Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for Combined Licenses for 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

Units 2 and 3

Final Report

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of New Reactors

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Regulatory Division

Special Projects Branch

Charleston District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Charleston, SC 29403-5107

NUREG-1939, Vol. 1
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC=s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

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

Publicly released records include, to name a few, 

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; 

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and 

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal 

memoranda; bulletins and information notices; 

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event 

reports; and Commission papers and their 

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

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

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402B0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161B0002

 www.ntis.gov 

 1B800B553B6847 or, locally, 703B605B6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

 Office of Administration

 Publications Branch

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.SERVICES@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301B415B2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC=s Web site address 

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

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found 

on a Web site bear the date the material was 

accessed, the material available on the date cited may 

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as 

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal 

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and 

congressional reports. Such documents as theses, 

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased 

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained atC

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852B2738

These standards are available in the library for 

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are 

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the 

originating organization or, if they are American 

National Standards, fromC

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036B8002

www.ansi.org 

212B642B4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in 

contractor-prepared publications in this series are not 

necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREGBXXXX) or agency contractors 

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

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

international agreements (NUREG/IABXXXX), (4) 

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

of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and 

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors=

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC=s regulations 

(NUREGB0750).
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for Combined Licenses for 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

Units 2 and 3

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: April 2011 

Date Published: April 2011

Division of Site and Environmental Review

Office of New Reactors

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Regulatory Division

Special Projects Branch

Charleston District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Charleston, SC 29403-5107

NUREG-1939, Vol. 1

April 2011 iii NUREG-1939

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

agency and participates collaboratively on the review team. 

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

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

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

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

issues. 

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

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

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

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

USACE public interest review process. 

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

recommendation to the Commission is that the COLs be issued as requested. This 

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

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

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

environmental review that were received during the public scoping process; (5) the NRC staff’s 

consideration of comments on the draft EIS; and (6) the assessments summarized in this EIS, 

including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and this EIS. The USACE 

permit decision will be made following issuance of the final EIS.
NUREG-1939 iv April 2011

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This NUREG references 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 3150-0014; 3150-0011; 3150-

0021; 3150-0151; 3150-0008; 3150-0002; and 3150-0093.

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 documents displays a 

currently valid OMB control number.
April 2011 v NUREG-1939

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action.....................................................1-9

1.3.1 The NRC’s Proposed Action .......................................................................1-9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.3 The Region ...............................................................................................2-14

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

2.3.1 Hydrology..................................................................................................2-15

2.3.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology............................................................2-15

2.3.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology..............................................................2-21
NUREG-1939 vi April 2011

2.3.2 Water Use.................................................................................................2-27

2.3.2.1 Surface-Water Use .....................................................................2-28

2.3.2.2 Groundwater Use........................................................................2-29

2.3.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................2-30

2.3.3.1 Surface-Water Quality ................................................................2-30

2.3.3.2 Groundwater Quality...................................................................2-36

2.3.4 Water Monitoring.......................................................................................2-37

2.3.4.1 Surface-Water Monitoring ...........................................................2-37

2.3.4.2 Groundwater Monitoring .............................................................2-38

2.4 Ecology.................................................................................................................2-38

2.4.1 Terrestrial and Wetlands Ecology..............................................................2-39

2.4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity ....................................2-39

2.4.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines ...............................2-45

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

2.4.1.4 Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring ....................................................2-59

2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology ........................................................................................2-60

2.4.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity.........................................2-60

2.4.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines ...................................2-71

2.4.2.3 Important Aquatic Species ..........................................................2-74

2.4.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring......................................................................2-92

2.5 Socioeconomics ...................................................................................................2-92

2.5.1 Demographics...........................................................................................2-93

2.5.1.1 Resident Population....................................................................2-94

2.5.1.2 Transient Population...................................................................2-94

2.5.1.3 Migrant Labor .............................................................................2-97

2.5.2 Community Characteristics .......................................................................2-97

2.5.2.1 Economy ....................................................................................2-98

2.5.2.2 Taxes........................................................................................2-101

2.5.2.3 Transportation ..........................................................................2-105

2.5.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation ........................................................2-106

2.5.2.5 Housing ....................................................................................2-107

2.5.2.6 Public Services .........................................................................2-108

2.5.2.7 Education .................................................................................2-117

2.6 Environmental Justice.........................................................................................2-120

2.6.1 Methodology ...........................................................................................2-121

2.6.2 Scoping and Outreach.............................................................................2-126

2.6.3 Subsistence and Communities with Unique Characteristics ....................2-126
April 2011 vii NUREG-1939

2.6.4 Migrant Populations ................................................................................2-126

2.6.5 Environmental Justice Summary .............................................................2-127

2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources..........................................................................2-127

2.7.1 Cultural Background................................................................................2-128

2.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Site .............................................2-129

2.7.3 Historic and Cultural Resources Within Transmission-Lines....................2-142

2.7.4 Consultation............................................................................................2-144

2.8 Geology..............................................................................................................2-144

2.9 Meteorology and Air Quality................................................................................2-145

2.9.1 Climate....................................................................................................2-146

2.9.1.1 Wind .........................................................................................2-147

2.9.1.2 Atmospheric Stability ................................................................2-148

2.9.1.3 Temperature.............................................................................2-148

2.9.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture ...............................................................2-149

2.9.1.5 Severe Weather........................................................................2-150

2.9.2 Air Quality ...............................................................................................2-150

2.9.3 Atmospheric Dispersion ..........................................................................2-151

2.9.4 Meteorological Monitoring .......................................................................2-152

2.10 Nonradiological Environment ..............................................................................2-153

2.10.1 Public and Occupational Health ..............................................................2-153

2.10.1.1 Air Quality.................................................................................2-153

2.10.1.2 Occupational Injuries ................................................................2-154

2.10.1.3 Etiological Agents .....................................................................2-155

2.10.2 Noise.......................................................................................................2-156

2.10.3 Transportation.........................................................................................2-156

2.10.4 Electromagnetic Fields............................................................................2-157

2.11 Radiological Environment ...................................................................................2-158

2.12 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations ..........................................2-159

2.13 References .........................................................................................................2-160

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

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

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

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

3.2.2 Structures with a Major Environmental Interface .........................................3-4
NUREG-1939 viii April 2011

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

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

3.2.2.3 Other Structures with a Permanent Environmental Interface.......3-14

3.2.2.4 Other Structures with a Temporary Environmental Interface.......3-18

3.2.3 Structures with a Minor Environmental Interface .......................................3-19

3.2.3.1 Nuclear Island and Annex Building .............................................3-19

3.2.3.2 Cranes and Footings ..................................................................3-19

3.2.3.3 Pipelines.....................................................................................3-19

3.2.3.4 Support, Laydown, and Spoils Areas ..........................................3-19

3.2.3.5 Parking .......................................................................................3-20

3.2.3.6 Miscellaneous Buildings..............................................................3-20

3.3 Construction and Preconstruction Activities ..........................................................3-20

3.3.1 Major Affected Areas.................................................................................3-22

3.3.2 Summary of Resource Commitments During Construction and 

Preconstruction .........................................................................................3-25

3.4 Operational Activities ............................................................................................3-27

3.4.1 Description of Operational Modes .............................................................3-27

3.4.2 Plant-Environment Interfaces During Operation ........................................3-27

3.4.2.1 Intake Structures.........................................................................3-27

3.4.2.2 Cooling Towers...........................................................................3-28

3.4.2.3 Discharge Structure....................................................................3-29

3.4.2.4 Power Transmission System ......................................................3-32

3.4.2.5 Emergency Diesel Generators....................................................3-33

3.4.3 Radioactive Waste-Management System..................................................3-33

3.4.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste-Management System.........................3-34

3.4.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste-Management System ....................3-34

3.4.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste Management System...........................3-35

3.4.4 Nonradioactive Waste-Management Systems...........................................3-35

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

3.4.4.2 Sanitary System Effluents...........................................................3-36

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

3.4.5 Summary of Resource Commitments During Operation............................3-37

3.5 References ...........................................................................................................3-39

4.0 Construction Impacts at the VCSNS Site ........................................................................4-1

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

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

4.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors and Other Offsite Areas .................................4-7
April 2011 ix NUREG-1939

4.1.3 Summary of Land-Use Impacts During Construction and 

Preconstruction .........................................................................................4-12

4.2 Water-Related Impacts .........................................................................................4-12

4.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations ...............................................................................4-13

4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts ...................................................................................4-15

4.2.2.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Use...................................................4-15

4.2.2.2 Impacts on Groundwater Use .....................................................4-16

4.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts...............................................................................4-17

4.2.3.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Quality ..............................................4-17

4.2.3.2 Summary of Impacts on Groundwater Quality.............................4-18

4.2.4 Water Monitoring.......................................................................................4-18

4.3 Ecological Impacts................................................................................................4-19

4.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts................................................................4-19

4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity ....................................4-19

4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines ...............................4-24

4.3.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats .................................4-29

4.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring..................................................................4-30

4.3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures for Terrestrial Impacts..................4-30

4.3.1.6 Summary of Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ...........................4-30

4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts.........................................................................................4-31

4.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity.........................................4-32

4.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines ...................................4-34

4.3.2.3 Important Aquatic Species and Habitats .....................................4-39

4.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring During Site Preparation ................................4-43

4.3.2.5 Summary of Impacts on Aquatic Resources ...............................4-44

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts........................................................................................4-45

4.4.1 Physical Impacts .......................................................................................4-46

4.4.1.1 Impacts on Workers and the Local Public ...................................4-46

4.4.1.2 Noise Impacts.............................................................................4-47

4.4.1.3 Impacts on Air Quality.................................................................4-48

4.4.1.4 Impacts on Buildings...................................................................4-50

4.4.1.5 Transportation Impacts ...............................................................4-50

4.4.1.6 Impacts on Aesthetics.................................................................4-51

4.4.1.7 Summary of Physical Impacts.....................................................4-51

4.4.2 Demographic Impacts on the Community..................................................4-51

4.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community .......................................................4-54

4.4.3.1 Economy ....................................................................................4-54

4.4.3.2 Taxes..........................................................................................4-56
NUREG-1939 x April 2011

4.4.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts on the Community.....................4-57

4.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts .........................................4-57

4.4.4.1 Transportation Impacts ...............................................................4-57

4.4.4.2 Impacts on Recreation................................................................4-59

4.4.4.3 Housing Impacts.........................................................................4-60

4.4.4.4 Impacts on Public Services.........................................................4-61

4.4.4.5 Impacts on Education .................................................................4-63

4.4.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts.......4-63

4.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts During Construction and 

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

4.5 Environmental Justice Impacts .............................................................................4-64

4.5.1 Health Impacts ..........................................................................................4-65

4.5.2 Physical and Environmental Impacts.........................................................4-66

4.5.2.1 Soil-Related Impacts...................................................................4-66

4.5.2.2 Water-Related Impacts ...............................................................4-66

4.5.2.3 Air Quality Impacts......................................................................4-67

4.5.2.4 Noise Impacts.............................................................................4-67

4.5.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions .........................................................4-68

4.5.4 Socioeconomics........................................................................................4-68

4.5.5 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts During Construction and 

Preconstruction .........................................................................................4-69

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources............................................................................4-70

4.6.1 Onsite Cultural and Historic Resources Impacts........................................4-71

4.6.2 Offsite Cultural and Historic Resource Impacts .........................................4-73

4.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts.................................................................4-74

4.7.1 Construction and Preconstruction Activities...............................................4-74

4.7.2 Transportation...........................................................................................4-75

4.7.3 Summary of Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts .................................4-77

4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................................................4-77

4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health ................................................................4-77

4.8.1.1 Public Health ..............................................................................4-77

4.8.1.2 Construction Worker Health........................................................4-78

4.8.2 Noise Impacts ...........................................................................................4-79

4.8.3 Impacts of Transporting Construction Materials and Construction 

Personnel to the Proposed Site.................................................................4-80

4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts.............................................4-83
April 2011 xi NUREG-1939

4.9 Radiological Health Impacts .................................................................................4-83

4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures.......................................................................4-83

4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents ...........................................4-85

4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents................................................4-85

4.9.4 Total Dose to Construction Workers..........................................................4-85

4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts..................................................4-86

4.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts .............................................................................4-86

4.10.1 Impacts on Land........................................................................................4-86

4.10.2 Impacts on Water......................................................................................4-87

4.10.3 Impacts on Air...........................................................................................4-88

4.10.4 Summary of Nonradioactive Waste Impacts..............................................4-88

4.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction.................4-89

4.12 Summary of Construction and Preconstruction Impacts........................................4-94

4.13 References ...........................................................................................................4-96

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

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

5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity ...................................................................................5-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2.4 Water Monitoring.......................................................................................5-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures for Operations-Related 

Terrestrial Impacts......................................................................5-21
NUREG-1939 xii April 2011

5.3.1.6 Summary of Operational Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ........5-21

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

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

5.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines ...................................5-32

5.3.2.3 Important Aquatic Species and Habitats .....................................5-33

5.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring During Operation ..........................................5-34

5.3.2.5 Summary of Operational Impacts on Aquatic Resources ............5-34

5.4 Socioeconomic Impacts........................................................................................5-34

5.4.1 Physical Impacts .......................................................................................5-35

5.4.1.1 Impacts on Workers and the Local Public ...................................5-35

5.4.1.2 Impacts on Buildings...................................................................5-36

5.4.1.3 Impacts on Transportation ..........................................................5-36

5.4.1.4 Impacts on Aesthetics.................................................................5-37

5.4.1.5 Summary of Physical Impacts.....................................................5-38

5.4.2 Demography .............................................................................................5-38

5.4.2.1 Demographic Impacts.................................................................5-38

5.4.2.2 Summary of Demographic Impacts.............................................5-39

5.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community .......................................................5-39

5.4.3.1 Economy ....................................................................................5-39

5.4.3.2 Taxes..........................................................................................5-40

5.4.3.3 Summary of Economic and Tax Impacts.....................................5-42

5.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Services.....................................................5-42

5.4.4.1 Transportation ............................................................................5-43

5.4.4.2 Recreation ..................................................................................5-43

5.4.4.3 Housing ......................................................................................5-43

5.4.4.4 Public Services ...........................................................................5-44

5.4.4.5 Education ...................................................................................5-46

5.4.4.6 Summary of Impacts on Infrastructure and Community 

Services......................................................................................5-46

5.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts ........................................................5-46

5.5 Environmental Justice...........................................................................................5-47

5.5.1 Health Impacts ..........................................................................................5-47

5.5.2 Physical Impacts .......................................................................................5-48

5.5.2.1 Soil-Related Impacts...................................................................5-48

5.5.2.2 Water-Related Impacts ...............................................................5-48

5.5.2.3 Air Quality-Related Impacts ........................................................5-49

5.5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts ............................................................................5-49

5.5.4 Subsistence and Special Conditions .........................................................5-50
April 2011 xiii NUREG-1939

5.5.5 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts..............................................5-50

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts from Operation .......................................5-51

5.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts.................................................................5-53

5.7.1 Cooling-Tower Impacts .............................................................................5-53

5.7.2 Air Quality Impacts ....................................................................................5-54

5.7.3 Summary of Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts .................................5-56

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................................................5-56

5.8.1 Etiological (Disease-Causing) Agents .......................................................5-57

5.8.2 Noise Impacts ...........................................................................................5-58

5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields ....................................................5-59

5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields .................................................5-59

5.8.5 Occupational Health..................................................................................5-60

5.8.6 Impacts of Transporting Operations Personnel to and from the 

VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites .............................................................5-61

5.8.7 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts.............................................5-62

5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ..........................................................5-62

5.9.1 Exposure Pathways ..................................................................................5-62

5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public................................................5-65

5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway ..............................................................5-65

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

5.9.3 Impacts on a Member of the Public ...........................................................5-69

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

5.9.3.2 Population Dose .........................................................................5-71

5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts on Members of the Public......5-72

5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers ................................................................5-72

5.9.5 Impacts on Biota Other Than Humans ......................................................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 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts .............................................................................5-76

5.10.1 Impacts on Land........................................................................................5-76

5.10.2 Impacts on Water......................................................................................5-77

5.10.3 Impacts on Air...........................................................................................5-77
NUREG-1939 xiv April 2011

5.10.4 Mixed-Waste Impacts................................................................................5-77

5.10.5 Summary of Nonradioactive Waste Impacts..............................................5-78

5.11 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents ...................................................5-79

5.11.1 Design Basis Accidents.............................................................................5-80

Summary of DBA Impacts .........................................................................5-83

5.11.2 Severe Accidents ......................................................................................5-83

5.11.2.1 Estimated Risks of Releases to the Air Pathway.........................5-85

5.11.2.2 Estimated Risks of Releases to Surface-Water Pathways ..........5-89

5.11.2.3 Estimated Risks of Releases to the Groundwater Pathway.........5-90

5.11.2.4 Estimated Risks of Releases Related to External Events............5-91

5.11.3 Summary of Severe Accident Impacts.......................................................5-92

5.11.4 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ....................................................5-92

5.11.5 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts .................................................5-96

5.12 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation .....................5-96

5.13 Summary of Operational Impacts........................................................................5-100

5.14 References .........................................................................................................5-102

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.....................................................................................................6-9

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

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

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

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

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

6.1.7 Occupational Dose....................................................................................6-16

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

6.1.9 Conclusions ..............................................................................................6-17

6.2 Transportation Impacts .........................................................................................6-17

6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel...........................................................6-19

6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions ......................................................................6-19

6.2.1.2 Radiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents.......................6-25

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

6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel.....................................................................6-27

6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions ......................................................................6-28

6.2.2.2 Radiological Impacts of Accidents ..............................................6-34
April 2011 xv NUREG-1939

6.2.2.3 Nonradiological Impact of Spent-Fuel Shipments........................6-38

6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste Other Than Spent Fuel....................6-38

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

6.3 Decommissioning Impacts....................................................................................6-41

6.4 References ...........................................................................................................6-43

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.3.1.3 Summary of Terrestrial Impacts ..................................................7-16

7.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts ......................................................................7-17

7.3.2.1 Summary of Aquatic Ecology Impacts.........................................7-22

7.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .........................................................7-23

7.4.1 Socioeconomics........................................................................................7-23

7.4.2 Environmental Justice ...............................................................................7-24

7.5 Historic and Cultural Resources............................................................................7-26

7.6 Air Quality.............................................................................................................7-28

7.6.1 Criteria Pollutants......................................................................................7-28

7.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................................7-29

7.6.3 Summary...................................................................................................7-30

7.7 Nonradiological Health..........................................................................................7-31

7.8 Radiological Impacts.............................................................................................7-33

7.9 Postulated Accidents ............................................................................................7-34
NUREG-1939 xvi April 2011

7.10 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning ...............................................7-35

7.10.1 Fuel Cycle.................................................................................................7-35

7.10.2 Transportation...........................................................................................7-36

7.10.3 Decommissioning......................................................................................7-38

7.11 Staff Conclusions..................................................................................................7-38

7.12 References ...........................................................................................................7-40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.2 Power Demand.....................................................................................................8-11

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

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

8.2.2 Santee Cooper..........................................................................................8-14

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

8.2.3 Demand Forecast......................................................................................8-16

8.3 Power Supply .......................................................................................................8-17

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

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

8.3.1.2 Need for Baseload Capacity .......................................................8-18

8.3.1.3 Fuel Diversity..............................................................................8-19

8.3.2 Santee Cooper..........................................................................................8-20

8.3.2.1 Present and Planned Generating Capacity .................................8-21

8.3.2.2 Purchased Power .......................................................................8-21

8.3.2.3 Renewable Resources................................................................8-22

8.3.2.4 Need for Baseload Capacity .......................................................8-22

8.3.3 Supply Forecast ........................................................................................8-24

8.4 Assessment of Need for Power and NRC Findings...............................................8-24

8.5 References ...........................................................................................................8-26

9.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ............................................................................9-1
April 2011 xvii NUREG-1939

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

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

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

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

9.2.1.2 Extending the Service Life of Existing Plants or Reactivating 

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

9.2.1.3 Energy Conservation ....................................................................9-5

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

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

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

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

9.2.3 Other Alternatives .....................................................................................9-20

9.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Power Generation ........................................................9-20

9.2.3.2 Wind Power ................................................................................9-20

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

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

9.2.3.5 Geothermal Energy.....................................................................9-23

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

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

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

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

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

9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................9-28

9.3 Alternative Sites....................................................................................................9-31

9.3.1 Alternative Site-Selection Process ............................................................9-32

9.3.1.1 SCE&G Alternative Site-Selection Process.................................9-34

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

9.3.1.3 Conclusions About the Alternative Site-Selection Process..........9-42

9.3.2 NRC/USACE Alternative Site Evaluation...................................................9-43

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

9.3.3.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors................................9-49

9.3.3.2 Water Use and Quality................................................................9-52

9.3.3.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources.............................................9-55

9.3.3.4 Aquatic Resources......................................................................9-62

9.3.3.5 Socioeconomics .........................................................................9-70

9.3.3.6 Environmental Justice.................................................................9-77

9.3.3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources..................................................9-81

9.3.3.8 Air Quality...................................................................................9-83
NUREG-1939 xviii April 2011

9.3.3.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts ..................................................9-84

9.3.3.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ................................9-86

9.3.3.11 Postulated Accident Impacts.......................................................9-87

9.3.4 The Cope Generating Station Site.............................................................9-88

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

9.3.4.2 Water Use and Quality................................................................9-93

9.3.4.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources.............................................9-96

9.3.4.4 Aquatic Resources....................................................................9-101

9.3.4.5 Socioeconomics .......................................................................9-106

9.3.4.6 Environmental Justice...............................................................9-113

9.3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources................................................9-116

9.3.4.8 Air Quality.................................................................................9-118

9.3.4.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts ................................................9-119

9.3.4.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ..............................9-121

9.3.4.11 Postulated Accident Impacts.....................................................9-122

9.3.5 The Saluda Site.......................................................................................9-123

9.3.5.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors..............................9-127

9.3.5.2 Water Use and Quality..............................................................9-131

9.3.5.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources...........................................9-133

9.3.5.4 Aquatic Resources....................................................................9-139

9.3.5.5 Socioeconomics .......................................................................9-145

9.3.5.6 Environmental Justice...............................................................9-152

9.3.5.7 Historic and Cultural Resources................................................9-155

9.3.5.8 Air Quality.................................................................................9-157

9.3.5.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts ................................................9-158

9.3.5.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ..............................9-160

9.3.5.11 Postulated Accident Impacts.....................................................9-161

9.3.6 The Savannah River Alternative Site.......................................................9-162

9.3.6.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors..............................9-166

9.3.6.2 Water Use and Quality..............................................................9-168

9.3.6.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources...........................................9-171

9.3.6.4 Aquatic Resources....................................................................9-176

9.3.6.5 Socioeconomics .......................................................................9-183

9.3.6.6 Environmental Justice...............................................................9-189

9.3.6.7 Historic and Cultural Resources................................................9-193

9.3.6.8 Air Quality.................................................................................9-195

9.3.6.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts ................................................9-196

9.3.6.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ..............................9-198

9.3.6.11 Postulated Accident Impacts.....................................................9-199
April 2011 xix NUREG-1939

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

Sites........................................................................................................9-200

9.3.7.1 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and 

Alternative Sites........................................................................9-201

9.3.7.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites ..............................................9-203

9.3.7.3 Obviously Superior Sites...........................................................9-206

9.4 System Design Alternatives ................................................................................9-206

9.4.1 Heat-Dissipation Systems .......................................................................9-207

9.4.1.1 Wet Natural Draft Cooling Towers ............................................9-207

9.4.1.2 Once-Through Cooling..............................................................9-207

9.4.1.3 Cooling Pond............................................................................9-208

9.4.1.4 Spray Ponds .............................................................................9-208

9.4.1.5 Dry Cooling Towers ..................................................................9-209

9.4.1.6 Combination Wet/Dry Cooling-Tower System...........................9-209

9.4.1.7 Mechanical Draft with Plume Abatement ..................................9-210

9.4.2 Circulating-Water Systems......................................................................9-210

9.4.2.1 Intake Alternatives ....................................................................9-210

9.4.2.2 Discharge Alternatives..............................................................9-211

9.4.2.3 Water Supplies .........................................................................9-212

9.4.2.4 Water Treatment.......................................................................9-213

9.4.3 Summary.................................................................................................9-213

9.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alternatives Evaluation .......................................9-214

9.5.1 Onsite Alternatives ..................................................................................9-214

9.5.2 SCE&G Alternative Sites.........................................................................9-214

9.6 References .........................................................................................................9-216

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

10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................10-4

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

10.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction and 

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

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

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

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

10.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources...................................10-13

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

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

10.4.1.2 Water Use.................................................................................10-13
NUREG-1939 xx April 2011

