 August 2008
Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites

Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project

Nuclear Unit No. 1). ALAB-502, 8 NRC 383, 397 (1978), affirmed, CLI-80-23, 11 NRC 731

(1980).

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Revision 4. Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan:

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

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. Accessed at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1 555/.

August 2008 10-9 NUREG-1872

11.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

On August 14, 2006, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application

from Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) for an early site permit (ESP) for a

site adjacent to the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), in Burke County, Georgia. This

application has been revised through Revision 4, which was submitted to NRC in March 2008

(Southern 2008a). The site is located approximately 24 km (15 mi) east northeast of

Waynesboro, Georgia, and 42 km (26 mi) southeast of Augusta, Georgia. An ESP is a

Commission approval of a location for the siting of one or more nuclear power facilities, and is a

separate action from the filing of an application for a construction permit (CP) or combined

license (COL) for such a facility. An ESP application may refer to a reactor's or reactors'

characteristics or plant parameter envelope, which is a set of postulated design parameters that

bound the characteristics of a reactor or reactors that might be built at a selected site;

alternatively, an ESP may refer to a detailed reactor design. In its application, Southern

specified the Westinghouse AP1000 as the proposed reactor design for the VEGP site. An ESP

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

process undertaken to assess whether a proposed site is suitable should the applicant receive

an ESP and later decide to pursue a CP or COL.

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

directs that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Subpart A of Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 contains the NRC regulations related to ESPs. The NRC

has implemented Section 102 of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. As set forth in 10 CFR 52.18, the

Commission has determined that an EIS would-be prepared during the review of an application

for an ESP. The purpose of Southern's requested action, issuance of the ESP, is for the NRC

to determine whether the VEGP site is suitable for two new nuclear units by resolving certain

safety and environmental issues before Southern incurs the substantial additional time and

expense of designing and seeking approval to construct such facilities at the site. Part 52 of

CFR Title 10 describes the ESP as a "partial construction permit." An applicant for a CP or

COL for a nuclear power plant or plants to be located at the site for which an ESP was issued

can reference the ESP, thus reducing the need to review siting issues at that stage of the

licensing process. However, issuance of a CP or COL to construct and operate a nuclear power

plant is a major Federal action and would require an EIS to be issued in accordance with

10 CFR Part 51.

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

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

assesses the applicant's proposal in relation to these issues and determines if the

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

August 2008 11-1 NUREG-1872
Conclusions and Recommendations

This EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction and

operation of two new nuclear units at the proposed ESP site.

In its application, Southern requested authorization in the form of a limited work authorization

(LWA) to perform certain preliminary construction activities if an ESP is issued. The application,

therefore, includes a site redress plan that specifies how the applicant would stabilize and

restore the site to its preconstruction condition (or conditions consistent with an alternative use)

in the event a nuclear power plant is not constructed on the ESP site. Although it is not required

in an ESP application (10 CFR 52.17(a)(2)), Southern chose to address the benefits of the

proposed action (e.g., the need for power).

As mentioned previously, the staff analyzes the impacts of construction and operation of the

proposed action in Chapters 4 and 5, and discusses cumulative impacts in Chapter 7. As a

result of the NRC's recent new rule on limited work authorizations for nuclear power plants (see

72 FR 57416), the definition of construction activities in 10 CFR 50.10 has changed to more

clearly reflect NRC's jurisdiction. The staffs draft EIS for the Vogtle ESP review was published

prior to the issuance of the final rule. To reflect the effects of the new rule, site-preparation and

preconstruction activities would most appropriately be analyzed in the staffs EIS as cumulative

impacts rather than as impacts of construction or operation of the proposed facility. However, in

this instance, to ensure appropriate consideration of public comments on the draft EIS and to

avoid confusion that might result from reorganizing the document following those comments, the

staff will keep discussions of such impacts (e.g., those no longer defined by regulation as

construction activities) in the chapters in which they were discussed in the draft EIS. While the

staffs analysis of construction activities in the draft EIS and its discussion of cumulative impacts

are different, they are generally at a similar depth of analysis. The staff believes this approach

will allow effective consideration of public comments while still ensuring that impacts relevant to

the NEPA analysis are disclosed and fully evaluated. Accordingly, this chapter of the final EIS,

including the analysis of costs and benefits of the proposed action, continues to contain the

staffs analysis of those impacts discussed in Chapter 4 of the draft EIS, such as site

preparation activities and construction of transmission lines.

Upon acceptance of the VEGP site application for docketing, the NRC began the environmental

review process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing in the Federal Register a Notice of

Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping (71 FR 58882). The staff held a public scoping

meeting in Waynesboro, Georgia, on October 19, 2006, and visited the VEGP site on

October 17-19, 2006. Subsequent to the site visit and the scoping meeting and in accordance

with NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51, the staff determined and evaluated the potential environmental

impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear units at the VEGP site.

Included in this EIS are (1) the results of the NRC staffs analyses, which consider and weigh the

environmental effects of the proposed action and of constructing and operating two new nuclear

units at the VEGP site, (2) mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects, (3) the

NUREG-1 872 11-2 August 2008
Conclusions and Recommendations

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and (4) the staffs recommendation,

regarding the proposed action based on its environmental review.

During the course of preparing this EIS, the staff reviewed the Environmental Report (ER)

submitted by Southern (Southern 2008a); consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and local

agencies; and followed the guidance set forth in RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site

Permits (NRC 2004), to conduct an independent review of the issues. The review standard

draws from the previously published NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plans for the Review of

Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1987), and NUREG-1 555,

Environmental Standard Review Plan: Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for

Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 2000). In addition, the NRC considered the public comments

related to the environmental review received during the scoping process. These comments are

provided in Appendix D of this EIS.

The results of this evaluation were documented in a draft EIS issued for public comment in Augusl

2007. During the comment period, the staff conducted a public meeting on October 4, 2007, near

the VEGP site to describe the results of the NRC environmental review, answer questions, and

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

draft EIS. After the comment period closed, the staff considered and dispositioned the comments

received. These comments are addressed in Appendix E of this EIS.

Following the practice of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437) (NRC 1996), supplemental license renewal ElSs, and previous

ESP ElSs, environmental issues are evaluated using the three-level standard of significance -

SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE - developed by NRC using guidelines from the Council on

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.27). Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

provides the following definitions of the three significance levels:

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

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

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

important attributes of the resource.

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

important attributes of the resource.

Mitigation measures were considered for each environmental issue and are discussed in the

appropriate sections. During its environmental review, the staff considered planned activities

and actions that Southern indicates it and others would likely take should Southern receive an

August 2008 11-3 NUREG-1872
Conclusions and Recommendations

ESP and later decide to apply for a CP or COL.(a) In addition, Southern provided estimates of

the environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of two new nuclear

units on the ESP site.

Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on:

" the environmental impact of the proposed action

" any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be

implemented

* alternatives to the proposed action

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

enhancement of long-term productivity

" any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the

proposed action is implemented.

Activities permitted under an ESP that includes an LWA and a site redress plan defined in

10 CFR 50.10(a), may include driving of piles, placement of backfill, and other actions

associated with the assembly, installation, and testing of safety-related structures, systems, or

components. These activities are identified in the site redress plan. An LWA is not required for

preparation of the site for construction of the facility, installation of temporary construction

facilities, excavation for facility structures, construction of service facilities, and construction of

certain structures, systems, and components that do not prevent or mitigate the consequences

of postulated accidents. The following discussions of the NEPA requirements address the

impacts of construction and operation of up to two new nuclear units at the VEGP site. As

discussed in earlier chapters of this EIS and explained further below, the construction impacts

bound any impacts of construction activities allowed under 10 CFR 52.25.

11.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action

Impacts associated with construction of the proposed ESP facilities are discussed in Chapter 4

and are summarized in Table 4-7. Impacts associated with operation of the proposed facilities

are discussed in Chapter 5 and are summarized in Table 5-19. Construction and operational

impacts are discussed in the EIS to make an informed decision on siting. The impacts of

operations would only occur if an operating license or COL is issued by the NRC.

The staff considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation

of Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions

in the VEGP site area in Chapter 7 of this EIS. For each impact area, the staff's determination is

(a) Southern submitted an application for a COL at the VEGP site on March 31, 2008.

NUREG-1872 11-4 August 2008
Conclusions and Recommendations

that the potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation would be SMALL

and that mitigation would not be warranted. Several issues have the potential for MODERATE

impacts, most of which would occur under temporary circumstances or as the result of a largerthan-expected concentration of construction workers settling near the VEGP site.

11.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

Section 102(2)(C)(ii) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. Unavoidable

adverse environmental impacts are those potential impacts of construction and operation of the

two proposed new units that cannot be avoided and for which no practical means of mitigation

are available.

There would be no unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the granting of

the ESP with the exception of impacts associated with any limited construction activities

approved in an LWA request and identified in the site redress plan. However, there are

unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of Units

3 and 4 at the VEGP site.

This EIS evaluates the impacts of all site-preparation and preliminary construction activities as

part of the overall construction impacts. However, under rules at 10 CFR 50.10, Southern may

perform the following site-preparation activities, regardless of whether or not the ESP is issued,

subject to other State or Federal permits.

" preparation of the site for construction of the facility (including such activities as clearing,

grading, and construction of temporary access roads and borrow areas)

* installation of temporary construction support facilities (including such items as warehouse

and shop facilities, utilities, concrete mixing plants, docking and unloading facilities, and

construction support buildings)

" excavation for facility structures

" the construction of service facilities (including such facilities as roadways, paving, railroad

spurs, fencing, exterior utility and lighting systems, and sanitary sewage treatment facilities)

* the construction of structures, systems, and components that do not prevent or mitigate the

consequences of postulated accidents, which could cause undue risk to the health and

safety of the public.

Southern has requested an LWA that would allow for activities related to construction of the

main safety-related structures, systems, and components, such as driving piles; subsurface

preparation; placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining walls within an excavation;

and installation of a foundation, including placement of concrete.

August 2008 11-5 NUREG-1872
Conclusions and Recommendations

These activities are described in the volume of the application titled Southern Nuclear Operating

Company Early Site Permit Application for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Part 4 Site

Redress Plan (Southern 2008a).

If the ESP is granted to Southern and if Southern performs any or all of the activities described

in the site redress plan but the NRC does not in the future approve a CP under 10 CFR Part 50

or a COL under 10 CFR Part 52, according to 10 CFR 52.17, Southern would need to redress

the portion of the site associated with construction activities according to the site redress plan

included in the application (Southern 2008a). The staff reviewed the list of allowed construction

activities in the event that the ESP is granted and reviewed the full site redress plan submitted

by Southern. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.17, the application demonstrated that there is

reasonable assurance that redress carried out under the plan would achieve an environmentally

stable and aesthetically acceptable site suitable for whatever non-nuclear use may conform with

local zoning requirements. As a result of NRC's independent review as described in

Section 4.11, the staff concludes that the potential limited construction activities described in

Southern's site redress plan would not result in any significant adverse impacts that could not

be redressed.

11.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction

Chapter 4 discusses in detail the potential impacts from construction of the proposed new

nuclear units (Units 3 and 4) at the VEGP site. The unavoidable adverse impacts related to

construction are listed in Table 11-1 and are summarized below. The primary unavoidable

adverse environmental impacts during construction would be related to land use. All

construction activities for VEGP Units 3 and 4, including ground-disturbing activities, would

occur within the existing VEGP site boundary. The area that would be affected as a result of

constructing and operating permanent facilities is approximately 131 ha (324 ac). Additional

areas would be disturbed on a short-term basis as a result of temporary activities and facilities

and laydown areas (Southern 2008a).

Dewatering systems employed during excavation within the powerblock area would depress the

water table in the general vicinity; however, the impacts would be localized and temporary. The

alteration of the land surface at VEGP Units 3 and 4 would cause a localized change in the

recharge rate to the Water Table aquifer.

Construction activities for the proposed 500-kV transmission line right-of-way would occur both

onsite and offsite. The onsite land-use impacts are included in the 131 ha (324 ac). The

approximate route is shown in Figure 4-1, but the exact route of the transmission line right-ofway has not been determined at this time. However, Southern stated in its ER that the

transmission line right-of-way would be 46 m (150 ft) wide and 97 km (60 mi) long and traverse

Burke, Warren, Jefferson, and McDuffie Counties.

NUREG-1872 11-6 August 2008
Conclusions and Recommendations

Table 11-1. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction of VEGP

Units 3 and 4

Impact

Category

Land Use

Hydrological

and Water Use

Ecological

Terrestrial

Aquatic

Socioeconomic

Radiological

Air Quality

Environmental

Justice

Adverse Impacts

Based on Southern's

Application

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Actions to

Mitigate Impacts

Comply with requirements of

applicable Federal, State,

Tribal, and local permits

Obtain a CWA Section 401

Certification prior to sitepreparation activities

Observe best management

practices (BMPs). Comply

with requirements of

applicable Federal, State,

Tribal, and local permits

Observe BMPs.