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

10.4.1.4 Socioeconomic Resources .......................................................10-14

10.4.1.5 Historic and Cultural Resources................................................10-14

10.4.1.6 Air and Water............................................................................10-14

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

10.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ....................................................................10-15

10.6 Benefit-Cost Balance..........................................................................................10-16

10.6.1 Benefits...................................................................................................10-17

10.6.1.1 Societal Benefits.......................................................................10-17

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

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

10.6.2.1 Internal Costs ...........................................................................10-21

10.6.2.2 External Costs ..........................................................................10-26

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

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

10.8 References .........................................................................................................10-28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix J – Carbon Dioxide Footprint Estimates for a 1000-MW(e) Reference Reactor ........J-1
April 2011 xxi NUREG-1939

Figures

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

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

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

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

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

2-5 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Expected New Transmission-Line Routes ................................2-10

2-6 Major Hydrologic Features Within the 6-mi Radius of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 ...............2-16

2-7 Major Hydrologic Features Within the 50-mi Radius of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 .............2-17

2-8 Broad River Basin Upstream of the VCSNS Site, Showing the Nearest StreamFlow Gauging Stations ................................................................................................2-18

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

Southeastern United States Showing the VCSNS Site Location .................................2-22

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

Physiographic Province of the Southeastern United States .........................................2-23

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

of the Southeastern United States ..............................................................................2-24

2-12 The SCDHEC Water-Quality Sampling Locations near the VCSNS Site......................2-31

2-13 Historical Photos Showing How the VCSNS Site Has Changed Since 1938 ................2-40

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

2-15 Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Locations at the VCSNS Site................2-48

2-16 Broad River Basin and Impoundments.........................................................................2-63

2-17 Existing Portion of Santee Cooper VCSNS-Flat Creek Line Crossing of Carolina 

Heelsplitter Critical Habitat ..........................................................................................2-90

2-18 Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups That Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria ...........................................................................................2-124

2-19 Low-Income Populations in Block Groups That Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria .......................................................................................................2-125

2-20 Area of Potential Effect for the VCSNS Site Units 2 and 3 .........................................2-130

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

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

3-3 AP1000 Power Conversion Diagram .............................................................................3-5
NUREG-1939 xxii April 2011

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

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

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

3-6 Plan View of the Circulating-Water System Intake Structure .......................................3-10

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

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

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

3-10 Water-Use Summary Diagram ....................................................................................3-31

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

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

4-2 Streams and Wetlands, Including a 50-ft Buffer, on the VCSNS Site ..........................4-21

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

Crossings of Major Waterbodies ..................................................................................4-36

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

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

Viewed from Monticello Reservoir ...............................................................................5-37

5-3 Exposure Pathways to Man ........................................................................................5-64

5-4 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....................................................................................6-31

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

8-2 The SERC Service Territory ..........................................................................................8-5

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

9-2 Santee Cooper Region of Interest ...............................................................................9-40

9-3 FA-1 Alternative Site Region........................................................................................9-50

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

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

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

Selection Criteria at the FA-1 Site................................................................................9-79

9-6 The CGS Alternative Site Region.................................................................................9-91

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

Justice Selection Criteria at the CGS Site..................................................................9-114

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

Selection Criteria at the CGS Site..............................................................................9-115
April 2011 xxiii NUREG-1939

9-9 Saluda Alternative Site Region...................................................................................9-128

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

Justice Selection Criteria at the Saluda Site...............................................................9-153

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

Selection Criteria at the Saluda Site...........................................................................9-154

9-12 Savannah River Alternative Site Region ....................................................................9-165

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

Justice Selection Criteria at the Savannah River Alternative Site...............................9-191

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

Selection Criteria at the Savannah River Alternative Site...........................................9-192
NUREG-1939 xxiv April 2011

Tables

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

2-2 Land Use and Land Cover in Affected SCE&G Transmission-Line Corridors...............2-12

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

2-4 Special Farmland Designations in Proposed Transmission-Line Corridors ..................2-14

2-5 Summary of Reservoir Characteristics........................................................................2-19

2-6 Broad River Flow Characteristics at Three Gauges Near the VCSNS Site...................2-20

2-7 Broad River Flow Characteristics Calculated by the Review Team (cfs) ......................2-20

2-8 Annual Water Use Within South Carolina.....................................................................2-28

2-9 Local and Downstream Surface-Water Users Reported by SCE&G for 2004...............2-28

2-10 Surface-Water-Quality Data for 2004 ...........................................................................2-32

2-11 Surface-Water-Quality Data for 2005 ...........................................................................2-33

2-12 Monticello Reservoir Water-Quality Data for 2006........................................................2-34

2-13 Mayo Creek Water-Quality Data for 2008 and 2009.....................................................2-36

2-14 USGS Flow and Temperature Monitoring on the Broad River......................................2-37

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

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

of the VCSNS Site .......................................................................................................2-49

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

Proposed Transmission-Line Corridors........................................................................2-53

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

and Monticello Reservoirs............................................................................................2-65

2-19 VCSNS Onsite Stream Characteristics ........................................................................2-70

2-20 Aquatic Species Designated as Threatened, Endangered, Proposed for Federal 

Listing, or Species of Concern in Counties Crossed by Transmission-Line 

Corridors......................................................................................................................2-73

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

Reservoirs ...................................................................................................................2-76

2-22 Aquatic Invasive Species Documented to Occur in the Vicinity of the VCSNS Site ......2-79

2-23 Historical and Projected Populations for Counties in the VCSNS Region.....................2-95

2-24 Selected 2007 Population Centers in the VCSNS Region............................................2-96

2-25 2000 Age Distribution Near the VCSNS Site................................................................2-96
April 2011 xxv NUREG-1939

2-26 High-Capacity Recreation Areas in the Region .............................................................2-96

2-27 Minority and Low-Income Populations...........................................................................2-98

2-28 VCSNS Unit 1 Operations Employment by County and State.......................................2-99

2-29 Employment Trends in the Region ..............................................................................2-100

2-30 2007 Employment by Industry in the Economic Impact Area ......................................2-102

2-31 2006-2009 Construction Industry Occupational Employment in the Columbia 

Metropolitan Area ........................................................................................................2-103

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

Area .............................................................................................................................2-104

2-33 2003-2008 Property Tax Revenue Trends Related to VCSNS Unit 1 .........................2-104

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

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

2-35 2000 Census Housing Characteristics in the Four-County Area .................................2-108

2-36 Public Groundwater Supply Resources.......................................................................2-110

2-37 Public Surface-Water Supply Resources by County ...................................................2-111

2-38 Public Wastewater-Treatment Systems by County .....................................................2-112

2-39 Law Enforcement Personnel 2005 by County .............................................................2-113

2-40 Fire Protection Personnel by County ...........................................................................2-114

2-41 2007 Arrests per 1000 for Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties .....2-116

2-42 Hospital Data for Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties ...................2-116

2-43 School Characteristics in the Four-County Area..........................................................2-119

2-44 Fairfield County Public School Free and Reduced Meal Eligibility ..............................2-119

2-45 Colleges and Universities in the VCSNS Region.........................................................2-120

2-46 Regional Minority and Low-Income Populations by Census Blocks Meeting 

Environmental Justice Criteria.....................................................................................2-121

2-47 VCSNS Archaeological Sites Identified – Phase I/II Investigations .............................2-133

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

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

Animal, and Nearest Vegetable Garden......................................................................2-152

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

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

2 and 3...........................................................................................................................3-21

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

Construction and Preconstruction .................................................................................3-26
NUREG-1939 xxvi April 2011

3-4 Water Quality of Proposed Units 2 and 3 Blowdown Effluent .......................................3-30

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

3-6 Resource Commitments Associated with Units 2 and 3 Operation...............................3-38

4-1 Land-Use Impacts of the Proposed New Transmission-Line Corridors.........................4-10

4-2 Detailed Land-Use Impacts of New/Expanded Corridors .............................................4-11

4-3 Summary of Forest and Wetland Impacts in Proposed Transmission-Line 

Corridors......................................................................................................................4-26

4-4 Stream Crossings, Open Water, Linear Feet of Stream, and Stream Area 

Associated with the SCE&G and Santee Cooper Transmission Lines..........................4-37

4-5 Expected Distribution of In-Migrating Construction Workers in the Region at Peak 

of Construction.............................................................................................................4-53

4-6 Annual Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Workers and Construction 

Materials to and/or from the VCSNS Site for a Single AP1000 Reactor .......................4-83

4-7 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts when Building Proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3................................................................................................................4-90

4-8 Summary of Impacts from Construction and Preconstruction of Proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3................................................................................................................4-94

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

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

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

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

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

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

VCSNS Unit 1 Impingement Study...............................................................................5-26

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

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 ..................................................................................................5-41

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

Operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3..............................................................................5-42

5-7 Regulated Source Emissions .......................................................................................5-55

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

VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites for a Single AP1000 Reactor ..................................5-62

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

from a New Unit ...........................................................................................................5-67

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

Releases for a New Unit ..............................................................................................5-68
April 2011 xxvii NUREG-1939

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

Single New Nuclear Unit to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Dose Design Objectives .......5-70

5-12 Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Rates with 40 CFR Part 190 

Criteria.........................................................................................................................5-70

5-13 Biota Doses for Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 .........................................................5-73

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

Guidelines for Biota Protection.....................................................................................5-74

5-15 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for the VCSNS Site DBA Calculations.......................5-81

5-16 DBA Doses for an AP1000 Reactor for Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 .....................5-82

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

VCSNS Site .................................................................................................................5-86

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

with Risks for Current-Generation Reactors at Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG1150 and the AP1000 at Four Early Site Permit Sites..................................................5-87

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

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

Events for Current Plants Undergoing Operating License Renewal Review and 

Environmental Risks of the AP1000 Reactor at Other Sites.........................................5-88

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

Specified in AP1000 DCD, Appendix 1B......................................................................5-94

5-21 Design Alternatives Considered for SAMDA in the AP1000 DCD.................................5-95

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

Impacts During Operation of Proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS Site ....................5-97

5-23 Characterization of Operational Impacts at the VCSNS Site ......................................5-100

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

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

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

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

Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor...................................................................................6-20

6-4 RADTRAN 5.6 Input Parameters for Unirradiated Fuel Shipments...............................6-22

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

to the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites......................................................................6-23

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

Alternative Sites, Normalized to the Reference LWR ...................................................6-27
NUREG-1939 xxviii April 2011

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

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

Nevada ........................................................................................................................6-29

6-8 RADTRAN 5.6 Normal Exposure Parameters..............................................................6-29

6-9 Normal Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the Public from Shipping 

Spent Fuel from the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites to the Proposed High-Level 

Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain ..........................................................................6-32

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

the Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor .............................................................................6-35

6-11 Annual Spent-Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for a Westinghouse AP1000 

Reactor at the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites, Normalized to the Reference 

1100-MW LWR Net Electrical Generation ....................................................................6-37

6-12 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Spent Fuel from the VCSNS Site and 

Alternative Sites to the Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada, Normalized to the Reference LWR ................................................................6-38

6-13 Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the VCSNS Site and Alternative 

Sites ............................................................................................................................6-39

6-14 Nonradiological Impacts of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the VCSNS Site.........6-40

7-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

Considered in the Cumulative Analysis ..........................................................................7-3

7-2 Comparison of Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Rates...............................................7-30

7-3 Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of 

Proposed Units 2 and 3 ...............................................................................................7-39

8-1 2022 Forecasted Demand............................................................................................8-17

8-2 Potential Impact the Proposed Project Would Have on SCE&G Baseload Capacity 

Resources and Fuel Diversity ......................................................................................8-19

8-3 2022 Forecasted Cumulative Supply............................................................................8-24

8-4 Final Analysis of the Combined Power Supply and Demand Forecasts for SCE&G 

and Santee Cooper in 2022 .........................................................................................8-26

9-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation – 2214 MW.......9-14

9-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation..............9-19

9-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources ....................9-27

9-4 Summary of the Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear, Coal-Fired, Natural-GasFired, and a Combination of Alternatives .....................................................................9-28

9-5 Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Energy Alternatives ..............................9-29
April 2011 xxix NUREG-1939

9-6 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

Considered in the FA-1 Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis.......................................9-45

9-7 Land-Use Impact Parameters for the FA-1 Site............................................................9-51

9-8 Broad River Reduction in Flow and Assessed Impact Levels.......................................9-53

9-9 Federally and State-Listed Species That May Occur on the FA-1 Alternative Site, 

Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors..............................9-57

9-10 SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the FA-1 Alternative Site ...........................9-59

9-11 Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the FA-1 Alternative Site................9-59

9-12 Aquatic Invasive Species Documented to Occur in the Vicinity of the FA-1 

Alternative Site.............................................................................................................9-65

9-13 Federally, Proposed Federally, and State-Listed Aquatic Species That May Occur 

on the FA-1 Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated TransmissionLine Corridors ..............................................................................................................9-66

9-14 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

Considered in the Cope Generating Station Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis .......9-88

9-15 Land-Use Impact Parameters for the CGS Site............................................................9-92

9-16 South Fork Edisto River Reduction in Flow and Assessed Impact Levels ....................9-94

9-17 Federally and State-Listed Species That May Occur on the CGS Alternative Site, 

Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors..............................9-97

9-18 SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the CGS Alternative Site ...........................9-99

9-19 Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the CGS Alternative Site................9-99

9-20 Federally, Proposed Federally, and State-Listed Aquatic Species That May Occur

on the CGS Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated TransmissionLine Corridors: ...........................................................................................................9-102

9-21 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

Considered in the Saluda Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis .................................9-124

9-22 Land-Use Impact Parameters for the Saluda Site ......................................................9-129

9-23 Federally and State-Listed Species That May Occur on the Saluda Alternative 

Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors....................9-135

9-24 SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the Saluda Alternative Site......................9-137

9-25 Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the Saluda Alternative Site...........9-137

9-26 Federally, Proposed Federally, and State-Listed Aquatic Species That May Occur 

on the Saluda Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated 

Transmission-Line Corridors ......................................................................................9-141
NUREG-1939 xxx April 2011

9-27 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

Considered in the Savannah River Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis ...................9-163

9-28 Land-Use Impact Parameters for the SR Alternative Site...........................................9-167

9-29 Savannah River Reduction in Flow and Assessed Impact Levels ..............................9-168

9-30 Savannah River Reduction in Flow and Combined Water-Use Impact.......................9-170

9-31 Federally and State-Listed Species That May Occur on the SR Alternative Site, 

Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors............................9-172

9-32 SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the SR Alternative Site ............................9-174

9-33 Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the SR Alternative Site.................9-174

9-34 Federally, Proposed Federally, and State-Listed Aquatic Species That May Occur 

on the SR Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated TransmissionLine Corridors ............................................................................................................9-178

9-35 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites ............9-202

9-36 Comparison of Impacts on Waters of the United States for the Proposed and Four 

Alternative Sites.........................................................................................................9-215

10-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction and 

Preconstruction Activities.............................................................................................10-5

10-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation .....................................10-9

10-3 Monetary and Nonmonetary Benefits of the Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 ............10-18

10-4 Internal and External Costs of Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3.................................10-21
April 2011 xxxi NUREG-1939

Executive Summary

By letter dated March 27, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission received an 

application from South Carolina Electric and Gas , acting for itself and for Santee Cooper for 

combined construction permits and operating licenses for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

Units 2 and 3 to be located adjacent to the existing Unit 1 in Fairfield County, South Carolina. 

The NRC staff’s review is based on Revisions 1 and 2 of the Environmental Report , received 

February 13, 2009 and July 2, 2010, respectively; responses to requests for additional 

information; and supplemental letters. This environmental impact statement also addresses 

public and agency comments received on the draft EIS published on April 15, 2010.

On March 2, 2010, SCE&G submitted a joint Federal/State Application for the Department of the 

Army Individual Permit to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . The USACE application number 

is SAC 2007-1852-SIR. The permit application was revised on December 16, 2010. A Public 

Notice advertising the revised application is being issued to coincide with the public availability 

of this EIS.

The proposed actions related to the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 application are NRC issuance of 

COLs for construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the VCSNS site, and USACE 

permit action on a DA Individual Permit application pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The USACE is participating 

collaboratively on the review team. The reactors specified in the application are Westinghouse 

Electric Company, LLC Advanced Passive 1000 pressurized water reactors. The application 

references Revision 17 of the AP1000 certified design.

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended , directs that an 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 Part 51. Further, in 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC has determined that the 

issuance of a COL under 10 CFR Part 52 is an action that requires an EIS. 

The purpose of SCE&G’s requested NRC action is to obtain COLs to construct and operate two 

baseload nuclear power plants. These licenses are necessary but not sufficient for construction 

and operation of the units. A COL applicant must obtain and maintain the necessary permits 

from other Federal, State, and local agencies and permitting authorities. Therefore, the purpose 

of the NRC’s environmental review of the SCE&G application is to determine if two new nuclear 

power plants of the proposed design can be constructed and operated at the VCSNS site 

without unacceptable adverse impacts on the human environment. The SCE&G permit 

application to the USACE is for work to prepare the site and facilities for a nuclear powergeneration station at the existing VCSNS site. 
NUREG-1939 xxxii April 2011

The NRC began the environmental review process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing in 

the Federal Register on January 5, 2009, a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct 

scoping. Two scoping meetings were held to obtain public input on the scope of the 

environmental review. The first meeting was held in Winnsboro, South Carolina, on January 27, 

2009. The second meeting was held in Blair, South Carolina, on January 28, 2009. In addition, 

NRC held a public informational meeting for the local community on March 28, 2009. The NRC 

staff reviewed the comments received during the scoping process and contacted Federal, State, 

Tribal, regional, and local agencies to solicit comments. 

To gather information and to become familiar with the sites and their environs, the NRC and its 

contractor, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, visited the VCSNS site and four alternative 

sites in March 2009. During the site visits, the NRC staff and its contractor met with SCE&G 

staff, public officials, and the public. Included in this EIS are the results of the review team’s 

analyses, which consider and weigh the environmental effects of the proposed actions; 

potential mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects; the environmental 

impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and the NRC staff’s recommendation regarding 

the proposed action. 

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

actions, the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on Council on 

Environmental Quality guidance. Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, 

provides the following definitions of the three significance levels – SMALL, MODERATE, and 

LARGE:

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.

Potential mitigation measures were considered for each resource category and are discussed in 

the appropriate sections of the EIS.

In preparing this EIS, the NRC staff, its contractor staff, and USACE staff, referred to collectively 

as the review team, evaluated the applications, including the ER submitted by SCE&G; 

consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; and followed the guidance set forth in 

NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan and the Staff Memorandum Addressing 

Construction and Preconstruction, Greenhouse Gas Issues, General Conformity 

Determinations, Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative Impact Analysis, and 
April 2011 xxxiii NUREG-1939

Cultural/Historical Resources Analysis Issues in Environmental Impact Statements. In addition, 

the review team considered the public comments related to the environmental review received 

during the scoping process. Comments within the scope of the environmental review are 

included in Appendix D of this EIS. 

The NRC staff’s recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the 

proposed action is that the COLs be issued as requested. This recommendation is based on 

the application, including the ER submitted by SCE&G; consultation with other Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local agencies; the staff’s independent review; the staff’s consideration of 

comments related to the environmental review that were received during the scoping process, 

the NRC staff’s consideration of comments on the draft EIS; and the assessments summarized 

in this EIS, including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and this EIS. The 

USACE will base its evaluation of the DA Individual Permit application on the requirements of 

USACE regulations, the Clean Water Act Section 404 Guidelines, and the USACE public 

interest review process. The USACE’s permit decision will be made after issuance of the final 

EIS.

A 75-day comment period began on April 26, 2010, the date of publication of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Availability of the filing of the draft EIS to allow 

members of the public and agencies to comment on the results of the environmental review. On

May 25, 2010, the NRC and USACE staff conducted two public meetings near the VCSNS site

to describe the results of the environmental review, provide members of the public with 

information to assist them in formulating comments on this EIS, respond to questions, and 

accept public comment. The public meeting also served as the USACE public hearing, which 

means a public proceeding conducted for the purpose of acquiring information or evidence that 

will be considered in evaluating a proposed DA permit action and that affords the public an 

opportunity to present their views, opinions, and information on such permit actions or Federal 

projects. After the comment period, the review team considered all the comments received 

during the comment period. These comments and review team responses are included in 

Appendix E of this final EIS.

The NRC staff’s evaluation of the site safety and emergency preparedness aspects of the 

proposed action will be addressed in the NRC’s final Safety Evaluation Report.

April 2011 xxxv NUREG-1939

Abbreviations/Acronyms

7Q10 lowest flow for 7 consecutive days expected to occur once per decade

AADT annual average daily traffic

ac acre

ACE Ashepoo, Combahee, Edisto (river basin)

ac-ft acre feet

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

A.D. Anno Domini 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

AEC Atomic Energy Commission

AIS (South Carolina) Aquatic Invasive Species (Task Force) 

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable

AP-1000 Advanced Passive 1000 pressurized water reactor

APE area of potential effect 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

AQI Air Quality Index

BA biological assessment

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BCRC Brockington Cultural Resources Consulting

BEA U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

BEIR VII Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

BOD biochemical oxygen demand

BMP best management practice

BP Before Present

Bq becquerel(s)

BRWMA Broad River Wildlife Management Area 

Btu British thermal unit

°C degree(s) Celsius 

C&D construction and demolition debris

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBS Carnagey Biological Services
NUREG-1939 xxxvi April 2011

CDC U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CDF core damage frequency

CEDE committed effective dose equivalent

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFL compact fluorescent light

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic foot/feet per second

CGS Cope Generating Station

Ci curie(s)

cm centimeter(s)

CMC criterion maximum concentration

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide 

COL combined construction permit and operating license 

COLA combined license application

CORMIX Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System

CPCN Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and 

Necessity

CR County Road

CWA Clean Water Act (aka Federal Water Pollution Control Act)

CWIS cooling-water intake structure 

CWS circulating-water system

CY calendar year

d day(s)

DA Department of the Army

DAR Daughters of the American Revolution

dB decibel(s)

dBA decibel(s) on the A-weighted scale

DBA design basis accident

DCD design control document 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

D/Q deposition factor(s); annual normalized total surface concentration rate(s)

DSM demand-side management

DTS demineralised water treatment

EA Environmental Assessment

EAB exclusion area boundary

EDE effective dose equivalent

EE/DSM energy efficiency/demand-side management
April 2011 xxxvii NUREG-1939

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS environmental impact statement

ELF extremely low frequency

EMF electromagnetic field

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPACT Energy Policy Act

EPC Engineer, Procure, Construct (contract)

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera 

ER Environmental Report

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

ESP Early Site Permit

ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan

° F degree(s) Fahrenheit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FA-1 Fairfield 1 

FES Final Environmental Statement

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FP&S Facilities Planning & Siting

FPC Federal Power Commission

fps foot (feet) per second

FPSF Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility

FR Federal Register

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report

FSER Final Safety Evaluation Report

ft foot/feet

ft2 square foot/feet

ft3 cubic foot/feet

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

μg microgram(s)

g gram(s)

gal gallon(s)

GC gas centrifuge

GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

GD gaseous diffusion

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement

GHG greenhouse gas

GI-LLI gastrointestinal lower large intestine
NUREG-1939 xxxviii April 2011

GIS geographic information system

gpd gallon per day 

gpm gallon per minute 

HLW high-level waste

hr hour

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

Hz hertz

I Interstate

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

IEA International Energy Agency

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle

in inch(es)

IRP Integrated Resource Plan

IRWST in-containment refueling water storage tank

ISFSI independent spent-fuel storage installation

kg kilogram(s)

km kilometer(s)

km2 square kilometer(s)

km/hr kilometer(s) per hour

kV kilovolt

kW kilowatt

kW(e) kilowatt electric

kWh kilowatt-hour

L liter(s)

lb/ac/mo pound per acre per month

Ldn day night average sound level

LEDPA least environmentally damaging practicable alternative 

lb pound

LFG landfill-based gas

LLC Limited Liability Company

LLW low-level waste

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

LOS level of service

LPZ low-population zone

LWA Limited Work Authorization

LWD large woody debris
April 2011 xxxix NUREG-1939

LWR light water reactor

μmhos/cm micromhos per centimeter

μS/cm microsievert(s) per centimeter

MACCS Melcor Accident Consequence Code System

m meter(s)

m2 square meter(s)

m3 cubic meter(s)

m3

/s cubic meter(s) per second

mA milliampere(s)

mg milligram(s)

MEI maximally exposed individual

Mgd million gallon(s) per day

mGy milligray(s)

MHW Mean High Water

mi mile(s)

mi2 square mile

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

mL milliliter

mm millimeter

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MOX mixed oxides

mpg mile(s) per gallon

mph mile(s) per hour 

mrad millirad 

mrem millirem 

msl or MSL mean sea level 

mSv millisievert(s)

MT metric ton(nes)

MTU metric ton uranium 

MW megawatt(s)

MW(e) megawatt(s) electric 

MWh megawatt-hour(s)

MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal 

MWd megawatt-day

NA not applicable

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NAVD Northern American Vertical Datum

NCBI North Carolina Biotic Index

NCI National Cancer Institute
NUREG-1939 xl April 2011

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

NCW&SA Newberry County Water & Sewer Authority

NEI Nuclear Energy Institute

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation

NERP National Environmental Research Park

NESC National Electrical Safety Code

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSA New South Associates

NSPS new source performance standard

NSR new source review

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units

NUREG U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical document

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

O3 ozone

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OL operating license

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OW observation well

p. page

PAM primary amoebic meningoencephalitis

PARS Publically Available Records System

PBA powerblock area

pCi picocurie(s)

pH measure of acidity or basicity in solution

PIR Public Interest Review

PIRF Public Interest Review Factor

PK-12 preschool through 12th grade

PM particulate matter

PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less
April 2011 xli NUREG-1939

PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less

pp. pages

ppm part(s) per million

PRA probabilistic risk assessment

PSCSC Public Service Commission of South Carolina

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration (Permit)

PURPA Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act

PV photovoltaic

QL quantification limit

rad radiation absorbed dose

RAI Request(s) for Additional Information

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended 

rem roentgen equivalent man 

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program

RFP Request for Proposal

RIMS II Regional Input-Output Modeling System

ROI region of interest

RRS (SERC’s) Reliability Review Subcommittee

Ryr reactor year 

s or sec second(s)

SACTI Seasonal/Annual Cooling Tower Impact (prediction code)

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative

SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternative

Santee Cooper The State-owned electric and water utility, formally called South Carolina Public 

Service Authority

SC South Carolina

SCBCB South Carolina Budget and Control Board

SCDAH South Carolina Department of Archives and History

SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

SCDOT South Carolina Department of Transportation

SCE&G South Caroline Electric and Gas

SCFC South Caroline Forestry Commission

SCIAA South Caroline Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology

SCORS South Caroline Office of Research and Statistics

SCR selective catalytic reduction

SCS Santee-Cooper System

SER Safety Evaluation Report
NUREG-1939 xlii April 2011

SERC Southeastern Electric Reliability Council

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office (or Officer)

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOx oxides of sulfur

SR Savannah River (alternative site)

SRP Savannah River Plant

SRS Savannah River Site

SSC structures, systems, or components

SU Standard Unit(s)

Sv sievert(s)

SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan

SWS service-water system

T ton(s)

TBD to be determined

T&E threatened and endangered

TDES Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

TDS total dissolved solids

TEDE total effective dose equivalent

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeters

TRC TRC Companies, Inc.

UC University of Chicago

UF6 uranium hexafluoride

UMTRI Univiersity of Michigan Transportation Research Institute

UO2 uranium dioxide

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFA U.S. Fire Administration

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

US U.S. (State Highway)

VACAR Virginia-Carolinas (subregion)

VCSNS Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

VEGP Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

VOC violatile organic compound
April 2011 xliii NUREG-1939

Webb R.S. Webb and Associates

Westinghouse Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC

WHO World Health Organization

WWTP wastewater-treatment plant

WY water year (October 1 through September 30)

χ/Q atmospheric dispersion factor(s); annual average normalized air concentration 

value(s)

yd yard(s)

yd3 cubic yards

yr year(s)

yr--1 per year

April 2011 1-1 NUREG-1939

1.0 Introduction

By letter dated March 27, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an 

application from South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee 

Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public 

Service Authority), for combined construction permits and operating licenses (COLs) for two 

new nuclear reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, 

South Carolina (SCE&G 2008). The location of the proposed reactors is approximately 1 mi 

south of the existing VCSNS Unit 1 (SCE&G 2010a). The proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

would be jointly owned by SCE&G (55 percent) and Santee Cooper (45 percent), and operated 

by SCE&G (SCE&G 2010a). VCSNS Unit 1 is also jointly owned by SCE&G (66.7 percent) and 

Santee Cooper (33.3 percent), and operated by SCE&G (NRC 2004). With the exception of the 

transmission systems needed to route power from the proposed units, all of the construction 

and operation related to VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be completely within the confines of the 

VCSNS site (SCE&G 2009a). On March 2, 2010, SCE&G submitted an application to the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a Department of the Army (DA) individual permit to

conduct construction activities that would result in alteration of waters of the United States, 

including wetlands. A revised permit application was received on December 16, 2010. A Public 

Notice describing the project and proposed revisions to include all transmission lines associated 

with the project, and as described in this environmental impact statement (EIS), is being issued 

to coincide with the availability of the EIS.

The proposed actions in these two applications are (1) NRC issuance of COLs for constructing 

and operating two new nuclear power reactors at the VCSNS site in Fairfield County, South 

Carolina, and (2) USACE issuance of permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (33 USC 1344), as amended, by the Clean Water Act of 1977 

(33 USC 1251, et seq.) (hereafter referred to as the Clean Water Act) and Section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 USC 403). The USACE is participating in 

the preparation of this EIS as a cooperating agency. The COL and DA permit applications, as 

well as review processes for the NRC and the USACE, are described in Section 1.1.1.

1.1 Background

A COL is a Commission

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) 

(42 USC 4321, et seq.) directs that an EIS be prepared for major Federal actions that have the 

potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has 

approval for constructing and operating one or more nuclear power 

facilities. NRC regulations related to COLs are found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 52, Subpart C.
Introduction

NUREG-1939 1-2 April 2011

implemented Section 102 of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. Further, in 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC has 

determined that the issuance of a COL under 10 CFR Part 52 is an action that requires an EIS.

According to 10 CFR 52.80(b), an application for a COL must contain an Environmental Report 

(ER). The ER provides input that the NRC staff evaluates in preparing the NRC’s EIS. NRC 

regulations related to ERs and EISs are found in 10 CFR Part 51.

1.1.1 Applications and Reviews

The objective of SCE&G’s requested NRC action is to give SCE&G the option of building and 

operating two nuclear power reactors within the service area of Santee Cooper and SCE&G in 

order to meet baseload generation needs by 2016 and 2019 (SCE&G 2010a). In addition to the 

COLs, SCE&G must obtain and maintain permits from other Federal, State, and local agencies 

and permitting authorities. The objective of SCE&G’s requested USACE action is to obtain a 

DA permit to perform regulated dredge-and-fill activities that would affect wetlands and other 

waters of the United States and to erect overhead transmission lines across navigable waters. 

Collectively, the NRC staff (including its contractor staff at Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory) and USACE staff who reviewed the ER and decided on impact levels are referred to 

as the “review team” throughout this EIS.

1.1.1.1 NRC COL Application Review

The objective of the NRC environmental review of the SCE&G application is to determine 

whether two nuclear reactors of the proposed design can be constructed and operated at the 

VCSNS site. SCE&G submitted Revision 1 of its ER on February 13, 2009 (SCE&G 2009b). 

Revision 2 of the ER was submitted on July 2, 2010 (SCE&G 2010a). The ER focuses on the 

environmental effects of constructing and operating two Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

(Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactors at the VCSNS 

site. The NRC standards for review of a COL application are outlined in 10 CFR 52.81. 

Detailed guidance for conducting the environmental portion of the review is found in guidance 

set forth in NUREG-1555, the Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000) and 

recent updates, hereinafter referred to as the ESRP, and the Staff Memorandum “Addressing 

Construction and Preconstruction, Greenhouse Gas Issues, General Conformity 

Determinations, Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative Impact Analysis, and 

Cultural/Historical Resources Analysis Issues in Environmental Impact Statements”

(NRC 2010).

The SCE&G application references Revision 17 of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor certified 

design (Westinghouse 2008) in its ER (SCE&G 2010a). Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 52 contains 

NRC regulations related to standard design certification. An application for a standard design 

certification undergoes an extensive review. Revision 15 of the AP1000 design is codified in 

10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D. Where appropriate, this EIS incorporates results of the review of 
Introduction

April 2011 1-3 NUREG-1939

Revision 15 and insights from the review of Revision 17. (Additional information about design 

certification is discussed in Section 3.2.1.)

In this EIS, the NRC staff evaluates the environmental effects of two Westinghouse AP1000 

reactors at the VCSNS site. In addition to considering the environmental effects of the 

proposed action, the NRC considers alternatives to the proposed action, including the no-action 

alternative and the building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites. Also, the benefits 

of the proposed action (e.g., meeting an identified need for power) and measures and controls 

to limit adverse impacts are evaluated. The COL application includes several requests for 

exemptions from the AP1000 design certification under 10 CFR 52.93. The environmental 

impacts of the requested exemptions are considered in this EIS as part of the Federal action. 

The technical analysis for each design certification exemption is included in the NRC’s Final 

Safety Evaluation Report (FSER), including a recommendation for approval or denial of each 

exemption.

After acceptance of the SCE&G application, the NRC began the environmental review process 

described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing in the Federal Register (FR) on January 5, 2009, a 

Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping in compliance with requirements set 

forth in 10 CFR Part 51 (74 FR 323). Two scoping meetings were held to obtain public input on 

the scope of the environmental review. The first meeting was held in Winnsboro, South 

Carolina, on January 27, 2009. The second meeting was held in Blair, South Carolina, on 

January 28, 2009. The staff reviewed the comments received during the scoping process and 

responses were developed for each substantive comment. Comments and responses for 

comment categories that are within the scope of the NRC environmental review are included in 

Appendix D. A complete list of the scoping comments and responses is documented in the 

V.C. Summer Combined License Scoping Summary Report (NRC 2009a).

The NRC also held a public informational meeting for the local community on March 28, 2009, 

at McCrorey-Liston Elementary School in Blair, South Carolina. The March 28 meeting was an 

informal open house at which members of the public could engage NRC staff and ask questions 

about the NRC’s environmental review process. A meeting summary is available electronically 

from Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) (NRC 2009b) 

To gather information and to become familiar with the proposed and alternative sites and their 

environs, the review team visited the VCSNS site and four alternative sites in March 2009. 

During the VCSNS site visits, the NRC staff met with SCE&G 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 of this EIS. Other documents related to the 

VCSNS site and alternative sites were reviewed and are listed as references where appropriate.
Introduction

NUREG-1939 1-4 April 2011

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

actions, the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance (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 

established by the NRC – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE: 

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 review team’s analysis, which considers and weighs the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action at the VCSNS site, including the environmental impacts 

associated with constructing and operating reactors at the site, the impacts of constructing and 

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

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

effects. This EIS also provides the NRC staff’s recommendation to the Commission regarding 

the issuance of the COLs for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3.

A 75-day comment period began on April 26, 2010, the date of publication of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Notice of Availability of the draft EIS, to allow members 

of the public to comment on the results of the NRC staff’s review (75 FR 21625). A public 

meeting was held on May 27, 2010, at White Hall AME Church in Jenkinsville, South Carolina. 

During this public meeting, the staff described the results of the NRC environmental review, 

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

draft EIS, responded to questions, and accepted comments. After the comment period, the 

review team considered all submitted comments. Comments within the scope of the 

environmental review have been addressed in the final EIS and are included in Appendix E. 

Changes made in response to public comments, updates to the material, and other substantive 

changes are identified by change bars in the margins of this final EIS.

1.1.1.2 USACE Permit Application Review

The USACE role as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS is intended to provide 

the environmental information USACE needs to meets its NEPA obligation, complete its review, 

and draw conclusions regarding the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative 

(LEDPA), public good, and the Public Interest Review Factors (PIRFs) for its permitting 
Introduction

April 2011 1-5 NUREG-1939

decision. The USACE Record of Decision regarding the aforementioned permit application will 

reference those analyses and present any additional information required by USACE to support 

its permit decision.

In this EIS, the USACE evaluates certain construction and maintenance activities proposed in 

waters of the United States, including wetlands that would be affected by the proposed project. 

The USACE decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and use of important 

resources. The benefit that may reasonably be expected to accrue from the proposal must be 

balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. 

The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, 

including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended effect on the public 

interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts that the proposed activity may have on the public 

interest requires a careful weighing of all of the factors that become relevant in each particular 

case. A decision by the USACE to authorize this proposal, and if so, the conditions under which 

it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of this general balancing 

process. All factors that may be relevant to the proposal must be considered, including the 

cumulative effects thereof. The USACE PIRFs are listed and described more fully in 

Appendix I.

For activities involving discharges regulated by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will 

be denied if the discharge would not comply with the EPA’s 404(b)(1) Guidelines for 

Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material found at 40 CFR Part 230 (hereafter 

the 404 (b)(1) Guidelines). Subject to the aforementioned guidelines and any other applicable 

guidelines and criteria (see 33 CFR 320.2 and 320.3), a permit will be granted unless the 

USACE district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest. The 

following general criteria are considered in the evaluation of every application:

• the relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed structure or work

• where there are unresolved conflicts about resource use, the practicability of using 

practicable and reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of 

the proposed structure or work

• the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects that the proposed 

structure or work is likely to have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited.

1.1.2 Preconstruction Activities

In a final rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416), the Commission limited the definition of 

“construction” (10 CFR 50.10 and 51.4) to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority. 

Many of the activities required to construct a nuclear power plant are not within NRC’s 

regulatory authority. Activities associated with building the plant that are not within the purview 

of the NRC action are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities 
Introduction

NUREG-1939 1-6 April 2011

include clearing and grading, excavating, erecting support buildings and transmission lines, and 

other associated activities. These preconstruction activities may take place before the 

application for a COL is submitted, during the staff’s review of a COL application, after a COL is 

granted, or in some cases, concurrently with NRC-regulated construction. Although 

preconstruction activities are outside the NRC’s regulatory authority, many of them are within 

the regulatory authority of local, State, or other Federal agencies, including certain 

preconstruction activities that require permits from the USACE. Preconstruction activities for 

Units 2 and 3 are ongoing.

Because the preconstruction activities are not part of the NRC action, their impacts are not 

reviewed as a direct effect of the NRC action. Rather, the impacts of the preconstruction 

activities are considered in the context of cumulative impacts. In addition, certain 

preconstruction activities that require permits from the USACE are viewed by that agency as 

direct effects related to its Federal permitting action. Chapter 4 describes the relative magnitude 

of impacts related to preconstruction and construction activities. 

1.1.3 Cooperating Agencies

NEPA lays the groundwork for coordination between the lead agency preparing an EIS and 

other Federal agencies that may have jurisdiction by law or special expertise regarding an 

environmental issue. These other agencies are referred to as “cooperating agencies.” 

Cooperating agencies have the responsibility to assist the lead agency through early 

participation in the NEPA process, including scoping, by providing technical input to the EIS and 

by making staff support available as needed by the lead agency.

Most proposed nuclear power plants require a permit from the USACE, where impacts are 

proposed on waters of the United States, in addition to a license from the NRC. Therefore, the 

NRC and the USACE concluded that the most effective and efficient use of Federal resources in 

the review of nuclear power projects would be achieved by a cooperative agreement. On 

September 12, 2008, the NRC and the USACE signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

regarding the review of nuclear power plant license applications (USACE and NRC 2008). 

Therefore, the Charleston District of the USACE is a cooperating agency as defined in 

10 CFR 51.14.

As described in the MOU, the NRC is the lead Federal agency, and the USACE is a cooperating 

agency in the development of the EIS. Under Federal law, each agency has jurisdiction related 

to portions of the proposed project. The goal of this cooperative agreement is the development 

of one EIS that serves the needs of both the NRC license decision process and the USACE 

permit decision process. While both agencies must comply with the requirements of NEPA, 

they also have mission requirements that must be met in addition to the NEPA requirements. 

The NRC makes license decisions under the Atomic Energy Act (42 USC 2011, et seq.), and 

the USACE makes permit decisions under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 
Introduction

April 2011 1-7 NUREG-1939

and the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251, et seq.). The USACE is cooperating with the NRC to 

ensure that the information presented in the NEPA documentation is adequate to fulfill the 

requirements of USACE regulations, the EPA’s Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines 

(40 CFR Part 230), which contain the substantive environmental criteria used by the USACE in 

evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the 

USACE public interest review process.

As a cooperating agency, the USACE is part of the NRC review team and is involved in all 

aspects of the environmental review, including scoping, public meetings, public comment 

resolution, and EIS preparation. The USACE refers to public meetings as hearings, but there is 

no adjudicatory process involved as there is for NRC hearings conducted by the Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board. For the purposes of assessing environmental impacts under NEPA, the 

EIS uses the SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE criteria discussed in Section 1.1.1.1 of this 

chapter; this approach has been vetted by the CEQ. However, for permit decisions under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the USACE can only permit the LEDPA and must address 

PIRFs. This EIS is intended to provide the information about the environmental impacts 

necessary to allow the USACE to address the public interest in the Record of Decision 

associated with the permit decision. However, some of the PIRFs not specifically related to 

environmental impact, such as mineral needs, are not addressed in this EIS.

The timing of the preparation of the EIS compared to the timing of the USACE permit review is 

such that the USACE will not have completed its assessment of the LEDPA criterion until it 

receives public feedback in the form of public comments on the draft EIS. The USACE will 

address whether the LEDPA criterion is met in the Record of Decision. The goal of the process 

is for the USACE to have all of the information necessary to make a permit decision when the 

final EIS is issued. However, it is possible that the USACE will still need some information from 

SCE&G to complete the permit documentation – information that SCE&G could not make 

available by the time of final EIS issuance. Also, any conditions required by the USACE, such 

as compensatory mitigation, will be addressed in the permit issued by the USACE. Mitigation is 

an important aspect of the review and balancing process on many DA permit applications. 

Consideration of mitigation will occur throughout the permit application-review process and 

includes avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating for resource losses. 

Losses will be avoided to the extent practicable. Compensation may occur onsite or at an 

offsite location.

1.1.4 Concurrent NRC Reviews

In reviews separate from the EIS process, the NRC analyzes the safety characteristics of the 

proposed site and emergency planning information. These analyses are documented in a 

Safety Evaluation Report (SER). The SER presents the conclusions reached by the NRC 

regarding (1) whether there is reasonable assurance that two new reactors can be constructed 

and operated along with the existing unit at the VCSNS site without undue risk to the health and
Introduction

NUREG-1939 1-8 April 2011

safety of the public; (2) whether the emergency preparedness program meets the applicable 

requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 52, 10 CFR Part 73, and 10 CFR Part 100; and 

(3) whether site characteristics are such that adequate security plans and measures can be 

developed (10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 52, 10 CFR Part 73, and 10 CFR Part 100). The final 

SER for SCE&G’s COL application is expected to be published as a NUREG document in the 

future. Revision 1 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for SCE&G’s COL application 

was published on July 9, 2009; Revisions 2 and 3 of the FSAR were submitted to the NRC on 

January 28, 2010 and August 25, 2010, respectively (SCE&G 2009c, 2010b, c).

The draft EIS indicated that the COL application references the AP1000 plant design that has 

been certified by NRC (Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 52, Appendix D), 

as modified by the amendment to that design that Westinghouse has submitted to the NRC. At 

the time the draft EIS was published, Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control Document 

(Westinghouse 2008) was the Revision being considered in the design certification review, and 

the environmental review in the draft EIS accordingly accounted for the environmental impacts 

anticipated from use of the design in that Revision. Since publication of the draft EIS, 

Westinghouse has updated its design certification application with Revision 18 of the AP1000 

DCD, and the SCE&G COL application has been updated to reference that Revision. The NRC 

staff has determined that none of the changes involved in the latest Revision has the potential to 

affect the environmental review documented in the EIS. For that reason, references to Revision 

17 in this EIS have been left unchanged. If a subsequent Revision to the AP1000 DCD is 

submitted and referenced in the COL application, the staff will determine whether the change in 

Revision has the potential to affect the environmental review. Depending on the environmental

significance of any such design change, the staff will supplement the EIS as appropriate.

1.2 The Proposed Federal Action

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

COLs for the proposed VCSNS site for two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors. The proposed 

USACE Federal action is issuance of a permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act and Rivers and 

Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 authorizing certain preconstruction activities that could 

potentially affect waters of the United States based on evaluation of the probable impacts, 

including cumulative impacts of the proposed construction activities on the public interest. The 

DA permit would allow the disturbance via permanent filling of approximately 0.66 ac of 

wetlands and 774 linear feet of streams regulated as waters of the United States, as well as the 

permanent conversion of 43.7 ac of forested wetlands to nonforested wetlands as a result of 

required transmission lines to connect the VCSNS to the electrical grid. This EIS provides the 

NRC and USACE analyses of the environmental impacts that could result from building and 

operating two new proposed units at the VCSNS site or at each of the four alternative sites. 

These impacts are analyzed by the NRC to determine whether the proposed site is suitable for 
Introduction

April 2011 1-9 NUREG-1939

the new units and whether any of the alternative sites are considered obviously superior to the 

proposed site. 

1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of and need for the proposed NRC and USACE actions are described below.

1.3.1 The NRC’s Proposed Action

The purpose and need for the proposed NRC action (i.e., issuance of COLs) is to provide for 

additional baseload electric generating capacity by 2016 and 2019 within the service territories 

of SCE&G and Santee Cooper (SCE&G 2009d). SCE&G has stated this additional capacity is 

necessary “...to meet future generating needs for baseload power as such needs may be 

determined by state and owner decision makers” (SCE&G 2010a). The need for additional 

baseload power is discussed in Chapter 8 of this EIS. 

Two COLs from the NRC are necessary for constructing and operating the proposed power 

plant. Preconstruction and certain long lead-time activities, such as ordering and procuring 

certain components and materials necessary to construct the plant, may begin before the COLs 

are granted. SCE&G must obtain and maintain permits or authorizations from other Federal, 

State, and local agencies and permitting authorities prior to undertaking certain activities. The 

ultimate decision whether to build a facility and the schedule for building are not within the 

purview of the NRC nor the USACE and would be determined by the license holder if the 

authorizations are granted.

1.3.2 The USACE Permit Action

The SCE&G permit application to the USACE is for work to prepare the site and facilities for a 

nuclear power-generation station at the existing VCSNS site. Defining the project objectives is 

critical to the evaluation of any project and to evaluating compliance with the Clean Water Act 

Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. In addition to the NEPA-required purpose and need described 

above, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and subsequent 404(q) guidance require that the USACE 

define the “basic project purpose” and the “overall project purpose” to verify appropriate 

consideration of alternatives. 

The basic purpose is the most simple or irreducible objective of the project and is used to 

determine whether the applicant’s project is “water dependent” (40 CFR 230.10(a)(3)). The 

water dependency test contained in the 404(b)(1) Guidelines creates a presumption that 

activities that do not require access to, proximity to, or siting within special aquatic sites to 

fulfill their basic project purpose are not water dependent. Therefore, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines 

state that practicable alternatives to non-water-dependent activities are presumed to exist, 

are less damaging, and are environmentally preferable to alternatives that involve
Introduction

NUREG-1939 1-10 April 2011

discharges into special aquatic sites (e.g., wetlands and riffle and pool stream complexes) 

(40 CFR 230.10(a)(3)). The basic purpose of this project is to generate electricity for additional 

baseload capacity. Constructing facilities to create energy supplies is not a water-dependent 

activity, and in accordance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, practicable alternatives that do not 

involve discharges into special aquatic sites are presumed to exist unless clearly demonstrated 

otherwise (40 CFR 230.10(a)(3)).

In addition to defining the basic project purpose, the USACE must also define the overall project 

purpose. The overall project purpose establishes the scope of the alternatives analysis and is 

used for evaluating practicable alternatives under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. In accordance with 

the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and guidance from USACE Headquarters, the overall project purpose 

must be specific enough to define the applicant’s needs, but not so narrow and restrictive as to 

preclude a proper evaluation of alternatives. The USACE is responsible for controlling every 

aspect of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines analysis (HQUSACE 1989). In this regard, defining the 

overall project purpose for issuance of USACE permits is the sole responsibility of the USACE. 

While generally focusing on the SCE&G’s statement, the USACE will in all cases exercise 

independent judgment in defining the purpose and need for the project from both SCE&G’s and 

the public’s perspectives (33 CFR Part 325; 53 FR 3120). 

The overall purpose of the project is to construct a power-generating facility to provide for 

additional baseload electrical generating capacity to meet the growing demand in the State of 

South Carolina. The USACE concurs with the stated project purpose and long-term need to 

generate electricity to meet the growing demand in South Carolina.

1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA states that EISs are to include a detailed statement analyzing 

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). This EIS 

addresses five categories of alternatives to the proposed action: (1) the no-action alternative, 

(2) energy source alternatives, (3) alternative sites, (4) system design alternatives, and 

(5) onsite alternatives to reduce impacts on natural and cultural resources.

In the no-action alternative, the proposed action would not go forward. The NRC could deny 

SCE&G’s request for the COLs. If the request was denied, the construction and operation of 

two new nuclear generating units at the VCSNS site would not occur, nor would any benefits 

intended by the approved COLs be realized. The USACE could deny SCE&G’s permit request. 