Obtain a 401 certification

prior to site-preparation and

construction activities

Traffic control and

management measures

would protect any local roads

during construction

Use of as low as reasonably

achievable principles

Implement actions to. reduce

fugitive dust

None

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

131 ha (324 ac) disturbed on a

long-term basis; additional land

disturbed on a temporary basis

Dewatering systems would

depress the water table in the

general vicinity, but the impacts

would be localized and

temporary

131 ha (324 ac) disturbed on a

long-term basis on the VEGP

site; new transmission line rightof-way would disturb additional

terrestrial habitats

Loss of some benthic

macroinvertebrates and some

shoreline habitats.

Local traffic would increase

during construction, available

housing could be limited if

workers concentrate in Burke

County

Dose to construction workers

Equipment emissions and

fugitive dust from operation of

earth-moving equipment are

sources of air pollution

None

An estimated 8.5 ha (21 ac) of wetlands habitat on the VEGP site would be lost to permanent

structures and facilities associated with construction of the proposed ESP facility.

Approximately 0.57 ha (1.4 ac) of land composed of pond and bottomland hardwood forest

would be within the proposed 500-kV transmission line right-of-way. About 113 ha (279 ac) of

upland habitat, including planted pines, previously disturbed areas and open fields, and

approximately 1.6 ha (4 ac) of mixed hardwood and pine habitat, would be lost to permanent

structures and facilities. A small amount of shoreline and approximately 5 ha (12.5 ac) with

most of it in the Savannah River floodplain would be affected by construction of the new intake

structure and canal. Construction of the new transmission line could impact threatened and

endangered species. Georgia Power Company (GPC) will site the transmission line in

August 2008 11-7 NUREG-1872
Conclusions and Recommendations

accordance with Georgia Code Title 22, Section 22-3-161. GPC's procedures for implementing

this code section include consultation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as an evaluation of impacts to special habitats and

threatened and endangered species. In addition, the GPC will comply with all applicable laws,

regulations, and permit requirements, and will use good engineering and construction practices

(Southern 2008a). Socioeconomic impacts of construction include an increase in traffic from

construction workers, and possible demand pressure on the local housing market if workers

concentrate in Burke County. Atmospheric and meteorological impacts include fugitive dust

from construction activities that can be mitigated by the dust-control plan. Radiological doses to

construction workers from the adjacent units are expected to be well below regulatory limits. No

unusual resource dependencies on minority and low-income populations in the region were

identified. In addition, no environmental pathways related to construction and operation

activities were found that would lead to adverse and disproportionate impacts on minority and

low-income populations.

11.2.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation

Chapter 5 provides a detailed discussion of the potential impacts from operation of the proposed

Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site. The unavoidable adverse impacts related to operation are

listed in Table 11-2 and are summarized below. The unavoidable adverse impacts from

operation for land use would be small and further mitigation would not be warranted.

Hydrological, water use, and water-quality impacts during operation would be small. Impacts to

the Savannah River from water use are mitigated through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) Drought Contingency Plan (USACE 2006) for the basin and releases from J. Strom

Thurmond Dam. Water-related impacts during operation would also be mitigated through

Southern's adherence to State permits for water withdrawal and discharge. Terrestrial impacts

would be small during operation, assuming BMPs are followed. The proposed new unit is

expected to have a closed-cycle cooling system resulting in relatively low entrainment and

impingement impacts. Aquatic impacts would be small during operation because of Southern's

adherence to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Socioeconomic

impacts would primarily be increased demand for services, with the increase in tax revenue

available to support the increase in services. It is expected that air-quality impacts would be

negligible and that pollutants emitted during operations would be insignificant.

11.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Alternatives to the proposed actions are discussed in Chapter 9 of this EIS. Alternatives

considered are the no-action alternative, energy production alternatives, system design

alternatives, and alternative sites.

NUREG-1872 11-8 August 2008
Conclusions and Recommendations

The no-action alternative, described in Section 9.1, refers to a scenario in which the NRC would

deny the ESP request. A comparison of the proposed action with the no-action alternative is

provided in Section 10.4 of this EIS. All of the impacts of the no-action alternative are

considered to be SMALL.

Table 11-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation of VEGP

Units 3 and 4

Impact Category

Land use

Hydrological and

Water Use

Ecological

Terrestrial

Aquatic

Socioeconomic

Radiological

Air Quality

Environmental

Justice

Adverse

Impacts Based

on Southern's

Application

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Actions to Mitigate

Impacts

Local land management

plans

Comply with State permit

limits

None

Adherence to NPDES permit

limits

Tax payments would offset

impacts

Use of as low as reasonably

achievable principles

None

None

Unavoidable Adverse

Impacts

Possible new housing and

retail space added in vicinity

because of potential growth

Increased water use because

of the addition of Units 3 and 4

None

Increase in entrainment and

impingement of aquatic

organisms

Increased use of services

Dose to workers, the public,

and biota

None

None

Alternative energy sources are described in Section 9.2 of this EIS. Detailed analyses of coaland natural-gas-fired alternatives are provided in Section 9.2.2, other energy sources are

discussed in Section 9.2.3, and alternatives that would not require additional generating

capacity are described in Section 9.2.1. The staff concluded that none of the alternative power

production options was both practical and environmentally preferable to the proposed action.

Alternative system designs are discussed in Section 9.3 of this EIS, focusing on alternative

cooling system designs. The staff concluded that once-through cooling would not be practical at

the VEGP site because of insufficient flow in the Savannah River. The staff concluded that the

potential benefits of dry cooling towers or hybrid wet/dry cooling towers would not justify the

expense and loss of efficiency that would result. The staff concludes that the impacts on water

use and quality of the proposed wet tower cooling system would be SMALL, as described in

Section 5.3.

August 2008 11-9 NUREG-1872
Conclusions and Recommendations

Alternative sites are discussed in Section 9.5 of this EIS, and the impacts of construction and

operation of the ESP facilities at the alternative sites are compared to the impacts at the

proposed VEGP site in Chapter 10 of this EIS. Table 10-1 contains the staffs characterization

of construction impacts at the proposed and alternative sites. The staffs characterization of

operational impacts at the proposed and alternative sites is provided in Table 10-2. The staff

concludes that while there are differences in construction and operational impacts at the

proposed and alternative sites, none of the alternative sites is environmentally preferable or

obviously superior to the proposed VEGP site.

11.4 Relationship between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term

Productivity of the Human Environment

Section 102(2)(C)(iv) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on the relationship

between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of

long-term productivity. The only short-term use of the environment that could occur if the

proposed action is implemented would be limited construction activities conducted by Southern

that would be authorized in an ESP. Any such activities are unlikely to adversely affect the

long-term productivity of the environment. The evaluation of the relationship between local

short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term

productivity for the construction and operation of the ESP units can be performed by discussing

the benefits of operating the units. The principal benefit is the production of electricity. In

accordance with 10 CFR 52.18, an EIS for an ESP does not need'to include an assessment of

the benefits of the proposed action. However, in its application, Southern elected to include in

its ESP application a benefit-cost analysis of two new units at the VEGP site. Therefore, the

staff prepared its own analysis, presented in Section 11-6. If new nuclear power plants are

constructed on the VEGP site, power production would continue until the operating license or

COL expires or the licensee chooses to cease operation. Once the plants are shut down, they

would be decommissioned according to NRC regulations. Once decommissioning is complete

and the NRC license is terminated, the site would be available for other uses.

11.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of

Resources

Section 102(2)(C)(v) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on any irreversible and

irretrievable commitments of resources that would occur if the proposed action is implemented.

The only irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be expended if the

proposed action is implemented would be resources used by Southern for the limited

construction activities authorized by the ESP, and the site-preparation and preliminary

construction activities performed in support of the ESP-authorized activities. If not used during

the ESP stage, any such resource commitments for construction or site-preparation activities

NUREG-1 872 11-10 August 2008
Conclusions and Recommendations

would be used at the CP or COL stage or could be used for other activities even if NRC does

not eventually approve a CP or a COL for the VEGP location.(a)

Irretrievable commitments of resources during construction of the proposed new units generally

would be similar to that of any major construction project. A study by the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE 2004) on new reactor construction estimated the following quantities of materials

would be required for a new reactor: 9,357 m3 (12,239 yd 3) of concrete, 2,819 MT (3,107 tons)

of rebar, 2,000,000 m (6,500,000 ft) of cable, and 83,820 m (275,000 ft) of piping would be

needed for a single reactor building. Therefore, twice these amounts would be needed for

VEGP Units 3 and 4, and considerably more would be required for all the other site structures.

The actual commitment of construction resources (concrete, steel, and other building materials)

would depend on the final site design described at the CP or COL stage. However, only a

portion of the total would be used during the ESP-authorized construction activities or the

supporting site-preparation and preliminary construction activities. Hazardous materials such as

asbestos would not be used, if possible. If materials such as asbestos were used, it would be in

accordance with applicable safety regulations and practices.

The staff expects that the use of construction materials in the quantities associated with those

expected for Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site, while irretrievable, would be of small consequence

with respect to the availability of such resources.

The main resource that would be irretrievably committed during operation of the new nuclear

units would be uranium. The availability of uranium ore and existing stockpiles of highly

enriched uranium in the United States and Russia that could be processed into fuel is sufficient,

so that the irreversible and irretrievable commitment would be of small consequence.

11.6 Benefit-Cost Balance

This section identifies the benefits and costs of constructing and operating two new nuclear

generation units on the.VEGP site. The intent of this section is to identify all potential societal

benefits of the proposed activities and compare these to the potential internal (i.e., private)_as

well as external (i.e., societal) costs of the proposed activities. The purpose is to generally

inform the ESP process by gathering and reviewing information that demonstrates the likelihood

that the benefits of the proposed activities outweigh the aggregate costs.

Although the NRC has requirements for licensees (10 CFR 50.75) to provide reasonable

assurance that funds would be available for the decommissioning process, general issues

related to Southern's financial viability are outside NRC's mission and authority and, thus, would

not be considered in this EIS. It is not possible to quantify and assign a value to all benefits and

(a) Southern submitted a COL application for the VEGP site on March 31, 2008.

August 2008 11-11 NUREG-1872
Conclusions and Recommendations

costs associated with the proposed action. This analysis, however, attempts to identify, quantify,

and provide monetary values for benefits and costs when reasonable estimates are available.

11.6.1 Benefits

The most apparent benefit from constructing and operating a power plant is that it would

eventually generate power and provide thousands of residential, commercial, and industrial

consumers with electricity. Maintaining an adequate supply of electricity in any given region has

social and economic importance, because this resource is the foundation for economic stability

and growth and fundamental to maintaining the current standard of living. In addition to nuclear

power, however, there are a number of different power generation technology options that could

meet this need, including natural-gas-powered plants, coal-fired generation, and hydroelectric

plants. Because the focus of this EIS is on the proposed expansion of the VEGP site

generating capacity, this section focuses primarily on the relative benefits of the VEGP option

rather than the broader, more generic benefits of electricity supply.

11.6.1.1 Societal Benefits

In general, from a societal perspective, there are two primary benefits associated with nuclear

power generation relative to most other alternative generating systems, which are described

below.

1. Price Stability and Lon-ievity. Because of relatively low and non-volatile fuel costs, nuclear

energy is a dependable provider of electricity that can be provided at relatively stable prices to

the consumer over a long period of time. Unlike some other energy sources, nuclear energy is

generally not subject to unreliable weather or climate conditions, unpredictable cost fluctuations,

and is less dependent on foreign suppliers than other energy sources.

For the production of electricity to be beneficial to a society, there must be a corresponding

demand, or "need for power," in the region. Chapter 8 defines and discusses the need for

power in more detail. The Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) regulates investorowned utilities in the State of Georgia. As part of its mission to ensure that consumers receive

safe, reliable, and reasonably priced electricity from financially viable entities, GPSC requires

that all utilities under its jurisdiction submit Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) every 3 years.

The IRP provides GPSC with a means for consistently assessing a variety of demand and

supply resources to cost effectively meet customer energy-service needs. It considers

population growth, culture, lifestyle, the economy, the environment, available energy

technology, and other factors and assesses many different ways to meet the forecasted

demand with both supply-side and demand-management solutions. GPSC also ensures that

the demand for power in the region is at a level that justifies additional power generation by

investor-owned utilities and that the appropriate type of generation is chosen to meet this

demand.

NUREG-1872 11-12 August 2008
Conclusions and Recommendations

The GPC submits an IRP for GPSC approval every 3 years. The GPC submitted its 2007 IRP

for review to the GPSC, and a final ruling on the 2007 IRP was made on July 12, 2007

(GPSC 2007). As part of the 2007 IRP, the GPC's mix study selected nuclear energy as the

most cost-effective resource in the 2015/2016 time frame. VEGP Units 3 and 4 would each be

designed to generate approximately 1117 MW(e) net, for a total of 2234 MW. Assuming a

reasonably low capacity factor of 85 percent, the two-unit plant average annual electrical energy

generation would be more than 16,000,000 MWh. A reasonably high-capacity factor of

93 percent would result in slightly more than 18,000,000 MWh of electricity (Southern 2008a).

2. Energy Security and Fuel Diversity. Currently, more than 70 percent of the electricity

generated in the United States is generated with fossil-based technologies; thus, non-fossilbased generation, such as nuclear generation, are essential to maintaining diversity in the

aggregate power generation fuel mix (DOE/EIA 2006). Nuclear power contributes to the diverse

U.S. energy mix, hedging the risk of shortages and price fluctuations for any one generating

system and reducing the nation's dependence on imported fossil fuels.