If the permit were denied, SCE&G’s construction of the two new units would not go forward as 

proposed. Energy source alternatives include energy-replacement technologies such as oiland gas-fired generation and wind power, focusing on alternatives that could generate baseload 

power. System design alternatives include heat-dissipation and circulating-water systems, 
Introduction

April 2011 1-11 NUREG-1939

intake and discharge structures, and water use and treatment systems. Finally, onsite 

alternatives evaluated by the USACE to reduce impacts on wetlands and shoreline resources 

are described.

In its ER, SCE&G defines a region of interest for use in identifying and evaluating potential sites 

for power generation (SCE&G 2010a). In this EIS the NRC staff evaluates the region of 

interest, the process by which alternative sites were selected, and the environmental impacts of 

construction and operation of new power reactors at those alternative sites using 

reconnaissance-level information. Using this process, SCE&G reviewed multiple sites and 

identified the suite of candidate sites for this project. The alternative sites included the 

Fairfield 1 site, a greenfield site owned by SCE&G on the Broad River in South Carolina; an 

existing fossil-fired site owned by SCE&G near Cope, South Carolina; a greenfield site owned 

by SCE&G in Saluda County, South Carolina; and the Savannah River Site in Aiken County, 

South Carolina (SCE&G 2010a). The objective of the comparison of environmental impacts is 

to determine whether any of the alternative sites is environmentally preferable and obviously 

superior to the proposed VCSNS site.

As part of the evaluation of permit applications subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

the USACE is required by regulation to apply the criteria set forth in the 404(b)(1) Guidelines 

(33 USC 1344; 40 CFR Part 230). These guidelines establish criteria that must be met for the 

proposed activities to be permitted pursuant to Section 404. Specifically, these guidelines state, 

in part, that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable 

alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less adverse impacts on the aquatic 

ecosystem provided the alternative does not have other significant adverse consequences 

(40 CFR 230.10(a)). An area not presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be 

obtained, used, expanded, or managed to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may 

be considered if it is otherwise a practicable alternative.

1.5 Compliance and Consultations 

Before the construction and operation of the proposed new units, SCE&G is required to obtain 

certain Federal, State, and local environmental permits, as well as to meet applicable statutory 

and regulatory requirements. In its ER (SCE&G 2010a), SCE&G provided a list of 

environmental approvals and consultations associated with proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

Potential authorizations, permits, and certifications relevant to the proposed COLs are included 

in Appendix H of this EIS. The staff reviewed the list and 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 affect the acceptability of the VCSNS site 

for the construction and operation of the proposed two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors. A list of 

the key consultation correspondence is provided as Appendix F.
Introduction

NUREG-1939 1-12 April 2011

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 

nuclear reactor units. Chapter 3 describes the power plant layout, structures, and activities 

related to building and operation that are used as the basis for evaluating the environmental 

impacts. Chapters 4 and 5 examine the environmental impacts of building (Chapter 4) and 

operating (Chapter 5) proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Chapter 6 analyzes the environmental 

impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, transportation of radioactive materials, and decommissioning, 

while Chapter 7 examines the cumulative impacts of the proposed action as defined in 

40 CFR 1508.7. Chapter 8 addresses the need for power. Chapter 9 discusses alternatives to 

the proposed action and analyzes energy sources, alternative sites and systems, and compares 

the proposed action with these alternatives. Chapter 10 summarizes the findings of the 

preceding chapters and provides a benefit-cost evaluation; it also presents the staff’s 

recommendation with respect to the Commission’s approval of the proposed site for COLs 

based on the NRC staff’s evaluation of environmental impacts.

The appendices to this EIS provide the following additional information.

• Appendix A – Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement

• Appendix B – Organizations Contacted

• Appendix C – Chronology of NRC and USACE Environmental Review Correspondence

• Appendix D – Scoping Comments and Responses

• Appendix E – Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments and Responses

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

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

Assessments

• Appendix G – Supporting Documentation for Radiological Dose Assessment

• Appendix H – Authorizations, Permits, and Certifications

• Appendix I – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Interest Review Factors

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

1.7 References

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.”
Introduction

April 2011 1-13 NUREG-1939

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 73. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 73, "Physical Protection of 

Plants and Materials."

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site 

Criteria."

33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

Part 320, "General Regulatory Policies.”

33 CFR Part 325. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

Part 325, "Processing of Department of the Army Permits.”

40 CFR Part 230. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 230, 

"Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material."

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

1508, "Terminology and Index."

53 FR 3120. February 3, 1988. “Environmental Quality; Procedures for Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).” Federal Register. Corps of Engineers, Department 

of the Army.

72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. “Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

74 FR 323. January 5, 2009. “South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Acting for Itself and 

as Agent for the South Carolina Public Service Company (Also Referred to as Santee Cooper) 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3; Combined License Application; Notice of Intent 

to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process.” Federal 

Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

75 FR 21625. April 26, 2010. “Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability.” 

Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

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

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (Also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act [FWPCA]).
Introduction

NUREG-1939 1-14 April 2011

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). 33 USC 1344, et seq. "Permits for Dredged or 

Fill Material." 

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

Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, Section 403. 33 USC 403, as amended.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 

Project No. 743. Submittal of a Combined License Application for V.C. Summer Nuclear Station 

Units 2 and 3. Revision 0, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. NND-08-0004. Accession No. 

ML081300460.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

May 5, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: ALT-1/NP-1, AQ-1, AQ-15, G-5, G-6, G-8, and NRHH-2.” NND-09-0110. 

Accession No. ML091890158.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 

COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina. Accession No. ML092170463.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

May 11, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 

and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit Information Needs: 

ACC-11, ALT-3, AQ-5, AQ-6, GW-11, LU-3, and SW-12.” NND-09-0126. Accession No. 

ML091350104.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 2, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML101930231. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010b. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 2, Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina. Accession No. ML100360598.
Introduction

April 2011 1-15 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010c. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 3, Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina. Accession No. ML102440523.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters (HQUSACE). 1989. Memorandum from Patrick 

J. Kelly, USACE Director of Civil Works, to Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District, New 

Orleans, regarding "Permit Elevation, Plantation Landing Resort, Inc." April 21, 1989. Available 

at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/PlantationLandingRGL.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USACE and NRC). 

2008. Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Environmental Reviews Related to the Issuance of 

Authorizations to Construct and Operate Nuclear Power Plants. Accession No. ML082540354.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan—

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

Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 15, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

Station, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML040540718.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping 

Process Summary Report, V. C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Combined License 

Fairfield County, South Carolina. Accession No. ML091960347.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. Memorandum from Patricia Vokoun 

(U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Project Manager, Office of New Reactors) to Ryan 

Whited (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Chief, Office of New Reactors) dated May 5, 

1009, “Subject: Summary of Public Meeting to Discuss Environmental Review Process for the 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 Combined License Application.” Accession No 

ML091140076.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Staff Memorandum from Scott Flanders

(DSER Division Director) to Brent Clayton (RENV Branch Chief) dated December 10, 2010, 

“Subject: Addressing Construction and Preconstruction Activities, Greenhouse Gas Issues, 

General Conformity Determinations, Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative Impact 

Analysis, and Cultural/Historical Resources Analysis Issues In Environmental Impact 

Statements.” Accession No. ML100760503.
Introduction

NUREG-1939 1-16 April 2011

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

ML083230868.
April 2011 2-1 NUREG-1939

2.0 Affected Environment

The site proposed by South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) for combined construction 

permits and operating licenses (COLs) and a Department of the Army (DA) permit is located in 

Fairfield County, South Carolina, 26 mi northwest of the State capital, Columbia, South 

Carolina. The proposed Units 2 and 3 would be located approximately 1 mi to the southsouthwest of existing Unit 1 on the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site. The 

location of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is described in Section 2.1, with the land use, water, 

ecology, socioeconomics, environmental justice, historic and cultural resources, geology, 

meteorology and air quality, and the nonradiological and radiological environment of the site 

presented in Sections 2.2 through 2.11, respectively. Section 2.12 examines related Federal 

projects and consultations, and references are presented in Section 2.13.

2.1 Site Location

SCE&G’s proposed location for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is shown in Figure 2-1. The centerline of 

proposed Units 2 and 3 would be located approximately 4700 ft south and 1800 ft west of the 

center of the existing Unit 1 containment building (SCE&G 2010a). 

The VCSNS site is located in an unincorporated area of Fairfield County, South Carolina. The 

nearest population center to the VCSNS site that has more than 25,000 residents is Columbia, 

South Carolina, with a population of 124,818 in 2007 (SCBCB 2009e). Figure 2-2 shows the 

location of the VCSNS site in relationship to the counties, cities, and towns within a 50-mi radius 

of the site. The VCSNS site is generally bounded by the Monticello Reservoir to the north, with 

Interstate 26 (I-26) approximately 13 mi due west and I-77 approximately 18 mi due east. The 

Broad River is 1 mi west of the site (Figure 2-3). Access to the site from the south is via State 

Highway 215 (SC-215; Monticello Road) then west on County Road 311 (CR-311; Ollie 

Bradham Boulevard), which enters the site. Although the Broad River is considered navigable 

by the State of South Carolina, it is not considered so by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), and there is no barge access to the site (SCE&G 2009c), but local access points may 

be used to launch smaller barges and push vessels for cofferdam work as described in Section 

4.3.2.1. Railroad access to the site is from a spur coming off the Norfolk Southern Railway 

transportation track from Columbia to Spartanburg (SCE&G 2010a). Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina, is the closest community and is located immediately east and south of the VCSNS 

site. The closest commercial or public general aviation airports located within the VCSNS 

region are the Fairfield County Airport 15 mi to the east, Newberry County Airport 18.6 mi to the 

west, Columbia Metropolitan Airport 27 mi to the south, and Columbia Owens Airport 27 mi 

south of the site (Maps of the World 2009). The VCSNS site occupies approximately 3600 ac of 

land and water (SCE&G 2010a). 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-2 April 2011

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

April 2011 2-3 NUREG-1939

Figure 2-2. The Location of the VCSNS Site in Relationship to the Counties, Cities, and Towns 

Within a 50-mi Radius of the Site (SCE&G 2009a)
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-4 April 2011

Figure 2-3. Map of the VCSNS Site and Vicinity Within the 6-mi Radius (SCE&G 2009a)
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-5 NUREG-1939

The Nuclear Training Facility, which would be used temporarily during development of the 

proposed new units, is located in the southern part of the site (SCE&G 2010a).

2.2 Land Use 

This section discusses land-related issues for the VCSNS site. Section 2.2.1 describes the site 

and the vicinity within a 6-mi radius of the site. Section 2.2.2 discusses the existing and proposed 

transmission-line corridors and offsite areas. Section 2.2.3 discusses the region, defined as the 

area within 50 mi of the center point of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 powerblock footprint.

2.2.1 VCSNS Site and Vicinity

The VCSNS site (see Figure 2-3) is located along the western edge of Fairfield County, South 

Carolina, on the southern shore of the Monticello Reservoir. It is in the immediate vicinity of four 

counties: Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland, which together make up the Central 

Midlands region of the state. 

The 3600-ac VCSNS site includes the following components: the existing Unit 1 plant site, part 

of Monticello Reservoir, part of the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility, and the proposed 

locations for the Units 2 and 3 powerblocks, cooling towers, switchyard, discharge structures 

and blowdown lines, the proposed independent spent-fuel storage installation, and the proposed 

support facilities and laydown areas associated with the new units (see Figure 2-1). VCSNS 

Unit 1, which is licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), has a net electric 

generating capacity of 966 MW(e) (NRC 2004). Unit 1 began commercial operation on 

January 1, 1984 (DOE/EIA 2009). The one existing nuclear unit, auxiliary facilities such as the 

training center, and transmission-line corridors occupy approximately 492 ac of the VCSNS site, 

and another 784 ac extend into the Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a). Most of the 

remaining VCSNS site area is mixed forest, some of which is managed for timber production. 

The VCSNS site is located in a sparsely populated, largely rural area, with forests and small 

farms composing the dominant land use. The site is primarily composed of low rolling hills with 

elevations ranging from 210 ft to 560 ft above mean sea level (msl). This Piedmont terrain 

varies from gently rolling to hilly and includes broad stream valleys. Jenkinsville and Peak are 

the closest settlements, although there are also homes built along the Unit 1 access road and 

the Monticello Reservoir shoreline. The Broad River flows in a northwest-to-southeast direction 

approximately 1 mi west of the site and serves as the boundary between Fairfield County (to the 

east) and Newberry County (to the west). 

Columbia, South Carolina, the State capital, lies approximately 26 mi southeast of the VCSNS 

site. Within the 6-mi radius of the site are the towns of Jenkinsville (immediately east and 

south), Peak (1.6 mi from the closest point on the VCSNS property boundary and 3.1 mi from 

the centerpoint of the site), and Pomaria (4.5 mi to the closest point on the VCSNS property 

boundary and 5.5 mi from the site centerpoint). Small communities in the vicinity include 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-6 April 2011

Dawkins (about 5 mi northwest of the site) and Monticello (about 5 mi northeast of the site). 

Winnsboro, the County Seat of Fairfield County lies, 15 mi east of the site.

VCSNS is co-located with a hydroelectric facility known as the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility 

(FPSF). The general area has been used for energy production since 1914 when this reach of 

the Broad River was impounded for the Parr Hydroelectric Generating Station (also Parr 

Hydroelectric Plant or Parr Hydro), a small run-of-the-river hydroelectric plant, and Parr 

Reservoir was created. Later, a nearby coal-fired power plant operated for decades. Originally 

1850 ac in area, the Parr Reservoir was enlarged to approximately 4400 ac in 1977 by raising 

the level of the Parr Shoals Dam 9 ft. This modification was necessary to support the 

development of the FPSF, which was built on Frees Creek, a small tributary of the Broad River. 

Monticello Reservoir was built in the Frees Creek valley to serve as the upper pool for the FPSF 

and the source of cooling water for VCSNS Unit 1. Parr Reservoir, which historically had been 

the source of water for Parr Hydro, assumed a dual function, providing water for both Parr 

Hydro and the FPSF (NRC 2004).

Current primary road access to the VCSNS site is via CR-311 (Ollie Bradham Boulevard), a 

two-lane paved road (see Figure 2-3). CR-311 intersects SC-215 approximately 1.5 mi east of 

Unit 1. SC-215 has a north-south orientation and is used by employees traveling from Richland 

and Fairfield Counties. Employees traveling from Richland and Lexington Counties may use 

U.S. Highway 176 (US-176) north to SC-213, which intersects SC-215 approximately 2 to 3 mi 

south of the VCSNS site. The site is also accessed by a railroad spur connected to the Norfolk 

Southern line. There is no direct access to the site via the Broad River. No natural gas lines or 

other fuel lines traverse the site. 

The site is zoned as “industrial,” with electricity production and transmission among the 

permitted uses (Vismor 1997; Fairfield County 2005). Soil surveys covering the site and 

surrounding areas indicated that none of the site contains prime farmland as that term is defined 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service at Title 7 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 657.5(a) (SCE&G, 2010a). There is no active farmland on 

the VCSNS site, but there are active farms in the vicinity. Most of the site is actively managed 

for forest products. No mineral deposits are actively mined on the site, but the vicinity has a 

significant blue granite quarrying industry (SCIway 2009).

Portions of the Sumter National Forest lay along the Broad River north of the VCSNS site. In 

addition, there are several boat launches and the 4400-ac Parr Hydro Wildlife Management Area 

in the vicinity of the Monticello Reservoir. Recreational uses in the vicinity include boating, 

fishing, hunting, hiking, and bicycling, and are generally associated with the Monticello Reservoir, 

Parr Hydro Wildlife Management Area, and Sumter National Forest. While SCE&G owns public 

recreation sites around Monticello Reservoir, the VCSNS site is not open to public recreation.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-7 NUREG-1939

Land-use and land-cover statistics for the vicinity and region of the VCSNS site are listed in 

Table 2-1, and are based on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2001) geographic information 

system (GIS) data on land cover. 

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

Land Use/Land Cover

Site and Vicinity (6 mi) Region (50 mi)

Acres Percent Acres Percentage

Fresh water 10,827 13.95 159,273 3.21

Marsh/emergent wetland 23 0.03 2381 0.05

Pocosin 0 0.00 1472 0.03

Swamp 0 0.00 82,765 1.67

Bottomland/floodplain forest 3145 4.05 284,929 5.74

Wet soil 0 0.00 3200 0.06

Wet scrub/shrub thicket 697 0.90 55,828 1.12

Dry scrub/shrub thicket 3591 4.63 433,269 8.73

Sandy bare soil 0 0.00 2710 0.05

Open canopy/recently cleared forest 10,107 13.02 456,723 9.20

Rock outcrop 3 0.00 486 0.01

Aquatic vegetation 0 0.00 245 0.00

Closed canopy evergreen forest/woodland 20,054 25.83 929,537 18.72

Needle-leaved evergreen mixed forest/woodland 8301 10.69 572,401 11.53

Pine woodland 0 0.00 21,505 0.43

Dry deciduous forest/woodland 409 0.53 45,830 0.92

Mesic deciduous forest/woodland 12,240 15.77 769,774 15.50

Dry mixed forest/woodland 54 0.07 45,931 0.93

Mesic mixed forest/woodland 2399 3.09 88,327 1.78

Grassland/pasture 1171 1.51 124,336 2.50

Cultivated land 3562 4.59 603,971 12.16

Urban development 700 0.90 96,969 1.95

Urban residential 346 0.45 176,845 3.56

Wet evergreen 0 0.00 6284 0.13

Total 77,629 100.00 4,964,993 100.00

Source: USGS (2001)
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-8 April 2011

2.2.2 Transmission-Line Corridors

The existing transmission system supporting VCSNS Unit 1 has ten 230-kV lines with one 

115-kV line connecting the site to the transmission system. In addition, transmission-line 

corridors owned by Duke Energy pass to the northwest of the site but are not connected to 

Unit 1. The existing transmission systems owned by SCE&G and Santee Cooper (the Stateowned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority) in 

the vicinity of the VCSNS site are shown in Figure 2-4. 

SCE&G and Santee Cooper had defined macrocorridors for the proposed transmission lines 

prior to the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) but had not yet defined specific rights-ofway within those macrocorridors. Both have now defined specific rights-of-way for each 

proposed transmission line. To avoid possible confusion, this final EIS uses the following terms 

in distinct contexts when discussing transmission lines: 

• “Route” refers to the general course of a transmission line over a landscape. 

• “Right-of-way” refers to a two-dimensional polygon defined by the legal boundaries of 

property ownership or an easement for a transmission line. 

• “Corridor” refers to a two-dimensional polygon defined by the limits of routine vegetation 

management for a transmission line.

Right-of-way refers to the entire area under the control or ownership of the utility and corridor 

refers to the specific and potentially smaller area that will be maintained as appropriate for the 

transmission lines within it. Thus, right-of-way and corridor might be the same along some 

sections, but when the two differ, right-of-way will be the more inclusive area. “Macrocorridor” 

refers to the broader polygons for transmission-line development mentioned in the draft EIS. 

The addition of Units 2 and 3 to the VCSNS site would require six new 230-kV lines (three for 

Unit 2, three for Unit 3) (SCE&G 2010a). Routes have been sited for the expected new 

transmission-line corridors and are illustrated in Figure 2-5.

The planned routes of the new transmission lines are described as follows (SCE&G 2010a):

• VCSNS-Killian – This SCE&G line would be routed from the VCSNS site to the vicinity of 

Winnsboro and then generally follow the I-77 corridor to connect to the existing Killian 

substation near Killian, South Carolina, running 37 mi southeast of the plant and northeast 

of Columbia. Even though 31 mi of the new line would be built entirely within existing 

SCE&G right-of-way, portions of the right-of-way would have to be cleared of forest 

vegetation in order to establish a corridor for the new line. All but the final 6 mi of this line 

would be routed within existing SCE&G corridors. The 6 mi would be built in new right-ofway not adjacent to any existing transmission-line right-of-way (SCE&G 2010b). However, 

portions of the new right-of-way would be located immediately adjacent to existing roads or 

other utilities.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-9 NUREG-1939

Figure 2-4. Existing VCSNS Unit 1 Transmission Lines (SCE&G 2009a)
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-10 April 2011

Figure 2-5. VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Expected New Transmission-Line Routes (based on 

MACTEC 2009 and Pike 2010)
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-11 NUREG-1939

• VCSNS-Flat Creek – This Santee Cooper line would connect to the existing Winnsboro 

substation near Winnsboro, then to the existing Richburg switching station near Great Falls, 

South Carolina, and finally to the existing Flat Creek substation east of Lancaster, South 

Carolina, running about 72 mi in length (SCE&G 2010b). About 17 mi of new corridor 

running immediately adjacent to the existing corridor would be required (MACTEC 2009).

• VCSNS-St. George No. 1 and No. 2 – These SCE&G lines originate at the proposed 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 switchyard and run generally south to a proposed new substation 

near St. George, South Carolina. The St. George No. 1 line would share the existing Parr 

Hydro-Chapin and Saluda Hydro-Newberry corridors with the new SCE&G Lake Murray No. 

2 line to the Lake Murray substation near the eastern shore of Lake Murray. The St. George 

No. 2 line would run parallel with the existing Lake Murray No. 1 line from the VCSNS Units 

2 and 3 switchyard to the Lake Murray substation. The St. George No. 1 and No. 2 lines 

would intersect near the Killian substation and run in a common corridor through existing 

rights-of-way to a proposed substation near St. George, South Carolina (Pike 2010). These 

transmission lines would be built entirely within existing transmission-line rights-of-way

(SCE&G 2010b).

• VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2 – This SCE&G line would connect to the existing Lake Murray 

switchyard for the McMeekin and Saluda Hydro stations near the eastern boundary of Lake 

Murray. About 22 mi of new line would be built within the existing Parr Hydro-Chapin and 

Saluda Hydro-Newberry corridors, and would be co-located with the proposed St. George 

No. 2 line (SCE&G 2010b). Even though the new line would be built entirely within existing 

SCE&G right-of-way, portions of the right-of-way would have to be cleared of forest 

vegetation in order to establish a corridor for the new line.

• VCSNS-Varnville – This 167-mi Santee Cooper line would connect to the existing Pomaria 

substation, then to Sandy Run substation near Sandy Run, then to the Orangeburg 

substation in Orangeburg, then to the proposed Byrds substation near St. George, and then 

to the existing Varnville substation near Varnville, South Carolina, in Hampton County

(SCE&G 2010b). About 22 mi of new corridor running immediately adjacent to the existing 

corridor and about 0.5 mi of entirely new corridor would be required (MACTEC 2009). 

Table 2-2 and Table 2-3 characterize the representative land uses in the potentially affected

transmission-line corridors for SCE&G’s and Santee Cooper’s corridors, respectively. These 

values are based on independent siting studies performed on behalf of each utility (Pike 2010; 

MACTEC 2009). Table 2-4 summarizes the classification of prime farmland in the affected 

transmission-line corridors. Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical 

and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is 

also available for these uses, or under defined conditions would be available for these uses

(7 CFR Part 657). In addition to Federally designated as prime farmland, farmland of statewide 

importance has been designated by individual State and County agricultural boards as being 

especially important to food crop production regionally (7 CFR Part 657). None of the 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-12 April 2011

designated farmland resources found in the proposed transmission-line corridors is currently 

cultivated, nor would cultivation be precluded in the future (Pike 2010). 

Apart from the proposed transmission facilities, no other offsite areas would experience landuse impacts from the proposed action.

Table 2-2. Land Use and Land Cover in Affected SCE&G Transmission-Line Corridors

Land Use/Land Cover

VCSNS-Killian

VCSNS-Lake 

Murray No. 2/

St. George No. 1

VCSNSSt. George No. 2VCSNS-St. George 

No. 1 and No. 2

Acres Pct. Acres Pct. Acres Pct. Acres Pct.

Fresh water 0.59 0.16 6.43 2.29 2.11 0.89 14.84 1.25

Marsh/emergent wetland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.31 1.29

Pocosin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00

Swamp 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.78 1.16

Bottomland/floodplain forest 11.77 3.22 9.23 3.29 6.22 2.61 58.28 4.91

Wet scrub/shrub thicket 1.24 0.34 4.65 1.66 0.67 0.28 56.47 4.76

Dry scrub/shrub thicket 22.98 6.30 23.71 8.44 16.23 6.82 175.32 14.78

Sandy bare soil 5.81 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Open canopy/recently 

cleared forest

84.08 23.04 45.44 16.17 37.99 15.96 104.78 8.83

Closed canopy evergreen 

forest/woodland

40.27 11.03 21.90 7.79 27.83 11.69 21.84 1.84

Needle-leaved evergreen 

mixed forest/woodland

35.90 9.84 48.48 17.25 39.90 16.76 39.18 3.30

Pine woodland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.32 0.62

Dry deciduous 

forest/woodland

9.89 2.71 2.92 1.04 1.26 0.53 8.19 0.69

Mesic deciduous 

forest/woodland

46.78 12.82 41.01 14.59 44.61 18.74 49.79 4.20

Dry mixed forest/woodland 0.32 0.09 0.45 0.16 2.68 1.12 18.65 1.57

Mesic mixed 

forest/woodland

1.93 0.53 22.12 7.87 18.78 7.89 44.08 3.72

Grassland/pasture 11.38 3.12 18.02 6.41 13.78 5.79 40.22 3.39

Cultivated land 27.76 7.60 11.85 4.22 7.19 3.02 300.36 25.33

Urban development 48.46 13.28 7.23 2.57 6.22 2.61 55.36 4.67

Urban residential 15.78 4.32 17.55 6.24 12.54 5.27 159.67 13.46

Wet evergreen 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.55 0.21

Total acreage 365.0 100.00 281.0 100.00 238.0 100.00 1,186.0 100.00

Route length (mi) 37.0 22.0 18.0 76.0

Average corridor width (ft) 81 105 109 129
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-13 NUREG-1939

Table 2-3. Land Use in Affected Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Corridors

Land Use/Land Cover

VCSNS-Flat Creek VCSNS-Varnville

Acres Percent Acres Percent

Fresh water 13.70 1.25 15.31 0.60

Marine water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Marsh/emergent wetland 0.14 0.01 50.91 2.01

Pocosin 0.00 0.00 2.67 0.11

Swamp 0.00 0.00 62.93 2.48

Bottomland/floodplain forest 36.25 3.32 189.71 7.47

Wet soil 0.81 0.07 0.00 0.00

Wet scrub/shrub thicket 8.27 0.76 140.84 5.55

Dry scrub/shrub thicket 58.01 5.31 298.62 11.76

Sandy bare soil 2.42 0.22 0.00 0.00

Open canopy/recently cleared forest 286.40 26.19 422.03 16.63

Rock outcrop 5.25 0.48 0.00 0.00

Closed canopy evergreen forest/woodland 226.62 20.72 173.64 6.84

Needle-leaved evergreen mixed forest/woodland 99.98 9.14 186.97 7.37

Pine woodland 3.76 0.34 2.76 0.11

Dry deciduous forest/woodland 3.44 0.31 26.93 1.06

Mesic deciduous forest/woodland 171.91 15.72 148.04 5.83

Dry mixed forest/woodland 0.00 0.00 35.47 1.40

Mesic mixed forest/woodland 5.69 0.52 65.29 2.57

Grassland/pasture 60.73 5.55 89.95 3.54

Cultivated land 81.38 7.44 413.28 16.28

Urban development 17.72 1.62 44.33 1.75

Urban residential 11.05 1.01 146.24 5.76

Wet evergreen 0.00 0.00 22.60 0.89

Total acreage 1094 100.00 2539 100.00

Route length (mi) 72 167

Average corridor width (ft) 125 125

Source: USGS 2001; MACTEC 2008, 2009; SCE&G 2010c; review team analysis of GIS-based routing data supplied 

by the applicant. Totals affected by rounding.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-14 April 2011

Table 2-4. Special Farmland Designations in Proposed Transmission-Line Corridors

Farmland Classification

VCSNSKillian

VCSNS-Lake 

Murray 

No. 2 and 

St. George No. 1

VCSNS-St. 

George 

No. 2

VCSNS-St. 

George No. 1 

and No. 2

VCSNSFlat 

Creek

VCSNSVarnville Total

Prime farmland (ac) 94 70 34 350 221 645 1414

Farmland of statewide 

importance (ac)

38 119 99 268 171 760 1455

Other conditional prime 

farmland (ac)

10 17 11 88 64 258 448

Source: MACTEC 2009; Pike 2010. Totals affected by rounding.

2.2.3 The Region

The region surrounding the VCSNS site is shown in Figure 2-2. The region consists of the area 

within the 50-mi radius of the VCSNS site. It includes several heavily populated counties, but 

much of the region surrounding the VCSNS has a low population density. Columbia, the State 

capital of South Carolina, Newberry, the County Seat of Newberry County, and Winnsboro, the 

County Seat of Fairfield County, are shown in Figure 2-2.

All or portions of 22 counties are within 50 mi of the VCSNS site, 21 of which are in South 

Carolina. The largest cities in the region include Columbia (population 124,818 in 2007) 26 mi 

to the southeast, Newberry (population 10,893 in 2007) 14 mi to the west, Lexington (population 

14,995 in 2007) 15 mi south, and Winnsboro (population 3564 in 2007) 14 mi east of the site 

(SCBCB 2009e). The major interstate highways running near the site are I-20, I-26, and I-77. 

The closest commercial or public general aviation airports located within the VCSNS region are 

the Fairfield County Airport 15 mi to the east, Newberry County Airport 18.6 mi to the west, 

Columbia Metropolitan Airport 27 mi to the south, and Columbia Owens Airport 27 mi south of 

the site. 

Table 2-1 characterizes the existing land uses in the affected region. The State of South 

Carolina mandates that cities and counties have comprehensive land-use plans to govern 

regional growth and associated commercial and residential development. As a result, zoning 

ordinances are in effect in all of the affected counties to ensure that new development is 

managed and conforms to the intent of the comprehensive plans.

2.3 Water

This section describes the hydrologic processes and waterbodies in and around the VCSNS 

site, the existing water use, and the quality of water in the proposed Units 2 and 3 environment. 

Building activities would make use of or affect local groundwater, surface water, and public 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-15 NUREG-1939

water supplies. During proposed Units 2 and 3 operations, makeup water for cooling and other 

plant uses would be drawn from the Monticello Reservoir. Units 2 and 3 liquid effluents, except 

for water-treatment plant return flow, would discharge to the Parr Reservoir. The watertreatment plant return flow would discharge to Monticello Reservoir. The VCSNS site and these 

hydrologic features are shown in Figure 2-6. 

Descriptions of the building impacts, operating impacts, cumulative impacts, and alternative 

sites and alternative plant systems are provided in sections of Chapters 4, 5, 7, and 9, 

respectively. Sections of these chapters that relate to hydrology draw from information 

presented in this chapter and the VCSNS Environmental Report (ER) (SCE&G 2010a).

Elevations in this EIS are reported based on either the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 

1929 (NGVD29) or the National American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). In the vicinity of 

the VCSNS site, the NGVD29 is 0.696 ft lower than the NAVD88. For example, VCSNS Units 2 

and 3 have a design plant grade of 400 ft NAVD88 and 400.696 ft NGVD29.

2.3.1 Hydrology

This section describes the site-specific and regional hydrologic features that would affect, or be 

altered by, construction, preconstruction, and operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The 

hydrologic conditions at the proposed location for Units 2 and 3 are described in Section 2.3 of 

the VCSNS ER (SCG&E 2010a) and in Section 2.4 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)

(SCE&G 2010b). 

2.3.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology

Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8 show the location of the VCSNS site with respect to the Broad River 

and its watershed. The VCSNS site is located approximately 150 mi from the Atlantic Ocean. 

The only major river near VCSNS is the Broad River, which is approximately 1 mi west of the 

proposed location of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The river reach near the VCSNS site is 

approximately 2000 ft wide and has a maximum depth of about 15 ft. The Broad River is 

impounded by Parr Shoals Dam (Figure 2-3), which is located about 2 mi downstream of the 

proposed locations of the two new units. Above the Parr Shoals Dam, the Broad River 

watershed area is approximately 4550 mi2 (SCG&E 2010a).

The Broad River originates in North Carolina at Lake Lure in the Blue Ridge Mountains. The 

Broad River drainage is mostly composed of forest and agricultural lands. The Broad and the 

Saluda rivers combine to form the Congaree River near Columbia, South Carolina, about 28 mi 

southeast of the site (SCG&E 2010a). The Congaree River combines with the Wateree River to 

form the Santee River, which discharges to the Atlantic Ocean. 
NUREG-1939

2-16 April 2011

Figure 2-6. Major Hydrologic Features Within the 6-mi Radius of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCG&E 
April 2011

2-17 NUREG-1939

Figure 2-7. Major Hydrologic Features Within the 50-mi Radius of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCG&E 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-18 April 2011

Figure 2-8. Broad River Basin Upstream of the VCSNS Site, Showing the Nearest StreamFlow Gauging Stations (SCG&E 2009a)
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-19 NUREG-1939

During the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, makeup water for the circulating-water 

system would be obtained from the Monticello Reservoir whose storage is controlled by 

operation of the FPSF and from withdrawals and exchanges with the Broad River/Parr 

Reservoir. The intake structure for Units 2 and 3 would be located on the southern shore of 

Monticello Reservoir. Characteristics of Parr Reservoir and Monticello Reservoir are listed in 

Table 2-5. Monticello Reservoir was created by four dams (referred to as Dams A, B, C, and D 

as noted in Table 2-5) on Frees Creek at the southern end of the reservoir (SCE&G 2010a).

Table 2-5. Summary of Reservoir Characteristics

Characteristic Parr Reservoir Monticello Reservoir

Created by Parr Shoals Dam Dams A, B, C, and D

Surface area 4400 ac 6800 ac (including a 300-ac subimpoundment 

for recreational use) (SCE&G 2010a)

Usable storage at crest elevation 29,000 ac-ft 45,000 ac-ft

Drainage area 4550 mi2 17.4 mi2

Evaporation 50 ac-ft/day 

(25 cfs)

65 ac-ft/day (33 cfs), plus 44 ac-ft/day (22 cfs) 

from condenser water

The existing VCSNS Unit 1 withdraws water from and discharges it to Monticello Reservoir. 

Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would withdraw water from Monticello Reservoir and discharge 

it to Parr Reservoir. The discharges to Parr Reservoir would include Units 2 and 3 coolingwater system blowdown, liquid discharges from the radwaste building, industrial wastewater, 

and sanitary effluent. A small discharge from the proposed water-treatment plant would be 

made into Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a).

The two nearest active U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging stations are at Alston 

(monitored from October 1896 to 1907, then 1980 to present) downstream of the VCSNS site on 

the Broad River and at Carlisle (monitored from October 1938 to present) upstream of the 

VCSNS site. A third nearby gauging station (Richtex), located downstream from the Alston 

station, was monitored beginning in October of 1925 but monitoring was discontinued in 1983. 

The locations of these stations are shown in Figure 2-8. SCE&G summarized flow 

characteristics for the Broad River at these three gauging stations (SCE&G 2010a) (see 

Table 2-6). The summary data reported for Alston and Carlisle in the VCSNS ER are consistent 

with those in Water Resources Data, South Carolina, Water Year 2005: Water-Data Report SC05-1 published by the USGS in 2006 (Cooney et al. 2006). There is seasonality in Broad River 

flows. The review team determined that about 64 percent of the annual Broad River flow (at 

Alston, South Carolina) occurs during the 6 months (December to May) while 36 percent occurs 

during the remaining months. The review team based these calculations on data presented by 

the Cooney et al (2006).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-20 April 2011

Table 2-6. Broad River Flow Characteristics at Three Gauges Near the VCSNS Site. All 

values in the table are reported in cubic feet per second.

Flow Characteristic Carlisle Alston Richtex

Mean annual daily flow 3880 6302 6155

Highest annual mean flow 5977 11,750 NA

Lowest annual mean flow 1255 2153 NA

Annual 7-day minimum 220 200 NA

Maximum mean daily flow 114,000 130,000 NA

Instantaneous maximum flow 123,000 140,000 228,000

Source: SCE&G 2010a.

NA = not applicable.

The reported Broad River flow characteristics are comparable to those independently calculated 

by the review team. The values are based on all data that were available as of June 22, 2009, 

and are presented in Table 2-7. The USGS data sets only reflect daily averages, so the 

maximum instantaneous flows are not included in the following table. Maximum and minimum 

values from the data set were determined from the processed daily values; the minimum 7-day 

average was similarly determined.

Table 2-7. Broad River Flow Characteristics Calculated by the Review Team (cfs) 

Flow Characteristic Carlisle Alston Richtex

Mean daily 3767 5950 6228 

Highest monthly mean 6088 12,541 14,209 

Highest daily mean 114,000 130,000 211,000

Lowest daily mean 44 48 149

Minimum 7-day within calendar year 206 200 593 

The VCSNS ER reports that the annual precipitation in the region is about 45 in. and runoff is 

reported to be approximately 18 in. These averages are consistent with those reported by the 

South Carolina State Climatology Office (SCSCO 2009). The long-term annual runoff amounts 

for the Broad River as reported by the USGS for Carlisle and Alston are 18.89 in. and 17.78 in., 

respectively.

Historical flooding is described in ER Section 2.3.1.1.2. Of the two flood seasons – January to 

April and July to December – the latter, associated with the hurricane season, has yielded the 

larger floods. The ER references peak flow and water levels at the USGS gauging stations 

(SCE&G 2010a). Corresponding flow values for the Broad River at Parr Shoals Dam were 

estimated using measured flows at nearby stations and scaling them by the ratios of watershed 

areas from gauged sites (Richtex and Alston). 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-21 NUREG-1939

Historical low flows are reported for USGS gauging stations located at Alston and Richtex. 

SCE&G reported lowest daily means at Richtex and Alston of 149 and 48 cfs, respectively. 

The latter value was reported to have been reduced due to active withdrawal by the FPSF at the 

time of the measurement; the next lowest daily reported discharge at Alston is 156 cfs, which is 

44 cfs below the annual 7-day minimum reported by the USGS. The review team independently 

verified that 156 cfs was the second lowest value in the Alston data set and that 149 cfs is the 

minimum value in the Richtex data set.

SCE&G estimated a 100-year minimum flow at Richtex of 125 cfs. The review team confirmed 

this determination. 

The 7-day low flow estimated at Parr Shoals Dam is 190 cfs using the synthetic record 

produced by SCE&G (as previously described). The 100-year daily mean low-flow estimate 

was 125 cfs; this estimate was based on annual low daily mean flows. When this analysis was 

repeated using annual minimum 7-day low flows, the 100-year low flow was estimated to be 

430 cfs. The USGS reported a 7Q10 low flow (lowest flow for 7 consecutive days expected to 

occur once per decade) for Alston of 853 cfs (SCE&G 2010a). 

The flow of water between Parr Reservoir and Monticello Reservoir is controlled by the FPSF. 

The Parr Reservoir pool elevation can vary by as much as 10 ft/day based on FPSF operations; 

the average daily fluctuation is about 4 ft. Daily fluctuation in Monticello Reservoir due to FPSF 

operations can cause pool elevation to range from 420.5 to 425 ft NGVD29.

Bathymetric surveys were made in 2006 in both Parr and Monticello reservoirs to map areas in 

the vicinity of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 discharge outlet and intake structures, respectively. 

These surveys indicate that Monticello Reservoir rapidly deepens in front of the proposed 

location of the intake structure (deepens by 25 ft within 125 ft of the shore) (SCE&G 2010a, 

Figure 2.3-10). The surveys also indicate that the proposed discharge diffuser would extend 

into a relatively deep channel (as much as 20 ft below reservoir water elevation) along the 

eastern shore of Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a).

2.3.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology

Section 2.8 of this chapter briefly describes the geologic setting of the VCSNS site. VCSNS 

FSAR Section 2.5 (SCE&G 2010d) provides a detailed description of the geology and geologic 

history of the site and surrounding area. As described in Section 2.8, the VCSNS site is located 

in the Piedmont physiographic province (see Figure 2-9) and has crystalline bedrock

(predominantly igneous granitic rocks with some metamorphic rocks) mantled by saprolite and 

residual soils. Based on regional descriptions and site characterization in this area (as 

described below), two groundwater zones were identified: an uppermost saprolite/shallow 

bedrock zone (which contains the water table) and a bedrock zone in fractured crystalline rocks 

(see Figure 2-10).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-22 April 2011

Figure 2-9. Physiographic Provinces of South Carolina and Hydrogeologic Provinces of the 

Southeastern United States Showing the VCSNS Site Location (SCE&G 2009a)
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-23 NUREG-1939

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

Physiographic Province of the Southeastern United States (USGS 1990)

Regional Groundwater Description

The USGS Groundwater Atlas (USGS 1990) provides a regional description (Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, and South Carolina) of the aquifers within the Piedmont physiographic province, which 

underlies the VCSNS site. The USGS Groundwater Atlas also provides a generalized 

conceptual model of groundwater flow in the Piedmont physiographic province (see Figure 2-11

[from Figure 92 of USGS 1990]). The atlas describes the aquifers in the Piedmont 

physiographic province as generally unconfined with the water table forming a “subdued replica 

of surface topography.” Groundwater recharges on the hilltops and slopes (everywhere except 

the lower parts of valleys) and “discharges as springs, seeps, baseflow to streams, and as 

seepage to lakes” (USGS 1990).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-24 April 2011

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

of the Southeastern United States (USGS 1990)

According to the atlas, the crystalline bedrock has “few primary pore spaces, and the porosity 

and permeability of the unweathered and unfractured bedrock are extremely low” (USGS 1990). 

The atlas explains that groundwater from this region is obtained from the regolith (which 

includes the residual soils and saprolite) and fractures in the bedrock (see Figure 2-11). Well 

yields in the Piedmont physiographic province of the southeastern United States are described 

as follows (USGS 1990):

Although some wells completed in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge aquifers yield 

almost 500 gallons per minute, the average reported well yield is much less and 

generally is in the range of about 15 to 20 gallons per minute. Yields of largediameter wells drilled for public water supply average about 30 gallons per 

minute. Part of the variation in yield depends upon the type of rock in which the 

well is completed.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-25 NUREG-1939

The USGS Groundwater Atlas summarizes well yield data from different rock types for one site 

located in the Piedmont physiographic province (Greenwood County, South Carolina) (USGS 

1990) that range from 0 to 150 gpm; however, the reported median well yields are less than 

30 gpm. The USGS Groundwater Atlas describes well yields from the regolith as being related 

to the thickness and topography (USGS 1990) with larger volumes (50 gpm or more) occurring 

in valleys with regolith thicknesses greater than 50 ft and only “small volumes of water” for wells 

on slopes and hills where the regolith is generally thin. In the South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) 2006 South Carolina Annual Water Use 

Summary, Butler et al. (2007) state that for the Piedmont physiographic province “groundwater 

occurs in the fractures of the bedrock and overlying soil and saprolite” and “[t]he saprolite 

grades downward through a highly permeable transition zone to unaltered parent bedrock. 

Groundwater conditions of the bedrock are dependent on the number of fractures and degree of 

interconnection of the fracture systems.” Comparing well yields in the physiographic provinces 

of South Carolina (see Figure 2-9), the report also states that, “[i]n general, wells in the Blue 

Ridge and Piedmont regions yield little water when compared to wells drilled in the Coastal 

Plain owing to the inherently low porosity and permeability of the crystalline rock present in the 

upstate.”

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) South Carolina Water Plan 

(Badr et al. 2004) describes the aquifers in the Piedmont physiographic province as follows: 

“[t]he storage capacity of fractures and saprolite is very small compared to that of the Coastal 

Plain aquifers.” In addition, Badr et al. (2004) state that wells in the fractured bedrock of the 

Piedmont physiographic province “typically yield only between 5 and 15 gpm.” 

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website (EPA 2009a), no solesource aquifers are designated in the area.

Onsite Groundwater Description

The hydrogeology of the VCSNS site as described by SCE&G in its ER (SCE&G 2010a) is 

consistent with the regional descriptions of the aquifers listed above. Detailed hydrogeologic 

characterization was conducted at the site as part of the Unit 1 characterization and 

construction and extensive preapplication subsurface characterization for proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2010a, ).

As part of the groundwater characterization of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 site, 31 

monitoring wells were installed with 22 completed in the saprolite/shallow bedrock zone (see 

Figure 2.3-26 in the SCE&G ER [2010a]) and 9 monitoring wells completed in the deep bedrock 

zone (see Figure 2.3-27 in the SCE&G ER [2010a]). This network contains five adjacent 

monitoring well pairs for saprolite/shallow bedrock zone and deep bedrock zone monitoring. 

Table 2.4-216 of the VCSNS FSAR (SCE&G 2010b) provides the observation well details. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-26 April 2011

Groundwater levels were collected monthly for 13 months from this monitoring well network 

(from June 2006 to June 2007;see Table 2.3-20 of the ER [SCE&G 2010a]). SCE&G provided 

trend plots for the water levels measured in these wells (see Figures 2.3-28 and 2.3-29 of the 

ER [SCE&G 2010a]) and prepared four quarterly piezometric surface maps (June 2006, 

September 2006, December 2007, and March 2007) for the saprolite/shallow bedrock zone and 

the deep bedrock zone in the FSAR (SCE&G 2010b, Figures 2.4-237 to 2.4-244). Piezometric 

surface maps were also prepared for the last monthly water-level measurements in June 2007 

and are shown in Figures 2.3-30 and 2.3-31 of SCE&G’s ER (SCE&G 2010a). The piezometric 

surface maps are consistent with the regional conceptual model of groundwater in the Piedmont 

physiographic province from the USGS Groundwater Atlas (USGS 1990), described above, 

where the water table reflects a subdued version of the surface topography.

In general, the trend plots showed that the water levels were relatively constant during the 

monitoring period except for three wells that showed large increases. These increases were 

interpreted as being caused by slow recovery due to low permeability. One of these three

observation wells (OWs), OW-624, was screened in the saprolite/shallow bedrock zone and two 

wells, OW-233 and OW-627a, were screened in the deep bedrock zone. One shallow 

monitoring well in the network, OW-312, which was screened higher than the water table 

measured in other wells in its vicinity, was dry over the entire period. 

Based on the piezometric surface maps developed from the 2006-2007 water-level monitoring 

data at the site and using the most recent measurements to account for well recovery (Shown in 

Figures 2.3-30 and 2.3-31 of SCE&G’s ER [SCE&G 2010a]), it appears that the groundwater in 

the saprolite/shallow bedrock zone flows from the “ridgetops toward the drainage swales, with 

the piezometric surface approximately parallel to the topography” (SCE&G 2010b). The 

drainage swales include the two unnamed creeks to the northwest and southwest of the location 

for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and Mayo Creek to the east.

The vertical gradients from the five shallow and deep well pairs installed at the site for the June 

2006 to June 2007 monthly water-level measurements are depicted in VCSNS ER Figure 2.3-32 

(SCE&G 2010a). The largest calculated vertical gradients were for wells OW-621a/b and 

OW-627a/b, which are the farthest away from the ridgetops at the proposed locations of VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 and indicated a downward vertical flow direction; however based on the waterlevel data collected, one well may not have fully recovered from installation during this waterlevel monitoring period (deep bedrock well OW-627a).

Aquifer Material Properties

Field hydraulic testing consisted of slug testing in 29 of the 31 observations wells installed 

around the site in both the saprolite/shallow bedrock zone and deep bedrock zone. Packer 

tests were conducted on four selected deep bedrock zone boreholes (SCE&G 2010a). 

American Society for Testing and Materials procedures were followed when conducting the slug 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-27 NUREG-1939

tests and packer tests (ASTM D4044 and D4630, respectively [SCE&G ER 2010a]). Slug tests 

were not conducted on 2 of the 31 observation wells because one well was dry and the other 

well was screened in fill and residual soil. The results of 8 of the 29 slug tests were identified as 

being invalid or unreliable (SCE&G 2010a). Hydraulic conductivity results, along with calculated 

minimum, maximum, and geometric mean values, from the analysis of the slug tests are 

reported in VCSNS ER Table 2.3-21 (SCE&G 2010a) and also described in the FSAR (SCE&G 

2010d). d For the slug tests, the maximum hydraulic conductivity result reported for each well 

was selected based on the highest value of either the falling head test or rising head test 

analysis. Overall the hydraulic conductivities measured for the saprolite/shallow bedrock zone 

were higher than the deep bedrock zone based on these tests. A general trend of decreasing 

hydraulic conductivity with increasing depth was seen from the slug test and packer test data for 

the deep bedrock zone (see Figure 2.4-246 of the VCSNS FSAR [SCE&G 2010b]).

Grain size, moisture content, specific gravity, and total porosity measured for residual soil and 

saprolite samples from the VCSNS site are listed in Table 2.3-23 of the VCSNS ER (SCE&G 

2010a). Porosity measurements for the fractured deep bedrock were estimated using mean 

values from a study conducted in the Piedmont physiographic province (SCE&G 2009p, 2010a).

Groundwater Pathways 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be situated on a hilltop near a groundwater divide, as indicated on

the piezometric surface maps (SCE&G 2010a, Figures 2.3-30 and 2.3-31). Based on the 

piezometric surface maps, groundwater flows off the hill toward the drainage swales of the 

unnamed creeks to the northwest and southwest of the proposed units and toward Mayo Creek 

on the east. Mayo Creek enters the Broad River downstream of the Parr Shoals Dam. 

Groundwater velocities are estimated from hydraulic gradients, hydraulic conductivity values 

based on hydraulic tests, and effective porosity estimates for the two groundwater zones. 

SCE&G provided conservative estimates for groundwater velocities and travel times along the 

primary and alternate groundwater pathways identified in Section 2.4.13 of the VCSNS FSAR 

(SCE&G 2010d). The staff’s description and evaluation of groundwater pathways and travel 

times will be documented in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER).