One of the goals of the IRP process is to ensure that a region's given electricity generation

relies on a mix of different fuels. A diverse fuel mix helps to protect consumers from

contingencies such as fuel shortages or disruptions, price fluctuations, and changes in

regulatory practices. The GPC fuel mix is made up of approximately 72 percent coal,

19 percent nuclear, 3 percent hydroelectric, and just under 6 percent natural gas and oil

(Southern 2008a). The GPC IRP for 2004 shows a trend of increasing dependence on gas, and

a corresponding decreasing dependence on nuclear, coal, and hydro energy (GPC 2004). In

the past 15 years, virtually all new power plants built in Georgia have been fueled by natural

gas. GPSC has raised concerns during the IRP approval process regarding the trend to rely

more heavily on a relatively price-volatile fuel source for new electric generation, and has urged

utilities to study the feasibility of building new nuclear plants (GPSC 2004). In response to the

2007 IRP, GPSC reaffirmed its conclusion that it was reasonable for GPC to investigate the

opportunity to build nuclear units (GPSC 2007). The proposed expansion of the VEGP site

generating capacity could provide additional nuclear power generation to the generation mix

that could provide the region with a hedge against risks of future shortages and price

fluctuations of alternative generating systems.

11.6.1.2 Regional Benefits

Tax Revenue Benefits

Southern's current tax payments to Burke County for the VEGP site represent approximately

80 percent of the total county property tax revenues. If two new units are operational at the

VEGP site, there would be a significant regional tax revenue benefit realized by Burke County

(see Section 5.5.3.2). The amount of property taxes that will be paid by the co-owners for the

new units during operations depend on many factors, most of which are not known at this time;

August 2008 11-13 NUREG-1872
Conclusions and Recommendations

however, based on electrical output of 1117 MW(e) per unit and the estimated cost of each

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor installed, the annual property tax revenues generated by the two

new units could range from $20 to $29 million in the first 10 years of operation, and then decline

as the value of the plant declines over time to around $3.5 to $5 million for Burke County.

Regional Productivity and Community Impacts

The new units would require an operating workforce of about 812 people who would stimulate

the creation of 341(a) additional indirect jobs. In total, approximately 1153 new jobs within about

a 80-km (50-mi) radius of the plant would be created by the startup of the new units and would

be maintained throughout the life of the plant. The economic multiplier effect of the increased

spending by the direct and indirect workforce created as a result of two new units would

increase the economic activity in the region, most noticeably in rural Burke County (Southern

2008a). Sections 4.5.3.1 and 5.5.3.1 provide additional information on the economic impacts of

constructing and operating Units 3 and 4 on the VEGP site.

The existence of the VEGP site has resulted in infrastructure improvements to the region,

including upgrading and paving the road that leads to the plant. It is expected that there would

be various other local infrastructure improvements that would be made during the construction

of VEGP Units 3 and 4, including road improvements around the plant (Southern 2008a).

NRC staffs interviews in surrounding VEGP communities revealed high perceived benefit to

having both a "good corporate citizen" (Southern) in the region as well as the presence of

significant groups of relatively well-paid and well-educated employees associated with the

nuclear plant expansion. Local officials and service organization representatives all

emphasized the philanthropic and service value that Southern and its employees bring to the

community (PNNL 2006).

11.6.2 Costs

Internal costs to the applicant as well as external costs to the surrounding region and

environment would be incurred during the construction and operation of two new units on the

VEGP site. Internal costs include the costs to physically construct the power plant

(capital costs), as well as operating and maintenance costs, fuel costs, waste disposal, and

decommissioning costs. External costs include all costs imposed on the environment and

region surrounding the plant and may include such things as a loss of regional productivity,

environmental degradation, or loss of wildlife habitat.

I (a) The indirect jobs are created from the multiplier effect, which is 812 x multiplier 0.42 = 341

(BEA 2005).

NUREG-1872 11-14 August 2008
Conclusions and Recommendations

11.6.2.1 Internal Costs

The most substantial monetary cost associated with nuclear energy is the cost of capital

construction. Nuclear power plants have relatively high capital costs for building the plant, but

low fuel costs relative to alternative power generation systems. The real price of key heavy

construction commodities, such as cement, steel, and copper, have increased substantially in

recent years, which will have a significant impact on nuclear plant capital costs (although it

should be noted that these price increases will increase construction costs for non-nuclear

power plants, as well).(a) Because of the large capital costs for nuclear power, and the relatively

long construction period before revenue is returned, servicing the capital costs of a nuclear

power plant is the most important factor determining the economic competitiveness of nuclear

energy. Construction delays can add significantly to the cost of a plant. Because a power plant

does not yield profits during construction, the longer construction times translate directly into

higher interest expenses on borrowed construction funds. In general, since no new nuclear

plants have been built in the United States in many years, there is a great deal of uncertainty

about the true costs of a new unit.

Construction Costs

In evaluating monetary costs related to constructing Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site, Southern

reviewed recent published literature, vendor information, internally generated financial

information, and internally generated, site-specific information. The NRC staff also reviewed

recently published literature on the topic and compared this with Southern's cost estimates. The

cost estimates reviewed were not based on nuclear plant construction experience in the United

States, which is more than 20 years old, but rather construction costs overseas, which are more

recent.

The phrase commonly used to describe the monetary cost of constructing a nuclear plant is

"overnight capital cost." The capital costs are those incurred during construction, when the

actual outlays for equipment and construction and engineering are expended. Overnight costs

include engineering, procurement, and construction costs; however, it is presumed that the plant

is constructed "overnight," thus interest is not included. Estimates of overnight capital costs for

construction resulting from three comprehensive studies of nuclear plant costs (University of

Chicago 2004; MIT 2003; DOE 2004) range from $1100 per kW to $2100 per kW (expressed in

various year dollars). After escalating these construction cost estimates using real escalation

(a) Although in real terms, the construction costs for large projects remained relatively flat from 1998 to

2002, various construction cost indices from such sources such as the Electric Power Research

Institute and McGraw Hill estimate real cost escalation for large power plant construction projects to be

approximately 4 percent per year since 2002 (through 2007). This is based on actual field data as well

as data on commodity costs, labor cost information, and other equipment (USDI/Reclamation 2008).

August 2008 11-15 NUREG-1872
Conclusions and Recommendations

rates during the 2002-2007 time frame, the top end of the range increases. to around

$3000 per kW in 2007 dollars.