2.3.2 Water Use

This section describes the current water use in the vicinity of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

Permitting the use of water resources is regulated by the SCDHEC as part of its Water Quality

Protection Program (SCDHEC 2009a). If the groundwater withdrawals are inside a Capacity 

Use Area, such use falls under the SCDHEC Groundwater Use and Reporting Program 

(SCDHEC 2005). The VCSNS site is not in a capacity use area. Laws applicable to the use of 

groundwater near the VCSNS site include the Groundwater Use and Reporting Act (SC Code 

Ann. 49-5 2009). Applicable laws regarding the use of surface water include the South Carolina 

Surface Water Withdrawal and Reporting Act (SC Code Ann. 49-4 2009).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-28 April 2011

2.3.2.1 Surface-Water Use

Total (surface and ground) water use within South Carolina is reported by SCDHEC (SCDHEC 

2009a). These annual summaries include the previous years’ total water use. This use 

includes both consumptive and nonconsumptive water use. The totals are listed in Table 2-8

below. Additional details are included in ER Table 2.3-27 and ER Table 2.3-38 (SCE&G 

2010a). The data indicate a significant fluctuation in water usage on an annual basis and the 

dominance of surface-water usage. 

Table 2-8. Annual Water Use Within South Carolina

Year

Total

(trillion gallons)

Surface

(trillion gallons)

2001 11.8 11.7

2002 14.3 14.2

2003 22.9 22.8

2004 18.8 18.7

2005 20.4 20.4

2006 16.4 16.3

Source: SCDHEC 2009a

Local surface-water users include hydroelectric and thermal power industries and public water 

suppliers. Several hydroelectric projects use surface water, but not consumptively. Local 

surface-water sources are used by Fairfield, Newberry, and Richland Counties (Table 2-9). The 

total reported water use for these three counties in 2004 was 3.9 trillion gallons (SCE&G 

2010a). Fairfield County represents 83 percent of this use, the majority of which was 

hydroelectric power generation (SCDHEC 2009a). Local users of surface water in Fairfield 

County include the town of Winnsboro and VCSNS Unit 1. At a distance of approximately 28 mi 

along the Broad River from the VCSNS site, the City of Columbia is the closest downstream 

large user of surface water.

Table 2-9. Local and Downstream Surface-Water Users Reported by SCE&G for 2004

Users County Surface-Water Source

Town of Winnsboro Fairfield Sand Creek and 192-Acre Lake

VCSNS Unit 1 Fairfield Broad River transfers to Monticello Reservoir

City of Columbia Richland Broad River and Lake Murray

City of Newberry Newberry Saluda River

Town of Whitmire Newberry Duncan Creek and Enoree River

Parr Shoals Dam Fairfield Broad River

Source: SCE&G 2010a
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-29 NUREG-1939

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) establishes a minimum flow through Parr 

Shoals Dam. Modification of the FERC license would be necessary to establish use 

requirements at Parr and Monticello reservoirs for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 needs.

2.3.2.2 Groundwater Use

The SCDHEC 2006 South Carolina Water Use Report (Butler et al. 2007) states “Counties in 

the Piedmont and Blue Ridge physiographic provinces depend primarily on the abundant 

regional rainfall that recharges lakes, reservoirs and major river systems.” Correspondingly, 

these bodies of surface water serve as the main source of water for public supply, industry, 

agriculture, and power production in the Piedmont Region.

The SCDHEC reports water use annually by county and category (aquaculture, golf course, 

industrial, irrigation, mining, water supply, and other) (Butler et al. 2007). Water use for these 

categories is reported separately for groundwater and surface water. Table 2.3-26 of the 

VCSNS ER (SCE&G 2010a) summarizes groundwater use for counties within a 50-mi radius of 

the VCSNS site in 2004 (based on the SCDHEC water-use data) and shows that public water 

supplies are the largest users of groundwater reported for this region. The groundwater use in 

Fairfield County, reported for 2006 was 71.9 million gallons, which is about 10 percent of the 

reported value for water supply from surface water (722 million gallons) for this county (Butler et 

al. 2007). Of the groundwater water-use categories in this report, only the “water supply” 

category had values reported for groundwater use in Fairfield County in 2006.

Public water-supply wells within 6 mi of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are listed in FSAR Table 2.4-215 

(SCE&G 2010b) based on the SCDHEC database and EPA Safe Drinking Water Information 

System database for population served (see SCE&G 2009d). The table lists 14 active public 

water-supply wells in the area screened in the Piedmont physiographic province bedrock aquifer 

with design yields, where known, ranging from 5 to 29 gpm.

The ER states that “[g]roundwater within 2 miles of the site is primarily used for domestic 

purposes” (SCE&G 2010a). The closest groundwater well to the site is at a private residence 

approximately 1 mi east of the site (SCE&G 2010a). Information about pumping rates for 

private wells is not available (SCE&G 2009d), but well yields are generally limited in this area by 

the relatively low productivity of the aquifers in the Piedmont physiographic province, as 

discussed in Section 2.3.1.2 of this chapter. The ER states that “the nearest large groups of 

wells are located approximately 1.5 miles east of the site along SC 215 and in Jenkinsville 

approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the site” which serve “private residences and stores” 

(SCE&G 2010a). The ER also lists the Jenkinsville Water Company that has nine wells, three 

wells within 2 mi of the site.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-30 April 2011

Process and domestic water for VCSNS Unit 1 is supplied by Monticello Reservoir 

(SCE&G 2010a). Groundwater is pumped from two wells at a total rate of approximately 

26 gpm to reduce below-grade seepage in buildings in the protected area around Unit 1 

(SCE&G 2010a). Seepage in this area is due to the close proximity of the Monticello Reservoir 

(SCE&G 2010a).

2.3.3 Water Quality

The following sections describe the quality of surface-water and groundwater resources in the 

vicinity of the VCSNS site.

2.3.3.1 Surface-Water Quality

The bodies of surface water where water quality could be affected by VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are 

the Parr Reservoir/Broad River, Monticello Reservoir, and Mayo Creek. Smaller unnamed 

creeks on the site could also be affected by stormwater runoff. All blowdown from the VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 cooling towers, liquid discharges from the radwaste building, industrial 

wastewater, and sanitary effluent would discharge to Parr Reservoir. A new water-treatment 

plant would return a small amount of water to Monticello Reservoir. Mayo Creek and other 

unnamed creeks could temporarily receive discharge from the dewatering system during the 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 construction period. Some surface-water runoff from the proposed Units 

2 and 3 site would also drain to Mayo Creek and other unnamed creeks to the south and west 

(SCG&E 2010a).

Water quality in the Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir has been periodically 

evaluated by SCDHEC, SCDNR, and SCE&G. SCE&G has conducted monthly water-quality 

monitoring in Monticello Reservoir since 1995 (SCE&G 2010a). The SCDHEC measures 

turbidity, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, alkalinity, nitrogen, phosphorous, fecal 

coliform, organic carbon, and metals in the Parr Reservoir/Broad River as well as at two stations 

in Monticello Reservoir (Figure 2-12). As described earlier in Section 2.3.1, the Parr Reservoir 

is a run-of-the-river impoundment of the Broad River adjacent to the VCSNS site. Water is 

exchanged between Monticello and Parr reservoirs by the FPSF. Because of this exchange of 

water the long-term water quality will be similar between the reservoirs. The range of waterquality constituent concentrations measured in Monticello and Parr reservoirs in 2004 and 2005 

and in Monticello Reservoir in 2006 are shown in Table 2-10, Table 2-11, and Table 2-12. 

Monitoring data for the Monticello Reservoir demonstrate that these waters are low in common 

ions, hardness, dissolved solids, and conductivity. Analysis of these sampling data sets does 

not reveal any atypical values for waterbodies located in the Piedmont region (SCE&G 2010a). 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-31 NUREG-1939

Figure 2-12. The SCDHEC Water-Quality Sampling Locations near the VCSNS Site 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-32 April 2011

Table 2-10. Surface-Water-Quality Data for 2004

Analyzed Parameters

Monticello Reservoir Parr Reservoir

Sample Location 

B-327

Sample Location 

B-328

Sample Location 

B-345

Sample Location 

B-346

Temperature (°C)/(°F) 9.3°–31.6°C 8.9°–31.2°C 8.0°–29.2° C 7.0°–28° C

48.7°–88.9°F 48°–88.2°F 46.4°–84.6°F 44.6°–82.4°F

Turbidity (NTU) 3.0–12.0 1.3–4.9 4.6–46 6.4–95

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 6.38–12.72 6.99–13.25 4.95–11.50 Less than QL–11.90

BOD (mg/L) Less than QL–2.0 All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL

pH 7.11–8.68 7.41–8.11 6.95–7.66 7.12–7.68

Alkalinity, carbonate as CaCO3 (mg/L) 17–25 23–24 16–26 14–25

Total Nitrogen (NH3) (mg/L) Less than QL–0.50 Less than QL–0.20 Less than QL–0.20 Less than QL–0.50

Total N (Kjeldahl) (mg/L) 0.22–0.60 0.38–0.74 0.23–0.48 0.14–0.61

Total N (nitrite/nitrate) (mg/L) 0.11–0.46 Less than QL–0.062 0.25–0.51 0.28–0.58

Total phosphorous (mg/L) Less than QL–0.039 Less than QL–0.021 Less than QL–0.052 0.030–0.13

Total fecal coliform (# cells/100 mL) Less than QL–7 Less than QL–32 2 – 140 Less than QL–240

Total organic carbon (mg/L) 2.4–3.2 4.7–5.2 2.2–2.9 2.0–3.3

Cadmium, total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL

Chromium, total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL

Copper, total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL

Iron, total (μg/L) 130–600 42–160 220–880 450–1100

Lead, total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL Less than QL All less than QL

Manganese, total (μg/L) Less than QL–18 Less than QL–44 20–40 33–50

Mercury, total (μg/L) All less than QL Less than QL–19 All less than QL All less than QL

Nickel, total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL

Zinc, total (μg/L) Less than QL–21 All less than QL Less than QL–48 All less than QL

Sources: EPA 2006a; SCE&G 2010a

Note: Sample depths 0.3 m

NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units; BOD = biochemical oxygen demand; QL = quantification limit; < = less than
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-33 NUREG-1939

Table 2-11. Surface-Water-Quality Data for 2005

Analyzed Parameter

Monticello Reservoir

Sample Location

B-327 Result

Parr Reservoir

Sample Location

B-345 Result

Temperature (°C)/(°F) 11.4°–32°C 10.6°C–29.3°C

52.5°F–89.6°F 51.1°F–84.7°F

Turbidity (NTU) 2.5–12 6.5–47

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 5.15–10.92 4.32–10.52

BOD (mg/L) All less than QL All less than QL

pH (SU) 6.9–8.5 6.7–7.88

Total nitrogen (NH3) (mg/L) <QL–0.2 <QL–0.25

Total N (Kjeldahl) (mg/L) 0.21–0.53 0.24–0.56

Total N (nitrite/nitrate) (mg/L) 0.14–0.59 0.27– 0.62

Total phosphorous (mg/L) <QL–0.038 0.027–0.083

Hardness, Ca & Mg-total (mg/L) 14 15

Alkalinity, carbonate as CaCO3, total (mg/L) 17–24 17–24

Cadmium, total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL

Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) <QL–3.2 3.0–3.9

Chromium, total (μg/L) All less than QL <L–25

Copper, total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL

Iron, total (μg/L) 150–350 330–1800

Lead, total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL

Nickel, total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL

Zinc, total (μg/L) <QL–10 All less than QL

Total fecal coliform (# cells/100 mL) <QL–100 2–480

Enterococcus group bacteria, total (# cells/100 mL) <QL–12 <QL–310

Sources: EPA 2006a; SCE&G 2010a

NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units; BOD = biochemical oxygen demand; SU = standard units; QL = quantification 

limit; < = less than
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-34 April 2011

Table 2-12. Monticello Reservoir Water-Quality Data for 2006

Analyzed Parameter Result Analyzed Parameter Result

Antimony (μg/L) <QL Nickel (μg/L) <QL 

Arsenic (μg/L) <QL Potassium (μg/L) 2206 

Barium (μg/L) 17.7 Selenium (μg/L) <QL 

Beryllium (μg/L) <QL Silver (μg/L) <QL 

Cadmium (μg/L) <QL Sodium (μg/L) 10,280 

Calcium (μg/L) 3425 Thallium (μg/L) <QL 

Chromium (μg/L) <QL Zinc (μg/L) <QL 

Copper (μg/L) <QL Silica (μg/L) 8025 

Iron (μg/L) 101 Sulfate (mg/L) 4.3 

Lead (μg/L) <QL Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 63 

Magnesium (μg/L) 1856 Total Hardness (Calcium) (mg/L) 16.2 

Manganese (μg/L) <QL Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 3 

Mercury (liquid) (μg/L) <QL Turbidity (nephelometric turbidity units) 2.3 

Ammonia-N (mg/L) 0.21 Platinum-Cobalt (SU) 15 

Chlorophyll a (mg/L) 0.00690 Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 1.7 

Ortho-phosphorous (mg/L) 0.034 Strontium (mg/L) 0.038 

Phosphorous (mg/L) 0.021 Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L) <QL 

BOD 5-Day (mg/L) <QL Cyanide (mg/L) <QL 

Fecal Coliform-MF (# cells/100 mL) <QL 

Source: SCE&G 2010a

Water sample also analyzed for volatile organics (Method 624), semi-volatile organics (Method 625), and for 

pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyls (Method 608). All parameter results were below laboratory quantitative limits 

levels.

< = less than; QL = quantification limit; SU = standard units; BOD = biochemical oxygen demand

The SCDHEC regularly assesses water quality in the Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and 

Monticello Reservoir and compares results to State water-quality standards (SCDHEC 2008a, 

b). The standards are used to assemble a Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired 

waters based on metal concentrations, pH, dissolved oxygen levels, organic elements, fecal 

coliform and organism tissue evaluations, and the presence of biota. The variability of pH in the 

Monticello Reservoir was such that it was listed as impaired (aquatic life use would not be 

supported) (SCDHEC 2008b). Stations B-046 on the Broad River near Carlisle and B-345 in 

Parr Reservoir were considered impaired due to elevated copper level and/or potential 

degradation of the aquatic life uses standards established by the Clean Water Act and 

SCDHEC. Parr Reservoir station B-346 was included in the list as impaired because of 

elevated total phosphorus concentrations (SCDHEC 2008b).
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-35 NUREG-1939

Monthly water-temperature profiles in Monticello Reservoir have been measured by SCE&G 

since 1991 (SCE&G 2010a). Measurement locations were selected to characterize the 

circulation and thermal aspects of the reservoir near the VCSNS Unit 1 intake, discharge canal, 

and a control site. Other water-quality parameters were also monitored (pH, conductivity, 

dissolved oxygen). Monticello Reservoir temperature data are presented in detail in Section 2.3 

of the ER (SCE&G 2010a). Most of the reservoir, represented by a station near the Unit 1 

intake and a station away from Unit 1 or FPSF influence, can be briefly characterized as varying 

from about 50°F in winter months up to 85°F at the surface in summer. Through spring and 

midsummer, temperatures at the 50-ft depth were up to 12°F cooler than the surface; other 

times of the year, little variation with depth was observed (SCE&G 2010a).

Broad River water-temperature data are available from the USGS stations in the area (Richtex, 

Alston, and Carlisle) (see Figure 2-8). Analysis of these data sets suggests that the water 

temperatures in Parr Reservoir varied seasonally from 38.3°F to 86°F. To independently 

characterize the water temperatures in Parr Reservoir, the daily water temperature record at 

Carlisle gauging station was examined. This is the closest station to Parr Reservoir with a 

recent and long observational record (1983-2009). For each year of data, the daily records 

were averaged over a 3-month rolling period. Then monthly statistics (mean, minimum, and 

maximum) were computed over all years for each rolling 3-month period. The lowest 3-month 

average for February to March was 43°F and the highest for summer (July-August) was 84°F.

Sediment transport within the Broad River has not been measured. Changes in land-use 

patterns since the 1800s have affected the soil erosion in the watershed (Kovacik and Winberry 

1987; NCDWQ 1998). Parr Reservoir bed sediment grain-size analysis was reported in the ER, 

Section 2.3.1.1.6 (SCE&G 2010a). The reservoir bed material is primarily clay, clay-silt, sand, 

sand-silt; some gravel was also noted. This characterization is consistent with that of the USGS 

(USGS 2003). No bedload sediment transport measurements are available for the Broad River. 

Measurements of Broad River total suspended solids are reported by SCDHEC once every 

2 years. The water-quality sampling stations closest to VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are B-047 (12 mi 

upstream of Parr Shoals Dam) and B-046 (21 mi upstream of Parr Shoals Dam), as shown in 

Figure 2-8 (SCE&G 2010a).

Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity in Mayo Creek, measured during 

macroinvertebrate surveys conducted in 2008 and 2009, are provided in Table 2-13 (CBS 

2009b). These data were consistent with earlier measurements made by SCE&G at three 

locations in July 2006 and November 2006 (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007). Water-quality 

measurements were within the State standards for Class FW (freshwaters) (SCDHEC 2008a), 

and indicated that Mayo Creek water quality was similar to other groundwater-fed streams in the 

area (SCE&G 2010a). 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-36 April 2011

Table 2-13. Mayo Creek Water-Quality Data for 2008 and 2009

Date Station

Temperature (°C)

[°F] pH

Conductivity 

(μmhos/cm)

Dissolved 

Oxygen (mg/L)

July 2008 1 22.6 [72.7] 7.2 122 6.5

July 2008 2 21.3 [70.3] 7.0 123 7.2

July 2008 3 20.9 [69.6] 7.0 126 6.8

October 2008 1 17.1 [62.8] 7.4 101 12.3

October 2008 2 15.1 [59.2] 7.3 96 10.8

October 2008 3 14.9 [58.8] 7.3 106 8.9

January 2009 1 8.9 [48.0] 7.3 89 11.5

January 2009 2 9.6 [49.3] 7.6 87 9.9

January 2009 3 9.4 [48.9] 7.5 88 11.7

April 2009 1 13.6 [56.5] 7.1 82 9.2

April 2009 2 13.7 [56.7] 7.2 110 9.5

April 2009 3 15.2 [59.4] 7.3 111 9.5

Source: CBS 2009b (except review team provided temperature converted to °F)

2.3.3.2 Groundwater Quality

Baseline nonradiological groundwater quality was established around the proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 location by monitoring that consisted of one round of sampling from nine wells in 

late August/early September 2006 for a subset of analyses (SCE&G 2010a) and more detailed 

water-quality analyses from eight wells during the second half of 2007. The 2007 water-quality 

monitoring consisted of one sampling round for four wells, two sampling rounds for three wells, 

and three sampling rounds for one well (SCE&G 2010a, ER Table 2.3-36). The detailed waterquality monitoring results from 2007 were compared to SCDHEC drinking-water standards 

(SCE&G 2010a, ER Table 2.3-36). The State drinking water maximum contaminant level

values are published in R.61-58, State Primary Drinking Water Regulation (SCDHEC 2009d). 

Based on this comparison, the groundwater exceeded the SCDHEC State drinking-water 

standards in at least one well during a sampling round for the following analyses: sulfates, total 

dissolved solids, turbidity, total coliform, cadmium, iron, lead, platinum-cobalt, and pH.

Low levels of tritium were detected in two wells located near the proposed VCSNS Unit 3 

location during the 2007 monitoring (SCE&G 2010a). The potential source of this tritium was 

the permitted disposal of condensate polisher resin in the area in 1994. The results from soil 

samples collected and analyzed from this area in 2006 indicated that radiological concentrations 

were below the Low Limits of Detection specified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual as 

described by SCE&G (2009e). Details about the sampling and results are contained in 

SCE&G 2009e.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-37 NUREG-1939

2.3.4 Water Monitoring

Surface-water and groundwater monitoring are described in the following sections.

2.3.4.1 Surface-Water Monitoring

Broad River flows are monitored continuously at several USGS gauging stations near the 

VCSNS site (Figure 2-8). Flow information is mostly available for calculation of long-term daily 

average flows. The station name, number, location, and period of record for the three Broad 

River gauging stations closest to VCSNS are summarized in Table 2-14. The USGS also 

records or has recorded Broad River water temperature at these three stations during periods 

listed in Table 2-14.

Table 2-14. USGS Flow and Temperature Monitoring on the Broad River

Station Number Location

Flow Monitoring 

Period(s)

Temperature Monitoring 

Period(s)

Carlisle 02156500 21 mi upstream of Parr 

Shoals Dam

October 1938 to 

present

1965 to 1965; 1968-1975

Alston 02161000 1.2 mi downstream 

from Parr Shoals Dam

October 1896 to 

December 1907, 

October 1980 to present

November 1971 to 

July 1972

Richtex 02161500 14 mi downstream 

from Parr Shoals Dam

October 1925 to 

September 1983

October 1959 to 

September 1960; 

July 1972 to July 1974

Source: SCE&G 2010a

Water quality in the Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir continues to be 

periodically monitored by SCE&G and SCDHEC. SCE&G’s water-monitoring program for 

VCSNS Unit 1 at Monticello Reservoir has been ongoing since 1995; SCE&G measures 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance monthly at three reservoir 

locations (SCE&G 2010a, Section 2.3.1.1.5). Monitoring locations are (1) near the circulatingwater intake for VCSNS Unit 1, (2) near the VCSNS Unit 1 thermal discharge, and (3) in the 

northern part of Monticello Reservoir outside of the influence of the FPSF and VCSNS Unit 1. 

SCE&G recorded temperature continuously near the VCSNS Unit 1 circulating-water intake 

during the summer months from 1992 to 1994. SCDHEC monitors water quality statewide, 

cycling through each watershed at least every 5 years (SCDHEC 2008c). SCDHEC monitors 

the following suite of water-quality parameters at the stations in the vicinity of VCSNS shown in 

Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-12:

• temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand

• pH and alkalinity
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-38 April 2011

• total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total fecal coliform, total organic carbon

• metals, including cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, 

and zinc.

As described in Section 2.3.3, SCE&G conducted preapplication water-quality monitoring of 

Mayo Creek in 2006, 2008, and 2009 (TetraTech NUS, Inc. 2007; SCE&G 2010a; CBS 2009b). 

2.3.4.2 Groundwater Monitoring 

The results of preconstruction preapplication groundwater monitoring for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

were described previously in Section 2.3.1.2 for hydrologic monitoring (i.e., water levels) and 

EIS Section 2.3.3.2 for groundwater-quality monitoring. Hydrologic groundwater monitoring 

reported in the ER (see ER Table 2.3-20 [SCE&G 2010a]) consisted of monthly measurements 

of water levels from June 2006 through June 2007 from 31 wells around VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

Monitoring of groundwater quality around VCSNS Units 2 and 3 consisted of one round of 

sampling of nine wells in late August/early September 2006 for a subset of analyses (see ER 

Table 2.3-35, SCE&G 2010a). More detailed water-quality analyses were conducted on water 

collected from eight wells during the second half of 2007, with one sampling round for four wells, 

two sampling rounds for three wells, and three sampling rounds for one well (see Table 2.3-36 

of the ER [SCE&G 2010a]).

EIS Section 4.2.4 describes the hydrologic and water-quality groundwater monitoring proposed 

during facility preconstruction/construction and EIS Section 5.2.4 describes the hydrologic and 

water-quality groundwater monitoring proposed during operations. Radiological monitoring of 

groundwater is discussed in EIS Sections 2.11 and 5.9.

2.4 Ecology 

This section describes the terrestrial and aquatic ecology of the site and vicinity, which includes 

the biological communities and habitats that might be affected by the building, operation, or 

maintenance of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 provide general 

descriptions of terrestrial and aquatic environments on and in the vicinity of the VCSNS site as 

well as the additional area associated with the proposed six new 230-kV transmission lines. 

Detailed descriptions are provided where needed to support the analysis of potential ecological 

impacts from the building, operation, or maintenance of new nuclear power-generation facilities 

and the associated power-transmission systems. These descriptions also support the 

evaluation of mitigation activities identified during the assessment to avoid, reduce, minimize, 

rectify, or compensate for potential impacts. Descriptions of terrestrial and aquatic monitoring 

programs are also included.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-39 NUREG-1939

2.4.1 Terrestrial and Wetlands Ecology

The VCSNS site is surrounded by a mosaic of forests and farmland, typical of the Piedmont 

physiographic province. This province begins in the southernmost portion of New York State 

and stretches in a southwestward direction to approximately mid-Alabama (Godfrey 1980). The 

Piedmont region has been heavily farmed and cultivated, thereby altering the pre-settlement 

landscape considerably (Kirkman et al. 2007). This section identifies terrestrial ecological 

resources and describes species composition and other structural and functional attributes of 

biotic communities that might be affected by the construction, operation, and maintenance of 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and the proposed transmission-line system. It also identifies 

important terrestrial resources, as defined by the NRC (NRC 2000) that might be affected by the 

proposed action.

2.4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity

The terrestrial communities found on the VCSNS site and vicinity are characteristic of the 

Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion (Griffith et al. 2002). The surrounding landscape 

comprises gently rolling hills and valleys dissected by an abundance of streams. Vegetation 

communities common in the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion include mixed oak forest and 

oak-hickory-pine forest. Common tree canopy species consist of white oak (Quercus alba), 

southern red oak (Quercus falcata), black oak (Q. velutina), mockernut (Carya alba) and pignut 

hickories (C. glabra), some loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata). 

Sites that have a moderate amount of moisture (mesic sites) such as riparian areas contain 

American beech (Fagus grandifolia), northern red oak (Q. rubra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron 

tulipifera), and red maple (Acer rubrum) (Griffith et al. 2002). The dominant cover in the vicinity 

of VCSNS is mixed forest (SCE&G 2010a).

The VCSNS site comprises approximately 3600 ac, which includes approximately 784 ac of 

open water in the Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a). The Parr Reservoir lies just west of the 

site (SCE&G 2010a). The proposed project site for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is within the current 

nuclear facility boundary just south of existing VCSNS Unit 1, in an area that was cleared and 

used for storage, spoils disposal, and laydown areas during the construction of Unit 1 (SCE&G 

2010a). The VCSNS site is primarily a human-altered system that has changed dramatically 

since the development of VCSNS Unit 1 and the damming of the Broad River and Frees Creek, 

which created Parr and Monticello reservoirs, respectively. Historical photographs illustrate the 

change on this site since 1938 (see Figure 2-13). Also, see Section 2.2.1 for the current landuse categories and acreage on the VCSNS site.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-40 April 2011

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

(SCE&G 2009v)

Existing Terrestrial Cover Types

Forests on the VCSNS site are managed by SCANA Services’ Forestry Operations group, but 

timber harvests are not common (NRC 2003). A variety of cover types are present including 

planted pine forest, naturally vegetated pine forest, mixed pine-hardwood forest, and hardwood 

forest. Pine forests are primarily second-growth stands of loblolly pine either natural or planted; 

older forests are characterized by the presence of hardwoods such as white oak. Hardwooddominant stands occur mainly along streams and side slopes (Figure 2-14) (SCE&G 2010a). 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-41 NUREG-1939

Figure 2-14. Map of the Cover Types on the VCSNS Site
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-42 April 2011

Natural and planted pine forests on the VCSNS site (including those most recently harvested 

since 2004) consist mostly of naturally vegetated and cultivated loblolly pine. These forests are 

early successional, even-aged stands that produce a closed canopy with little to no understory 

of either woody or herbaceous cover (FPC 1974). Much of the pine forest consists of planted 

pines, which are generally poor wildlife habitat, lacking in both food and cover needed by native 

wildlife (SCDNR 2005a). 

Pine Forest

Mixed pine-hardwood forests occur primarily in the eastern portion of the VCSNS site and 

consist of loblolly pine and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), with a variety of other species 

including tulip poplar, red maple, winged elm (Ulmus alata), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), 

eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), American beech, 

American holly (Ilex opaca), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and sweetgum (Liquidambar 

styraciflua) (SCE&G 2002a; Nelson 2006).

Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest

Hardwood forests make up a small portion of the forested communities on the VCSNS site and 

are predominately located along stream bottoms and surrounding ravines (NRC 2004). Typical 

canopy species present include white oak, southern red oak, black gum, and some American 

beech (Nelson 2007). Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) is a dominant understory species 

and herbaceous species such as Hepatica (Hepatica americana), golden alexander (Zizia 

trifoliata), sanicle (Sanicula marilandica), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and little 

nut-rush (Scleria oligantha) are common along small streams (SCE&G 2002a).

Hardwood Forest

Wetlands present on the VCSNS site are typical of those found in the South Carolina Piedmont 

and include both palustrine (marshes, bogs, fens, etc.) and lacustrine (on the shores of lakes 

and/or reservoirs) wetlands. Most of the wetlands are forested and are associated with small

streams, seeps, and beaver ponds (SCE&G 2010a). Typical species that would be found on 

these types of sites include those mentioned above in the mixed pine-hardwood and hardwood 

cover types as well as tulip poplar, sweetgum, white ash (Fraxinus americana), black cherry, 

sedge (Carex spp.), and red maple. There is also limited freshwater marsh habitat in shallow 

backwaters along Parr Reservoir that contains emergent wetland species, such as cattail 

(Typha latifolia), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), 

smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), lizard’s tail 

(Saururus cernuus), water primrose (Ludwigia spp.), and water pennywort (Hydrocotyle spp.) 

(SCE&G 2010a).

Wetlands
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-43 NUREG-1939

Wildlife

Terrestrial wildlife species found on the VCSNS site are typical of those found in the Southern 

Outer Piedmont ecoregion of South Carolina. A variety of species inhabit the forested, wetland, 

and open water habitats present, including amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Recent 

biological surveys of the site have been conducted in support of VCSNS Unit 1 license renewal 

(SCE&G 2002a) and more recently to provide information regarding potential occurrences of 

threatened and/or endangered species on the VCSNS site (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2008, 2009a; 

Nelson 2006, 2007). Informal observations of wildlife and vegetation were made during the 

surveys. Ecological monitoring data collected in the early 1970s to mid-1980s were also 

reviewed to provide additional information regarding the wildlife likely to be observed on the 

VCSNS site and vicinity.

Mammals that occur on the VCSNS site include those typically found in the Piedmont such as 

the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus 

carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), bobcat 

(Lynx rufus), beaver (Castor canadensis), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), hispid cotton rat 

(Sigmodon hispidus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), house mouse (Mus musculus), whitefooted mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and the eastern 

spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) (SCDNR 2005b). Small-mammal trapping was conducted in 

the early 1970s before construction of VCSNS Unit 1 and then again in 2008 and 2009 with 

ShermanTM live traps (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2008). 

Mammals

Several species of reptiles and amphibians are known to occur on the VCSNS site, including 

black racer snake (Coluber constrictor), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), and rat snake 

(Elaphe obsolete); lizards such as the Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), and fence lizard 

(Sceloporus undulates); and various skinks and toads (FPC 1974; SCE&G 2010a). The 

Piedmont of South Carolina is not as rich in herpetofauna as the other parts of the state 

(SCDNR 2005a).

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Birds that occur on the VCSNS site include those typically found in the Piedmont. Various 

species of dabbling ducks such as mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), black duck (Anas rubripes), 

and green-winged teal (Anas crecca) use the freshwater marsh habitat in Parr Reservoir, and 

Monticello Reservoir supports a resident population of Canada geese (Branta canadensis 

leucopareia). Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest near the site and are observed 

frequently, and a variety of wading birds, songbirds, birds of prey, and other migratory and 

Birds
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-44 April 2011

nonmigratory birds occur on the VCSNS site. Table 2-15 lists avian species observed and 

recorded on the VCSNS site during other previously described ecological surveys conducted in 

2002, 2006, 2007, and 2008. The taxa in bold are species the State of South Carolina have 

determined to be Priority Species (SCDNR 2005b).

Table 2-15. Avian Species Observed on the VCSNS Site

Wading Birds, Shorebirds, and Other Water Birds

Blue-winged teal (Anas discors) 

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)

Black duck (Anas rubripes)

Great egret (Ardea alba) 

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) 

Canada goose (Branta canadensis) 

Green heron (Butorides virescens) 

Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) 

Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) 

Herring gull (Larus argentatus) 

Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) 

Birds of Prey and Soaring Birds

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 

Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 

Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)

Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) 

Black vulture (Coragyps atratus) 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Passerines and Other Birds

Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) 

Ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) 

Great horned owl (Bubo virginiana) 

Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) 

Pine siskin (Carduelis pinus) 

Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) 

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) 

Eastern wood pewee (Contopus virens) 

American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 

White-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis)

Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) 

Passerines and Other Birds (continued)

Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)

Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) 

Yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata) 

Prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor) 

Pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) 

Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) 

Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) 

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 

Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) 

Red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) 

Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 

Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 

Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) 

Great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) 

Tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor) 

Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis) 

Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) 

Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) 

Rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) 

Summer tanager (Piranga rubra) 

Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa)

Eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) 

Eastern bluebird (Siala sialis)

Brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla) 

Yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) 

Northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis)

Barred owl (Strix varia) 

Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) 

American robin (Turdus migratorius) 

Brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) 

White-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus) 

Sources: SCDNR 2005a; SCE&G 2010a.

NOTE: Taxa in bold represent South Carolina Priority Species (SCDNR 2005b).
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-45 NUREG-1939

2.4.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines

This section describes terrestrial resources known to occur on or in the vicinity of the existing 

transmission-line corridors and in proposed new transmission-line corridors required to integrate 

the electrical power generated at proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 into the electrical grid system. 

As described in Section 2.2.2, a total of six new offsite 230-kV transmission lines would be 

needed to distribute the power generated by the proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. 

This would require upgrading existing transmission lines within existing corridors and clearing 

for new corridors. Santee Cooper would maintain two of the lines, which total 239 mi, and 

SCE&G would maintain the other four in three corridors for a total of 153 corridor mi (one 

double-circuit line and two single-circuit lines). The proposed transmission-line corridors pass 

through forested and agricultural lands typical of central South Carolina. Most of the lines would 

be situated in two ecoregions, the Southern Outer Piedmont and Sandhills. Two of the 

proposed transmission lines would extend slightly into the Coastal Plain ecoregion (See 

Figure 2-5 for proposed transmission line route). Land use along the proposed SCE&G and 

Santee Cooper transmission-line corridors is summarized in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3.

The proposed corridors for the VCSNS-Lake Murray line (SCE&G), the VCSNS-Flat Creek line 

(Santee Cooper), and VCSNS-Killian line are located entirely within the Southern Outer 

Piedmont ecoregion. Each line would be routed within existing corridors to the extent possible 

with the exception of approximately 17 mi of new corridor, adjacent to exisiting corridor, required 

for the Flat Creek line, and approximately 6 mi of new corridor, not adjacent to existing corridor,

needed for the VCSNS-Killian line (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008, 2009; Pike 2010). Because 

these three proposed transmission lines would lie entirely within the Southern Outer 

Piedmont ecoregion, the habitat types are the same as those described for the VCSNS site in 

Section 2.4.1.1.

The proposed VCSNS-Varnville (167 mi) and VCSNS-St. George No. 1 and No. 2 (98 mi) 

transmission lines cross several counties and ecoregions. Both begin in the Southern Outer 

Piedmont and cross the Sandhills into the Coastal Plain ecoregion. Brief descriptions of the 

habitat types for both ecoregions are provided below (Griffith et al. 2002). The VCSNS-Varnville 

line (Santee Cooper) would be routed within existing transmission-line corridors except for

approximately 22 mi of new corridor adjacent to existing corridor and 0.5 mi of new corridor not 

adjacent to existing corridor. The VCSNS-St. George No. 1 and 2 lines (SCE&G) would be 

routed entirely within existing corridors (MACTEC 2009; Pike 2010).

The Sandhills ecoregion is the inland portion of the Coastal Plain that forms a discontinuous belt 

of varying widths of deep sands across the middle of the state (SCDNR 2005a). The sandy 

soils create a xeric environment that supports distinctive vegetation dominated by longleaf pines 

and American turkey oaks (Quercus laevis). High-frequency, low-intensity fires in the past 

created and supported fire-adapted longleaf pine-wiregrass communities, characterized by 

longleaf pine and loblolly pine with a midstory of oaks, mostly turkey oak along with blackjack 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-46 April 2011

oak (Q. marilandica), upland willow oak (Q. incana), and post oak (Q. stellata). However, fire 

suppression in the last several decades has allowed succession to proceed to oak-hickory 

forests similar to those of the Piedmont. Logging activities and fire suppression created large 

tracts of even-aged pine plantations and forests that do not provide high-quality wildlife habitat 

(SCDNR 2005a). Vegetation community types in the Sandhills ecoregion include grassland and 

early successional habitats, Sandhills pine woodland, seepage slopes, ponds and depressions, 

blackwater stream systems, and river bottoms. Common wildlife species found in the Sandhills 

ecoregion are white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, opossum, and raccoon. A 

variety of bird species also inhabit the region and include wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), 

northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and several species of warblers. A high diversity of 

reptiles and amphibians reside in the various habitats present in this region (SCDNR 2005a; 

Griffith et al. 2002). 

The Coastal Plain, the largest ecoregion in South Carolina, consists of two different landscapes. 

The inner portion bordering the Sandhills is largely agricultural, with small patches and 

hardwood remnant forests along creeks. The flatwoods make up the outer portion, which is 

primarily pine-dominant forest. Large floodplains cross both portions and a majority of them are 

forested. The most dominant vegetation habitat types are grassland and early successional 

habitats, pine forest, and river bottoms (SCDNR 2005a). The southern floodplain forests 

include bottomland hardwood forest consisting of bottomland oaks, red maple, sweetgum, green 

ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), and cypress-gum swamps 

dominated by water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), bald cypress 

(Taxodium distichum), and pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) (Griffith et al. 2002). Although 

understory vegetation in the cypress-gum swamp community is sparse, a variety of wildlife 

species − from amphibians to mammals – use this habitat. Common wildlife species found in 

this region include many game species – white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, 

opossum, raccoon, wild turkey, northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), mourning dove 

(Zenaida macroura), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox, wood duck (Aix sponsa), mink (Mustela 

vision), otter (Lontra canadensis), and beaver (SCE&G 2010a; SCDNR 2005b).

2.4.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats

The NRC has defined important species as any species that are rare, ecologically sensitive, 

play an ecological role, or are relied on by a valuable species, and/or have economic or 

recreational value (NUREG-1555 [NRC 2000]). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

identifies threatened or endangered species in 50 CFR 17.11 and 50 CFR 17.12. Important 

species also include rare species proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, published in 

the Federal Register (FR) as candidates for listing, or listed as threatened, endangered, or 

species of concern by the state in which they occur. Biological indicator species that respond to 

and indicate environmental change are also classed as important species. 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-47 NUREG-1939

No areas designated by FWS as critical habitat exist at the VCSNS site (NRC 2004). SCE&G 

conducted surveys for threatened and endangered species at the VCSNS site and found none 

(SCE&G 2002a; Nelson 2006, 2007). The locations of ecological surveys conducted on the 

VCSNS site are shown in Figure 2-15. 

Threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that may occur in the vicinity of the 

VCSNS site are listed in Table 2-16. This table is composed of listed species with recorded 

occurrences in Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties in South Carolina (FWS 

2010; SCDNR 2010a).

The review team’s biological assessment of the Federally listed threatened and endangered 

terrestrial plant and animal species that potentially could occur at or near the VCSNS site is 

provided in Appendix F. The review team has prepared a supplement to the biological 

assessment to address comments from the FWS. The supplement is included in Appendix F. 

Life-history attributes of species pertinent to the review of SCE&G’s application, as well 

information about the occurrence of these species in the project area, are summarized below.

Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring Within and in the Vicinity of the VCSNS 

Site (within 6 mi of the site)

Fauna

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii). Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is Statelisted as endangered and is found in forested areas, primarily in pine or mixed pine-hardwood 

stands. This species roosts in a variety of places including hollow trees, under bark, in 

abandoned buildings, and under bridges. The species has been recorded in Aiken and 

Richland Counties, but there are no recorded occurrences at the VCSNS site (NRC 2004). 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The bald eagle was the only Federally listed species 

found on the VCSNS site during the surveys conducted in 2002, 2006, 2008, and 2009 (SCE&G 

2002a; Nelson 2006; Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2008, 2009a). The bald eagle was delisted in 2007 

but remains protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act. Adult and juvenile bald eagles are commonly observed on the VCSNS site, and 

they nest and forage along Monticello and Parr reservoirs. The closest nest is located on the 

north end of the jetty in the Monticello Reservoir, approximately 1.7 mi north of proposed 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3, and another one is located on the west side of the Parr Reservoir 

approximately 1.8 mi northwest of the proposed new reactor units as shown in Figure 2-14 

(SCE&G 2010a). 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-48 April 2011

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

(based on SCE&G 2010g)
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-49 NUREG-1939

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

of the VCSNS Site (within 6 mi of the site) 

Scientific Name Common Name

Federal/State 

Status County

Mammals

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat SE Richland

Birds

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle BGEPA, SE, 

ST

Fairfield, Lexington, 

Newberry, Richland

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker FE/SE Richland

Mycteria americana Wood stork FE/SE Lexington, Newberry, 

Richland

Amphibians

Hyla andersonii Pine Barrens treefrog ST Richland

Plants

Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower FE Lexington, Richland

Lysimachia asperulifolia Rough-leaved loosestrife FE Richland

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort FE Richland

Sources: SCDNR 2010a; FWS 2010

BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FE = Federally listed as endangered; SE = State listed as 

endangered; ST = State listed as threatened

Wood stork (Mycteria americana). The wood stork is Federally and State-listed as endangered 

and is known to occur in Lexington and Richland Counties (FWS 2010). A variety of wetlands 

are used by this species for nesting, feeding, and roosting, and in South Carolina, colony sites 

are surrounded by extensive palustrine forested wetlands. Wood storks are known to nest in 

the upper branches of black gum or cypress trees that are located in standing water (swamps). 

Shallow, open water is required for successful foraging (FWS 1986; Murphy 2006).

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). The red-cockaded woodpecker is listed as 

Federally and State endangered and is known to occur in Lexington and Richland Counties 

(FWS 2010). Populations of this species are distributed across the southeastern United States 

and managed by distinct recovery units. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are dependent on open, 

mature pine forests and savannahs for prime foraging and nesting habitat. The large, old pines 

are needed because the birds excavate cavities in the living trees completely within the 

heartwood to roost and nest in. The cavity trees must be in homogeneous stands of pine with 

little to no midstory present. Red-cockaded woodpeckers require 75 to 200 ac of foraging 

habitat (large mature pines) with a well-developed herbaceous layer that includes native 

bunchgrasses and forbs. There is no suitable habitat for this species on the VCSNS site 

(NRC 2004). 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-50 April 2011

Pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii)

Figure 2-15

. The pine barrens treefrog is State-listed as threatened 

and is known to occur in Richland County (SCDNR 2010a). This species inhabits trees in 

swamps adjacent to sandhill habitats (NRC 2004). There is no recorded occurrence of this 

species on or near the VCSNS site (FPC 1974) and none of the species was encountered 

during any of the surveys in 2002, 2006, or 2007 (see ) (SCE&G 2002a; Nelson 

2006, 2007). 

Flora

Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). Smooth coneflower is Federally-listed as 

endangered and is known to occur in Richland County and may possibly occur in Lexington 

County (SCDNR 2010a; FWS 2010). This species is found in meadows and open woodlands 

on basic or near neutral soils, often with eastern redcedar. Questions remain concerning the 

biology and natural distribution of this species in South Carolina (Nelson 2006). It is rare 

throughout its range and has sustained significant habitat loss, at least in part due to firesuppression activities (Porcher and Rayner 2001). Smooth coneflower was not observed in the 

study area during surveys and the likelihood of it being present on the VCSNS site is marginal 

due to the lack of appropriate soils (Nelson 2007).

Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia). The rough-leaved loosestrife is Federallylisted as endangered and is known to occur in Richland County (FWS 2010; SCDNR 2010a). 

This perennial herb occurs in ecotones between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins 

(upland swamps) in moist, sandy, or peaty soils with low vegetation. Rough-leaved loosestrife 

has also been found to occur in disturbed areas such as roadside depressions, powerline rightsof-way, firebreaks, and trails (NatureServe 2009a). There is no recorded occurrence of this 

species at or near the VCSNS site (NRC 2004) and none of this species is encountered during 

surveys conducted in 2006 and 2007 (Nelson 2006, 2007). 

Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi)

Important Species

. Canby’s dropwort is Federally-listed as endangered and is 

known to occur in Richland County (FWS 2010). This perennial herb grows in wet meadows, 

wet pine savannahs, shallow pineland ponds, and cypress-pine swamps (NRC 2004). There 

are no recorded occurrences of this species at or adjacent to the VCSNS site (NRC 2004; 

Nelson 2006, 2007).

Other important species, as defined in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000) that occur on the VCSNS site 

are game species and Federal and/or State-listed species of concern. The game species 

present on the VCSNS site include white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, northern bobwhite, 

mourning dove, wild turkey, and various species of waterfowl. Hunting is allowed and occurs in 

the Broad River Wildlife Management Area (BRWMA) that is adjacent to the VCSNS site and is 

managed by the SCDNR (SCE&G 2010a; SCDNR 2007). Several species listed as species of 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-51 NUREG-1939

concern by the State of South Carolina are known to occur in Fairfield County and they include 

12 plant species and 1 mammal, but none of the species was found on the VCSNS site during 

surveys (SCDNR 2006a; Nelson 2007).

Important Habitats

Important habitats include those designated as critical habitats by FWS as well as sanctuaries, 

refuges, and/or preserves that have been set aside and protected by State and/or Federal 

agencies or organizations. Critical habitats are those that are designated to support Federally 

listed threatened or endangered species. There are no areas on or near the VCSNS site that 

are designated as critical habitat by the FWS (SCE&G 2010a).

Wetlands on the VCSNS site are typically associated with small streams in steep ravines. 

Some wetlands on the site were created by beaver activity and could provide habitat for 

migratory birds and other avian communities throughout the year (Edwards and Otis 1999). 

There is also freshwater marsh habitat along the shores of reservoirs that contains emergent 

plants, such as pickerelweed, smartweed, and lizard’s tail, which provide food and/or cover for a 

variety of wildlife including waterfowl, migratory birds, white-tailed deer, and reptiles and 

amphibians (SCE&G 2010a, Table 2.4-4). Interior wetlands, reservoirs, and riverine systems 

present on the VCSNS site provide migration and wintering habitat for waterfowl and some 

shorebirds (SCDNR 2005a). SCE&G stated that all streamside management zones on the 

VCSNS site are protected and managed according to the South Carolina Forestry Commission 

best management practices (BMPs) (SCFC 1994).

There are two waterfowl management areas on and in the vicinity of the VCSNS site: the 

Monticello Reservoir Waterfowl Management Area and the Parr Reservoir Waterfowl 

Management Area, and both could be considered wildlife refuges (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G 

refers to the area as Parr Reservoir Waterfowl Management Area and the SCDNR refers to the 

same area as the BRWMA. The BRWMA was established in the late 1970s to mitigate for 

activities associated with the construction of VCSNS Unit 1 and it is managed by SCDNR. This 

area is used by a wide variety of species such as ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), wood 

duck, mallard, and green-winged teal. The BRWMA is also widely used for recreational 

activities such as hunting, bird watching, fishing, and boating. There is public access most of 

the year; however, due to the small size of the area, the BRWMA is closed to the public during 

winter months to avoid disturbing migrating waterfowl. Various other wildlife species use the 

BRWMA and are present throughout the year, such as wading birds and mammals (including 

deer, bobcat, fox, coyote, raccoon, and others). Birds of prey such as the bald eagle can also 

be found foraging in the BRWMA and nesting nearby (SCDNR 2007).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-52 April 2011

Important Species – Transmission Lines

Federally and State-listed terrestrial species classified as threatened and endangered and 

known to occur in the counties crossed by the proposed transmission lines (Calhoun, Chester, 

Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, Fairfield, Lancaster, Lexington, Newberry, Orangeburg, and 

Richland) are listed in Table 2-17. The list was obtained from FWS county lists for the State of 

South Carolina and the SCDNR Heritage Trust database (FWS 2010; SCDNR 2010a).

Field surveys for threatened and endangered Federally and State-listed species were 

conducted during May, June, July, and August of 2002 along existing transmission-line corridors 

associated with VCSNS Unit 1 (SCE&G 2002b). A large portion of the new lines required for 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be routed in the existing corridors, but approximately 45 mi of new 

corridor (including both adjacent to and not adjacent to existing right-of-way) would also be 

required (SCE&G 2010a; MACTEC 2010). SCE&G and Santee Cooper conducted 

reconnaissance-level studies in 2010 for each of the proposed new transmission-line corridors

to identify areas likely to support habitat for Federally listed threatened and endangered plant 

and animal species. They conferred with the FWS and SCDNR and acquired the most current 

GIS data to determine where the targeted Federally listed threatened and endangered species 

surveys should be conducted (Palmetto 2010; MACTEC 2010). State-listed species were not 

addressed in the 2010 field surveys. SCE&G and Santee Cooper overlaid their proposed 

transmission-line corridor routes onto the SCDNR and FWS occurrence maps to identify 

potential areas where protected species might occur. On-the-ground surveys were then 

conducted by SCE&G and Santee Cooper in September, October, and November 2010 in the 

specific areas identified with the highest potential for threatened and endangered species to 

occur (Palmetto 2010; MACTEC 2010). No critical habitat was identified and no targeted 

species were observed (Palmetto 2010; MACTEC 2010; SCDNR 2010b). 