On April 8, 2008, Southern signed an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC)

contract with Shaw Construction and Westinghouse (proposed reactor vendor). Although much

of the information and calculations that went into these negotiations are business sensitive,

Southern has formally stated that the overnight cost of capital to build two new nuclear

units on the VEGP site is estimated to be in the range of $3200 per kW to $3500 per kW

(Southern 2008b,c). Together with an installed capacity of 2234 MW(e), the $3200 to $3500

estimate per kW results in an overnight capital cost of construction for VEGP Units 3 and 4 of

approximately $7.1 to $7.8 billion (Southern 2008b,c).

Operation Costs

Operation costs are frequently expressed as levelized cost of electricity, which is the price per

kWh of producing electricity, including the cost needed to cover operating costs and annualized

capital costs. Overnight capital costs account for a third of the levelized cost, and interest costs

on the overnight costs account for another 25 percent (University of Chicago 2004). Levelized

cost estimates range from $36 to $83 per MWh (3.6 to 8.3 cents per kWh). Factors affecting the

range include choices for discount rate, construction duration, plant life span, capacity factor,

cost of debt and equity and split between debt and equity financing, depreciation time, tax rates,

and premium for uncertainty. Estimates include decommissioning but, due to the effect of

discounting a cost that would occur as much as 40 years in the future, decommissioning costs

have relatively little effect on the levelized cost. Considering such factors as the specific

technologies selected, allocation of first-of-a-kind costs, site locations, and parity adjustments to

allow comparison between counties, Southern originally estimated that $65 per MWh (6.5 cents

per kWh) was a reasonable levelized cost of electricity estimate for nuclear generation on the

VEGP site (Southern 2008a). The estimate, however, corresponded with Southern's original

lower estimate of overnight capital cost ($2000 kW capacity). If the portion of the levelized cost

attributable to capital expenses is escalated to Southern's current estimate ($3200 to

$3500 kW)(Southern 2008c), the estimated levelized cost of electricity is in the range of 7.8 to

8.1 cents per kWh.

Fuel Costs

From the outset, the basic attraction of nuclear energy has been its low fuel costs compared to

coal, oil and gas-fired plants. Uranium, however, has to be processed, enriched, and fabricated

into fuel elements, and about half of the cost is results from enrichment and fabrication.

Allowances must also be made for the management of radioactive spent fuel and the ultimate

disposal of this spent fuel or the wastes separated from it (University of Chicago 2004). The

average fuel expenses for new-generation reactors have been calculated to be around 1.6 cents

per kWh for new-generation reactors in 2003 dollars (MIT 2003).

NUREG-1872 11-16 August 2008
Conclusions and Recommendations

Waste Disposal

The back-end costs of nuclear power contribute a very small share of total cost,.both because of

the long lifetime of a nuclear reactor and the fact that provisions for waste-related costs can be

accumulated over that time. It should also be recognized, however, that radioactive nuclear

waste also poses unique disposal challenges for long-term management. The United States

has yet to implement final disposition of spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste streams

created at various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. Because these radioactive wastes present

some danger to present and future generations, the public and its elected representatives, as

well as prospective investors in nuclear power plants, properly expect continuing and substantial

progress towards solution to the waste-disposal problem. Successful operation of the planned

disposal facility at Yucca Mountain would ease, but not solve, the waste-disposal issue for the

United States if nuclear power expands substantially (MIT 2003). Spent fuel management costs

are estimated to be 0.1 cents per kWh (WNA 2007; DOE 2008)

Decommissioning

The NRC has requirements for licensees at 10 CFR 50.75 to provide reasonable assurance that

funds would be available for the decommissioning process. Because of the effect of discounting

a cost that would occur as much as 40 years in the future, decommissioning costs have

relatively little effect on the levelized cost of electricity generated by a nuclear power plant

(WNA 2007).

11.6.2.2 External Costs

External costs are social and/or environmental effects caused by the proposed construction of

and generation of power two new reactors at the VEGP site. This EIS includes the NRC staff's

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of constructing and operating

new nuclear units at the VEGP site or at alternative sites, and mitigation measures available for

reducing or avoiding these adverse impacts. It also includes the staff's recommendation to the

Commission regarding the proposed action.

Environmental and Social Costs

Chapter 4 of this EIS describes the impacts of construction on the environment with respect to

the land, water, ecology, socioeconomics, radiation exposure to construction Workers, and

measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during construction of the proposed new units at

the VEGP site. Chapter 5 examines environmental issues associated with operation of the

proposed new nuclear VEGP Units 3 and 4 for an initial 40-year period. Potential operational

impacts on land use, air quality, water, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, socio-economics,

historic and cultural resources, environmental justice, nonradiological and radiological health

effects, postulated accidents, and applicable measures and controls that would limit the adverse

impacts of station operation during the 40-year operating period are considered. In accordance

with 10 CFR Part 51, all impacts identified in Chapters 4 and 5 have been analyzed and a

August 2008 11-17 NUREG-1872
Conclusions and Recommendations

significance level of potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) assigned.

Chapter 6 addresses the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

management, (2) the transportation of radioactive material, and (3) the decommissioning of

nuclear units at the VEGP site. Chapter 9 includes the NRC staff's review of alternative sites

and alternative power generation systems. Section 11.2 identifies unavoidable adverse impacts

of the proposed action (i.e., impacts after consideration of proposed mitigation actions), and

Section 11.5 identifies irretrievable commitments of resources. In Chapter 10, impacts were

also compared to the adverse impacts for the three alternative sites, Plant Farley, Plant Hatch,

and the Barton Site.

Unlike electricity generated from coal and natural gas, operation of a nuclear power plant does

not result in any emissions of air pollutants associated with global warming and climate change

(e.g., nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide) or methyl mercury. Combustion-based

power plants are responsible for 36 percent of the carbon dioxide, 64 percent of the sulfur

dioxide, 26 percent of the nitrogen oxide, and 13 percent of the mercury emissions from

industrial sources in the United States (DOE/EIA 2006). The majority of the electric power

industry's emissions are from coal-fired plants (Southern 2008a). Chapter 9 of this EIS

analyzes coal- and natural-gas-fired alternatives to the construction and operation of VEGP

Units 3 and 4. Air emissions from these alternatives and nuclear power are summarized in

Chapters 5 and 9.

Safety

For some people, nuclear power has perceived high risk associated with safety, environmental,

and health effects, heightened by the 1979 Three Mile Island and 1986 Chernobyl reactor

accidents, and also by accidents at fuel cycle facilities in the United States, Russia, and Japan.

In recent years, there has also been growing concern about the safe and secure transportation

of nuclear materials and the security of nuclear facilities from terrorist attack. It should be noted,

however, that the intent of this EIS is to analyze and assess any potential adverse safety,

environmental, and health effects; thus, NRC staff conclusions regarding these topics are found

in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of this EIS. It is further noted that NRC staff interviews with local

officials and community members around the VEGP site did not reveal any significant perceived

risk of safety, environmental, or health effects related to the operation of nuclear power plants in

the region.

11.6.3 Summary of Benefits and Costs

Southern's business decision to pursue expansion of VEGP generating capacity by adding two

additional nuclear reactors is an economic decision, based on private financial factors subject to

regulation by the GPSC. The internal costs to construct additional units appear to be

substantial; however, Southern's decision to pursue this expansion implies that the company

NUREG-1872 11-18 August 2008
Conclusions and Recommendations

has already concluded that the private, or internal, benefits of the proposed facility outweigh the

internal costs. Although no specific monetary values could reasonably be assigned to the

identified societal benefits, it would appear that the potential societal benefits of the proposed

expansion of VEGP are substantial. In comparison, the external socio-environmental costs

imposed on the region appear to be relatively small.

Table 11-3 includes a summary of both internal and external costs of the proposed activities at

VEGP, as well as the identified benefits. The table includes a reference to other sections of this

EIS when more detailed analyses and when impact assessments are available for specific

topics. These assessments are included in the table.

The staff concludes, on the basis of the assessments summarized in this EIS, that the

construction and operation of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4, with mitigation measures

identified by the staff, would have accrued benefits that most likely would outweigh the

economic, environmental, and social costs associated with constructing and operating two new

units at the VEGP site.

Table 11-3. Summary of Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Action

Benefit-Cost

Category

Benefits

Electricity

generated

Generating

capacity

Fuel diversity and

energy security

Tax revenues

Local economy

Transportation

Public services and

education

Costs

Construction cost

Operating cost

Fuel Expenses(c)

Description

Impact

Assessment(a)

16,000,000 to 18,000,000 MWh per year for the 40-year life of

the plant

2234 MW (two units at 1117 MW each)

Nuclear option provides diversity to coal- and natural-gas-fired

baseload generation

Property tax revenues could range from approximately

$29 million to $3.5 million annually over the 40-year life of the

units (see Sections 4.5.3.2 and 5.5.3.2)

Increased jobs would benefit the area economically and

increase economic diversity of region (see Sections 4.5.3.1

and 5.5.3.1)

Minor upgrades to roads around the VEGP site

Additional tax revenues and philanthropic dollars to the

community expected from Southern's corporate donations as

well as donations of time and money from its employees

Internal Costs(b)

$7.1-$7.8 billion (overnight capital cost- 2008$)

7.8-8.1 cents per kWh (levelized cost of electricity - 2008$)

1.6 cents per kWh

LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

August 2008 11-19 NUREG-1872
Conclusions and Recommendations

Table 11-3. (contd)

II

Benefit-Cost

Category

Spent fuel

management(d)

Decommissioning(e)

Material and

resources

Tax payments

Impact

Description Assessment(a)

Land use

Land use

Air-quality impacts

Ecological impacts

Physical impacts of

plant construction

and operation on

community

Housing

0.1 cent per kWh

0.1-0.2 cent per kWh

25,000 yds 3 concrete

6000 tons rebar

13,000,000 linear feet cable

550,000 feet of piping having a diameter of > 2.6 in.

981 MT uranium

Corporate income, business, and property taxes must be paid

by the VEGP site owners to the County and State. Although

taxes associated with income and operation of the plant are

not estimated, the tax payments on property assessment

could range from $29 million to $3.5 million annually over the

40-year life of the units.

131 ha (324 ac) occupied on a long-term basis by the two new

nuclear reactors and associated infrastructure. Rights-of-way

would need to be acquired and developed for transmission

(see Sections 4.1 and 5.1).

External Costs

The land acquired for new transmission line rights-of-way may

be taken out of other productive or beneficial use (see

Sections 4.1 and 5.1).

Negligible impacts (see Sections 4.2, 5.2, and 9.2).

Avoidance of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide,

carbon dioxide, and particulate emissions.

Terrestrial impacts expected to be small. Southern's

adherence to the NPDES permit would likely result in

balanced aquatic populations. Transmission line impacts

would be greater. No threatened or endangered terrestrial or

aquatic species likely to be adversely affected (see Sections

4.4 and 5.4).

Impacts limited primarily to boundaries of the site (see

Sections 4.5.1 and 5.5.1).

Adequate housing is available in the area (see Section

4.5.4.3).

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

NUREG-1872 11-720 August 2008
Conclusions and Recommendations

Table 11-3. (contd)

Benefit-Cost

Category

Transportation

Public services

Aesthetics and

recreation

Cultural resources

Health impacts

(nonradiological

and radiological)

Description

Temporary stress on road/local road network because of

congestion during construction and potential degradation from

construction and operation activities (see Sections 4.5.4.1 and

5.5.4.1).

Potential short-term strain on community services in Burke

County during early stages of 7-year construction period (see

Section 4.5.4.4).

Because the plant already exists onsite, very little marginal

impact on aesthetic and recreation from additional reactors

(see Sections 4.5.1.4, 4.5.3.4, 5.5.1.4, and 5.5.3.4).

There would likely be an adverse effect to a cultural resource.

Southern has committed to develop procedures to manage

cultural resources in the event of an inadvertent discovery

onsite (see Sections 4.6 and 5.6).

Small estimated temperature increases would not significantly

increase abundance of thermophilic microorganisms.

Radiological doses to the public and occupational workers

would be monitored and controlled in accordance with

regulatory limits (see Sections 4.8, 4.9, 5.8 and 5.9).

Impact

Assessment(a)

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE

SMALL

(a) Impact assessments are listed for all impacts evaluated in detail as part of this EIS. The details on impact

assessments are found in the indicated sections of this EIS.

(b) Internal costs are costs incurred by Southern to implement proposed construction and operation of the VEGP

site. Note that no impact assessments are provided for these private financial impacts.

(c) Fuel expenses are also included in levelized operating cost estimate and are based on an MIT study (MIT

2003).

(d) Based on Yucca Mountain waste maintenance levy. Source: WNA 2007.

(e) Decommissioning expenses are also included in levelized operating cost (WNA 2007).

11.7 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

The staffs recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the

proposed action is that the ESP should be issued. The staffs evaluation of the safety and

emergency preparedness aspects of the proposed action will be addressed in the staffs safety

evaluation report that is anticipated to be published in November 2008.

This recommendation is based on (1) the ER submitted by Southern (Southern 2008a),

(2) additional comments, submittals, and responses to requests for additional information

provided by Southern, (3) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, (4) NRC's

own independent review, (5) the staffs consideration of comments related to the environmental

review that were received during the public scoping and draft EIS review processes, and (6) the

August 2008 11-21 NUREG-1872
Conclusions and Recommendations

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

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

there are no environmentally preferable or obviously superior sites. Finally, the staff concludes

that the construction activities defined at 10 CFR 50.10(a) and described in the site redress plan

would not result in any adverse significant impact that cannot be redressed.

A comparative summary showing the environmental impacts of locating two new nuclear units at

the VEGP site and at any of the alternative sites is shown in Table 11-4. Impacts of the noaction alternative, or denial of the ESP application, are also shown. Table 11-4 shows that the

significance of the environmental impacts of the proposed action is SMALL for all impact

categories with the exception of (1) land-use and ecological resources because of uncertainty

surrounding possible transmission line right-of-way locations, (2) a MODERATE historic and

cultural resource impact, and (3) certain socioeconomic categories because of the influx of

construction workers. The alternative sites may have environmental effects in at least some

categories that reach MODERATE significance. The staff concludes that none of the alternative

sites assessed is obviously superior to the VEGP site.

Table 11-4. Summary of Environmental Significance of Locating Two New Nuclear Reactors

at the VEGP Site and at Alternative Sites and for the No-Action Alternative

Proposed No-Action

Action Alternative

Denial of

Impact Category ESP Site ESP Plant Farley Plant Hatch Barton Site

Land use SMALL to SMALL SMALL to SMALL to MODERATE

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Air quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Water use and quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Ecology SMALL to SMALL SMALL to SMALL to MODERATE

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Socioeconomics SMALL to SMALL SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Historic and cultural MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

resources

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Human health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

I

11.8 References

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title

Production and Utilization Facilities."

10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

NUREG-1872 11-22 August 2008
Conclusions and Recommendations

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses,

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."

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

Part 1508, "Terminology and Index."

71 FR 58882. October 5, 2006. "Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle ESP Site;

Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process."

Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

72 FR 57416. November 8, 2007. "Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants."

Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

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

Georgia Code, Title 22. Eminent Domain.

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2004. 2004 Integrated Resource Plan, Atlanta, January 30,

2004. Accessed February 4, 2008 at

http://www.psc.state.ga.us/facts/docftp.asp?txtdocname=70086.

Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2004. Final Order. Docket No. 17687-U. In Re:

"Georgia Power Company's 2004 Application for an Integrated Resource Plan." Document No.

74366, Georgia Public Service Commission, Atlanta, Georgia.

Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2007. Docket No. 24505-U. Order Adapting

Stipulation, Re: "Georgia Power Company's Application for Approval of its 2007 Integrated

Resource Plan." (July 12, 2007), Atlanta, Georgia.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2003. The Future of Nuclear Power: An

Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,

Massachusetts. Accessed February 4, 2008 at http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/.

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

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). 2006. Letter from Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding Vogtle Early Site Permit Audit

Trip Report. October 17-19, 2006. Accession No. ML071020317.

August 2008 11-23 NUREG-1872
Conclusions and Recommendations

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008a. Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Revision 4. Southern Company, Birmingham,

Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008b. Southern Nuclear

Operating Company Vogtle Early Site Permit Application Response to Request for

Additional Information Regarding Comments Provided on Draft Environmental Impact

Statement. Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham,

Alabama) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington D.C.), April 4, 2008.

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML080990410.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008c. Southern Nuclear

Operating Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to NRC Questions from

April 23, 2008 Environmental Conference Call. Letter report from Southern Nuclear

Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(Washington, D.C.), June 26, 2008. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession

No. ML081790598.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2005. "Re: TIMS II Multipliers for the Augusta, GA

Region," Regional Economic Analysis Division, Economics and Statistics Administration,

August 8, 2005.

University of Chicago. 2004. The Economic Future of Nuclear Power. University of Chicago,

Chicago, Illinois. Accessed February 4, 2008 at

http://www.anl.gov/SpecialReports/NuclEconAug04.pdf.

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. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004. Study of Construction Technologies and Schedules,

O&M Staffing and Cost, Decommissioning Costs and Funding Requirements for Advanced

Reactor Designs. Vol. 2 - MPR-2610, prepared by Dominion Energy, Inc., Bechtel Power

Corporation, TLG, Inc., and MPR Associates under Contract DE-AT01-020NE23476, May 27.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008. Yucca Mountain Repository. Accessed May 2008 at

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymrepository/index.shtml#4.

U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2006. Energy

Power Annual. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. Accessed February 4,

2008 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epasum.html.

NUREG-1872 11-24 August 2008
Conclusions and Recommendations

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USDI/Reclamation). 2008. Construction

Cost Trends. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/estimate/costtrend .html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plans for the Review of

Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staffisr0800.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and

2, NRC, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10, 2007 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/srl437/v1/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan:

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

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/srl 555/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Processing Applications for Early Site

Permits. RS-002, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 10,

2008 at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/esp-public-comments-rs-002.html.

World Nuclear Association (WNA). 2007. "The Economics of Nuclear Power." World Nuclear

Association, London, United Kingdom. Accessed May 1, 2008 at http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/inf02.html.

August 2008 11-25 NUREG-1872

NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

(9-2004) (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

NRCMD 3.7 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-1872

(See instructions on the reverse) Volume 1

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

Final Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the VogUe Electric MONTH YEAR

Generating Plant Site Augqust 2008

Main Report 4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

See Appendix A of Report Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (inclusive Dales)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (if NRC, provide Division. Office or Region. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. and mailing address; if contractor,

provide name and mailing address.)

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Office of New Reactors

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above*,* if contractor, provide NRC Division. Office or Region, US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

and mailing address.)

Same as 8, above

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket No. 52-011

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) for an Early Site Permit

(ESP). The proposed action requested in Southern's application is for the NRC to (1) approve a site within the existing Vogtle

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) boundaries as suitable for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power generating

facility, and (2) issue an ESP for the proposed location at the VEGP site, adjacent to the existing VEGP units..

The NRC staffs preliminary recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the proposed action is

that the ESP should be issued as proposed. The staffs evaluation of the site safety and emergency preparedness aspects of

the proposed action are addressed in the staffs Safety Evaluation Report issued in August 2007. This recommendation is

based on: (1) the application, including the Environmental Report (ER), submitted by Southern; (2) consultation with Federal,

State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the staffs independent review; (4) the staffs consideration of comments related to the

environmental review that were received during the public scoping process; and (5) the assessments summarized in this FEIS,

including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and this FEIS. In addition, in making its recommendation, the

staff determined that there are no environmentally preferable or obviously superior sites. Finally, the staff has concluded that the

site preparation and preconstruction activities allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) requested by Southern in its application will not

result in any significant adverse environmental impact that cannot be redressed.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site unlimited

National Environmental Policy Act 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

NEPA (This Page)

Final Environmnental Impact Statement unclassified

FEIS (This Report)

Early Site Permit unclassified

ESP

New Reactors 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Vogtle

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Federal Recycling Program

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

OFFICIAL BUSINESS