Fauna

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii). Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is Statelisted as endangered and is found in forested areas, primarily in pine or mixed pine-hardwood 

stands. This species roosts in a variety of places including hollow trees, under bark, in 

abandoned buildings, and under bridges. The species has been recorded in Colleton, 

Dorchester, Orangeburg, and Richland Counties (SCDNR 2010a). Surveys for State-listed 

species were not conducted along the proposed transmission-line corridors, but there were no 

known occurrences of this species within or within 1 mi of any of the proposed corridors 

(SCDNR 2010b). 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-53 NUREG-1939

Table 2-17. Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species in Counties Crossed by the Proposed 

Transmission-Line Corridors

Scientific Name Common Name

Legal 

Status County

Mammals

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafineque's big-eared bat SE Colleton, Dorchester, Orangeburg, 

Richland

Birds

Elanoides forficatus American swallow-tailed kite SE Dorchester

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle BGEPA/

SE

Calhoun, Chester, Colleton, 

Dorchester, Fairfield, Lancaster, 

Lexington, Newberry, Orangeburg, 

Richland

Mycteria americana Wood stork FE/SE Calhoun, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Hampton, Lexington, Newberry, 

Richland

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker FE/SE Calhoun, Chester, Colleton, 

Dorchester, Hampton, Lexington, 

Orangeburg, Richland

Sterna antillarum Least tern ST Colleton, Dorchester

Reptiles

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise SE Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle ST Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton

Amphibians

Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods salamander FT/SE Colleton, Orangeburg

Hyla andersonii Pine barrens treefrog ST Richland

Pseudobranchus striatus Dwarf siren ST Hampton, Orangeburg

Rana capito Gopher frog SE Dorchester, Hampton, Orangeburg

Vascular Plants

Amphianthus pusillus Pool sprite FT/ST Lancaster

Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower FE/SE Lancaster, Lexington, Richland

Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower FE/SE Lancaster, Lexington

Isoetes melanospora Black-spored quillwort FE/SE Lancaster

Lindera melissifolia Pondberry FE/SE Colleton, Dorchester

Lysimachia asperulifolia Rough-leaved loosestrife FE/SE Richland

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort FE/SE Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, 

Orangeburg, Richland

Schwalbea americana American chaffseed FE Colleton

Sources: SCDNR 2010a; FWS 2010

BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FE = Federally listed as endangered; 

FT = Federally listed as threatened; SE = State listed as endangered; ST = State listed as threatened
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-54 April 2011

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The bald eagle was delisted in 2007 but remains 

protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

There are no known occurrences of bald eagle nests within 0.5 mi of the proposed SCE&G 

corridors identified by the FWS data layer, nor were any nests observed during on-the-ground 

surveys conducted along proposed corridors located within 2 mi of rivers or large bodies of 

water (Palmetto 2010). The closest nest to a Santee Cooper proposed corridor is approximately 

1 mi from the VCSNS-Varnville line in the Broad River drainage in Newberry County (MACTEC 

2010). 

Wood stork (Mycteria americana). The wood stork is Federally and State-listed as endangered 

and is known to occur in Richland County (FWS 2010). A variety of wetlands are used by this 

species for nesting, feeding, and roosting, and in South Carolina, colony sites are surrounded 

by extensive palustrine forested wetlands. Wood storks are known to nest in the upper 

branches of black gum or cypress trees that are located in standing water (swamps). Shallow, 

open water is required for successful foraging (FWS 1986; Murphy 2006). There are no known 

occurrences of wood stork rookeries in the proposed transmission-line routes and none were 

observed during field surveys, but there is sufficient foraging habitat present throughout the 

project area and it is likely wood storks could inhabit those areas (Palmetto 2010; MACTEC 

2010; SCDNR 2010b). 

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

When reviewed in 2010, the SCDNR elemental occurrence database indicated that redcockaded woodpeckers occur in Dorchester and Orangeburg Counties (SCDNR 2010b). There 

is one recorded occurrence within 0.5 mi of the proposed St. George 1 – St. George 2 

transmission line corridor; however, SCDNR stated that it is an extirpated population (SCDNR 

2011). There are two other recorded occurrences of the red-cockaded woodpecker 

approximately 1 mi away from the proposed transmission line corridors; however, none were 

observed during targeted field surveys conducted by SCE&G and Santee Cooper in 2010 

(Palmetto 2010; MACTEC 2010; SCDNR 2010b). SCE&G and Santee Cooper identified fifteen 

locations on the proposed transmission line rights-of-way as potentially providing habitat for the 

red-cockaded woodpecker. Only one site, located on the proposed new right-of-way for the 

. The red-cockaded woodpecker is listed as 

Federally and State endangered and is known to occur in Lexington and Richland Counties 

(FWS 2010). Populations of this species are distributed across the southeastern United States 

and managed by distinct recovery units. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are dependent on open, 

mature pine forests and savannahs for prime foraging and nesting habitat. The large, old pines 

are needed because the birds excavate cavities in the living trees completely within the 

heartwood to roost and nest in. The cavity trees must be in homogeneous stands of pine with 

little to no midstory present. Red-cockaded woodpeckers require 75 to 200 ac of foraging 

habitat (large mature pines) with a well-developed herbaceous layer that includes native 

bunchgrasses and forbs. 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-55 NUREG-1939

VCSNS-Flat Creek line, was found in the field to actually contain suitable foraging habitat

(MACTEC 2010).

American swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus). The American swallow-tailed kite is State 

listed as endangered in Dorchester County (SCDNR 2010a). It is found in floodplain forests and 

other large tracts of forested wetlands and mixed pine habitats of the outer coastal plain

(SCDNR 2006b). Surveys for State-listed species were not conducted along the proposed 

transmission-line corridors, but there were no known occurrences of this species within 1 mi of 

any of the proposed corridors (SCDNR 2010b). 

Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum). The flatwoods salamander is Federally listed 

as threatened and State-listed as endangered and is known to occur in Colleton and 

Orangeburg Counties (FWS 2010; SCDNR 2010a). Populations of this species are distributed 

throughout the lower Southeastern Coastal Plain from southern South Carolina through 

southern Georgia to northern Florida and southwestern Alabama (Palis 1997). Flatwoods 

salamander habitat includes generally open-canopied pine savannas and flatwoods of the 

southeastern coastal plain with cypress swamps present for breeding (Palis 1997). Four sites 

were identified to have potential habitat for the flatwoods salamander, but field observation 

determined that none of them contained suitable habitat (Palmetto 2010).

Pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii). The pine barrens treefrog is State-listed as threatened 

and is known to occur in Richland County (SCDNR 2010a). This species inhabits trees in 

swamps adjacent to sandhill habitats (NRC 2004). Surveys for State-listed species were not 

conducted along the proposed transmission-line corridors, but there were no known 

occurrences of this species within 1 mi of any of the proposed corridors (SCDNR 2010b). 

Gopher frog (Rana capito). The gopher frog, a stocky frog approximately 6 to 9 cm long with a 

loud call, is State-listed as endangered and occurs in Dorchester, Hampton, and Orangeburg 

Counties (SCDNR 2010a). The primary habitat for this species is native xeric upland habitats 

that include longleaf pine, turkey oak sandhill, xeric to mesic longleaf pine flatwoods, sandpine 

scrub, xeric oak hammocks, and varying successional stages of these habitats (NatureServe 

2009b). Gopher frogs are generally associated with areas where gopher tortoises occur 

(NatureServe 2009b). Surveys for State-listed species were not conducted along the proposed 

transmission-line corridors, but there are no known occurrences of this species within 1 mi of 

any of the proposed corridors (SCDNR 2010b). 

Dwarf siren (Pseudobranchus striatus). The dwarf siren is a slender, eel-like salamander with 

no hind limbs that it State-listed as threatened and occurs in Dorchester and Hampton Counties 

(SCDNR 2010a; NatureServe 2009b). This species is most often associated with cypress or 

gum ponds as well as other shallow, acidic wetlands of the flatwoods, usually found in thick 

vegetation or in bottom mud and debris (NatureServe 2009b; Amphibiaweb 2011). Surveys for 

State-listed species were not conducted along the proposed transmission-line corridors, but
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-56 April 2011

there are no known occurrences of this species within 1 mi of any of the proposed corridors 

(SCDNR 2010b). 

Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). The gopher tortoise is State-listed as endangered in 

Colleton, Dorchester, and Hampton Counties (SCDNR 2010a). This species is a large 

terrestrial turtle with a domed carapace. It commonly occupies a variety of well-drained sandy 

habitats, including sandhill, sand pine scrub, xeric hammock, pine flatwoods, dry prairie, coastal 

grasslands and dunes and mixed hardwood-pine communities (NatureServe 2009b). The 

gopher tortoise prefers open habitats that support a variety of herbaceous ground cover for 

foraging (NatureServe 2009b). Surveys for State-listed species were not conducted along the 

proposed transmission-line corridors, but there are no known occurrences of this species within 

1 mi of any of the proposed corridors (SCDNR 2010b). 

Spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata). The spotted turtle is State-listed as threatened in Colleton, 

Dorchester, and Hampton Counties (SCDNR 2010a). It inhabits a variety of wetland types 

including small ponds, small streams, swamps, flooded forests, and other shallow waterbodies

(SCDNR 2006b). Surveys for State-listed species were not conducted along the proposed 

transmission-line corridors, but there were no known occurrences of this species within or within 

1 mi of any of the proposed corridors (SCDNR 2010b). 

Flora

Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)

A total of 13 locations were identified (10 in the proposed SCE&G transmission-line corridors 

and 3 in the proposed Santee Cooper corridors) to have habitat characteristics to support 

smooth coneflower, but no individuals were found in field surveys (Palmetto 2010; MACTEC 

2010). In several instances, although a location was identified as having high potential for the 

species to occur, on-the-ground surveys determined suitable habitat did not exist (MACTEC 

2010). 

. Smooth coneflower is Federally and State-listed as 

endangered and is known to occur in Richland and Lancaster Counties, and may possibly occur 

in Lexington County (SCDNR 2006a; FWS 2010; SCDNR 2010a,b). This species is found in 

meadows and open woodlands on basic or near neutral soils, often with eastern redcedar. 

Questions remain concerning the biology and natural distribution of this species in South 

Carolina (Nelson 2006). It is rare throughout its range and has sustained significant habitat 

loss, at least in part due to fire-suppression activities (Porcher and Rayner 2001). 

Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia). The rough-leaved loosestrife is Federally 

and State-listed as endangered and is known to occur in Richland County (FWS 2010; SCDNR 

2010a). This species was not identified by SCDNR to have elemental occurrence data within 

1 mi of any of the proposed transmission-line corridors (SCDNR 2010b). This perennial herb 

occurs in ecotones between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins (upland swamps) in 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-57 NUREG-1939

moist, sandy, or peaty soils with low vegetation. Rough-leaved loosestrife has also been found 

to occur in disturbed areas such as roadside depressions, powerline rights-of-way, firebreaks, 

and trails (NatureServe 2009a). A total of 29 locations were identified by SCE&G and Santee 

Cooper as having high potential for occurrence of rough-leaved loosestrife, but field

assessments determined that suitable habitat did not exist at any of those locations (Palmetto

2010; MACTEC 2010). 

Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi). Canby’s dropwort is Federally and State-listed as 

endangered and is known to occur in Richland County (FWS 2010). This perennial herb grows 

in wet meadows, wet pine savannahs, shallow pineland ponds, and cypress-pine swamps (NRC 

2004). Twenty wetland depressions along the VCSNS-St. George No. 1 and No. 2 corridor 

were identified and field-checked in November of 2010 and only one of them contained suitable 

habitat (Palmetto 2010). The wetland depression was surveyed for the presence of Canby’s 

dropwort, but none was found (Palmetto 2010). The closest known population of this species to 

the proposed Santee Cooper transmission-line corridor occurs approximately 1.5 mi from an 

existing corridor in Orangeburg County (MACTEC 2010). Nine locations were surveyed for the 

presence of Canby’s dropwort and none were found. 

Pool sprite (Amphianthus pusillus). Pool sprite, also known as little amphianthus, is listed as 

threatened and is known to occur in Lancaster County, which would be crossed by the proposed 

transmission-line corridors (FWS 2010; SCDNR 2010a). There was one recorded occurence 

within 1 mi of a proposed transmission-line corridor in Lancaster County identified by SCDNR 

(SCDNR 2010b). This aquatic plant occurs in small (usually less than 1-m2) shallow pools on 

the crests and flattened slopes of granite outcrops and requires ideal moisture and light 

conditions for successful seed germination (FWS 2008b). Pool sprite is endemic to open flat 

granite rocks, with enough surface area to allow the development of shallow pools that fill with 

water during spring rainy periods when the seeds germinate, followed by rapid growth, 

flowering, and fruit setting (NRC 2003). The entire life span of this delicate plant is only 3 to 4 

weeks (FWS 2008b). Aerial photography identified granite outcrops in Lancaster County along 

the proposed new right-of-way that were subsequently field-verified and found not to contain 

suitable habitat (MACTEC 2010). 

Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). Schweinitz’s sunflower is listed as endangered 

and is known to occur in Lancaster County, which would be crossed by the proposed VCSNSFlat Creek line corridor (FWS 2010; MACTEC 2010). There are no recorded occurrences within 

1 mi of any of the proposed transmission-line corridors (SCDNR 2010b). It is a shade-intolerant 

perennial herb that produces solitary stems up to 2 m tall and bears yellow flower heads in late 

summer and early autumn. This species requires full to partial sun and prefers Piedmont 

longleaf pine forest clearings and edges. Adapted to high-frequency, low-intensity fires, this 

species occurs mostly in transmission-line corridors and along roadsides because fire-
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-58 April 2011

suppression activities throughout its range have depleted suitable natural habitat (NatureServe 

2009b). 

Five locations were identified as having high potential for Schweinitz's sunflower and were 

subsequently ground surveyed (MACTEC 2010). No Schweinitz’s sunflowers or suitable habitat 

were found at any locations (Palmetto 2010). In addition, field teams conducted limited visual 

reconnaissance of this species in areas of moderate potential along proposed existing and new 

rights-of-way, but no individuals or suitable habitat were found (MACTEC 2010).

Black-spored quillwort (Isoetes melanospora). The black-spored quillwort is Federally and 

State-listed as endangered and is known to occur in Lancaster County at Forty-Acre Rock 

(FWS 2010; NatureServe 2009a). There was one recorded occurrence within 1 mi of a 

proposed transmission-line corridor in Lancaster County (SCDNR 2010b). This granite outcrop 

species is an inconspicuous plant, generally under 8 cm tall. Like the pool sprite, another 

granite outcrop species, the black-spored quillwort is restricted to shallow, flat-bottomed 

depressions on granitic outcrops, where water collects after rain. These depressions are less 

than 1 cm deep and usually contain soil at least 2 cm deep (NatureServe 2009a). The 

depressions, sometimes called vernal pools, solution pits, or weather pits, are formed naturally 

by erosion over millions of years. Plants rarely occur in shallow pools formed by quarrying 

activities (FWS 2008b). Aerial photography identified granite outcrops in Lancaster County 

along the proposed new right-of-way that were subsequently field-verified to not contain suitable 

habitat for black-spored quillwort (MACTEC 2010). 

Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia). Pondberry is Federally and State-listed as endangered and is 

known to occur in Colleton and Dorchester Counties (FWS 2010). There are no recorded 

occurrences within 1 mi of any of the proposed transmission-line corridors (SCDNR 2010b). 

This deciduous aromatic shrub ranges from 0.5 to 2 m tall and usually grows in clumps in a 

variety of seasonal wetland habitats throughout the region (NatureServe 2009a). Its flowering 

period is from late February to mid-March; its fruiting period is from August to early October. 

Searches for this species can be performed throughout the entire growing season, because 

masses of yellowish flowers are produced prior to leafing out, making the thicket-forming shrubs 

conspicuous, and leaves are diagnostic when combined with growth habit and/or fruit (USDA 

2010). Habitat alteration and loss are the most considerable threat to this species (NatureServe 

2009a). Six locations were identified to have high potential for pondberry and were 

subsequently ground surveyed (MACTEC 2010). Neither individuals nor suitable habitat were

found at any of the locations (MACTEC 2010).

American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana). American chaffseed is Federally and State-listed 

as endangered and is known to occur in Colleton County (FWS 2010; SCDNR 2010a). There 

are no recorded occurrences within 1 mi of any of the proposed transmission-line corridors 

(SCDNR 2010b). This species is a monotypic perennial in the figwort family and is found in 

open pine flatwoods and savannas in moist to dry acidic sandy loam soils to sandy peat loams 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-59 NUREG-1939

(FWS 1995). Flowering occurs between April and June, but the dark brown stems are 

distinctive and easy to identify after flowering (FWS 1995). Four locations of potentially suitable 

habitat were identified in the Santee Cooper proposed transmission-line corridors. Neither 

individuals nor suitable habitat were found during ground surveys (MACTEC 2010).

Important Habitats – Transmission Lines

Palustrine, lacustrine, and riverine freshwater wetlands occur within and around all of the 

proposed six new transmission-line corridors and are typical of those found in the various 

physiographic regions of South Carolina. Palustrine wetlands make up approximately 

70 percent of the total wetland area in the State of South Carolina (Dahl 1999). Palustrine 

wetlands include areas commonly referred to as wet pine flatwoods, pocosins, Carolina bays, 

beaver ponds, bottomland hardwood forests, swamps (muck peat), and freshwater marshes. 

Although they may be seasonally dry and may lack surface connections to stream systems, 

Carolina bays provide breeding habitat for numerous amphibians, including the flatwoods 

salamander(Ambystoma cingulatum), tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), and gopher frog 

(Lithobates capito) (SCDNR 2005a). Seeps and shrub bogs that occur in xeric longleaf pine 

habitat in the Sandhills ecoregion are home to the pine barrens treefrog (SCDNR 2005a). 

Lacustrine wetlands include the shallows of permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs and 

intermittent lakes. Riverine wetlands are limited to shallow freshwater river and stream 

channels or, in the case of deep rivers, to shallow areas along the shore. Palustrine forested 

wetlands are the most common wetland type that occurs in South Carolina and in the proposed 

transmission-line corridors (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008; Dahl 1999).

Wetlands

For the draft EIS, SCE&G and Santee Cooper estimated the extent of wetlands and other 

waters of the United States in its proposed transmission-line corridors by consulting available 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) county soil surveys, FWS National Wetlands Inventory 

(NWI) maps, and USGS topographic maps (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008). Subsequent to the 

draft EIS, both utilities completed wetland delineations on the proposed transmission-line 

corridors; and received a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination from the USACE (USACE 

2010).

2.4.1.4 Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring

Many ecological studies were conducted on or near the VCSNS site before and since the 

construction of Unit 1, including a baseline biotic survey for the Broad River Study Area by 

Dames and Moore (1974), the final EIS for the Parr Hydroelectric Project by the Federal Power 

Commission in 1974 (FPC 1974), an environmental monitoring report for the VCSNS Unit 1 site 

prepared by Dames and Moore for SCDHEC and NRC (Dames and Moore 1985). As recently 

as 2002, a threatened and endangered species survey of the Unit 1 site and transmission-line 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-60 April 2011

corridors in support of license renewal (SCE&G 2002b). Targeted studies were conducted in 

2006 and 2007 to survey for threatened and endangered species and small mammal trapping 

was conducted in 2008 and 2009 on the VCSNS site (Nelson 2006, 2007; Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 

2008, 2009a). Other than the reconnaisance and field studies conducted to support this EIS as

described above, no terrestrial ecology monitoring has been performed for the proposed 

transmission-line corridors.

2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology

The major aquatic environments within the vicinity of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 include 

the Broad River, Monticello and Parr reservoirs, and Mayo Creek (Figure 2-3). Mayo Creek is 

the largest stream within the site vicinity and it receives drainage from several small seasonal 

tributary channels. The Monticello and Parr reservoirs are the largest waterbodies near the site. 

The proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would withdraw water from Monticello Reservoir and 

discharge it to Parr Reservoir.

2.4.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity

Aquatic resources on or in the vicinity of the VCSNS site include the river, reservoirs, and creek 

mentioned previously. There are no aquatic sanctuaries or preserves that could be affected by 

the proposed action, and no habitats are present that could be defined as critical habitat for an 

aquatic species. 

Broad River

The Broad River basin encompasses approximately 2400 mi2 and 27 watersheds within the 

State of South Carolina and includes almost 2800 mi of streams and more than 14,500 ac of 

lakes. The basin falls within the boundaries of seven counties in the state: Cherokee, 

Spartanburg, York, Union, Chester, Fairfield, and Richland (SCDHEC 2007). Within the State of 

South Carolina, the Broad River basin is entirely within the Piedmont ecoregion. The Piedmont 

is characterized by gently rolling to hilly terrain, with relatively confined stream valleys, and 

elevations ranging from 375 to 1000 ft above msl. Major tributaries of the Broad River basin 

include the Tyger and Enoree rivers, which intersect the Broad River from the west (SCE&G 

2010a). Of the 1.5 million ac associated with the basin, more than 60 percent are forested, with 

approximately 24 percent used for agriculture, and less than 10 percent classified as urban 

development (SCDHEC 2007). As shown in Figure 2-3, the Broad River flows south along the 

Sumter National Forest and flows to the west of the VCSNS site. A run-of-the-river 

impoundment along the Broad River near the vicinity of the VCSNS forms the Parr Reservoir. 

The Broad River basin is a sub-basin within the larger Santee-Cooper River basin (Basin), the 

second largest basin in the eastern United States. Land-use practices, the construction of 

dams, and the deterioration of water quality led to the decline of diadromous fish in the Basin. 

Recent improvements to water quality and fish passage have prompted additional habitat 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-61 NUREG-1939

improvements as outlined in the Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage Restoration 

Plan (Plan) (FWS 2001). This multi-agency Plan focuses on restoring habitat connectivity for 

diadromous fish that were historically present within the Basin. Target species include 

American eel (Anguilla rostrata), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring (Alosa 

aestivalis), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenserosyrinchus oxyrinchus), 

and shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Objectives of the Plan include (1) increasing 

upstream passage for target fish species, (2) increasing downstream passage for target fish 

species, (3) restoring and maintaining adequate instream flows for fish migrations, (4) restoring

and maintaining water-quality conditions, and (5) conserving, preserving, and restoring

important habitats that support life-history strategies for migratory fish populations (FWS 2001). 

Within the Basin, the Plan identified the Broad River sub-basin as a high priority for restoration 

due to the amount of potential habitat available as well as the quality of existing habitat. There 

is currently no evidence that the diadromous fish species targeted in the Plan reside within the 

vicinity of the VCSNS site; however, there are documented historical accounts of American 

shad and American eel within the Broad River in the vicinity of Fairfield and Newberry Counties 

as well as within waters upstream of the VCSNS site (FWS 2001). Historical accounts of 

sturgeon and blueback herring within the Basin lack sufficient information to link with specific 

geographic regions; however, there is evidence these fish migrated within the Broad River subbasin (FWS 2001).

In response to the Plan, hydroelectric utilities and State and Federal entities have enacted the 

Santee River Basin Accord (Accord). The Accord outlines a systematic plan for enhancing and 

restoring passage at specific dams within the Basin. Several dams along the Broad River are 

slated for fish passage restoration if biological criteria are met for selected diadromous fish 

species at downstream monitored locations (SRBA 2008). The Plan and the Accord outline

specific target species; however, it is thought that other nontarget migratory species such as 

striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) will also benefit 

from restoration of fish passage at Broad River impoundments (FWS 2001; Self and Bettinger 

2006, respectively).

Parr Reservoir

As described by SCE&G (2010a), the Parr Reservoir was created in 1914 by installing a 

2000-ft-long dam across the Broad River at Parr Shoals (Figure 2-3). The purpose of the dam 

was to provide a pool for the original Parr Hydroelectric Plant. Before 1977, the surface area of 

the reservoir was 1850 ac. In 1977, the reservoir level was raised 9 ft, which increased the 

surface area to approximately 4400 ac, to accommodate the operation of the (SCE&G 2010a). 

Parr Reservoir is approximately 7 mi long and has an average water depth of 15 ft (SCE&G 

2010a). Because of the operation of the FPSF, hydrologic patterns in the Parr Reservoir are 

variable. Generally, water from the Monticello Reservoir is released through the FPSF into Parr 

Reservoir throughout the day and early evening to provide hydroelectric power at the FPSF, 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-62 April 2011

resulting in a net southward flow in Parr Reservoir. During the night, when electrical demand is 

lower, water from Parr Reservoir is pumped upward into the Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 

2010a). 

As described by SCE&G (2010a), the flow conditions and 4-day retention time of water in Parr 

Reservoir generally promote high dissolved oxygen levels and turbid conditions. As noted in 

Section 2.3, there are two SCDHEC water-quality monitoring stations in Parr Reservoir 

(Figure 2-12). The upstream station (B-346) is above the intake/discharge canal for the FPSF. 

The downstream station (B-345) is in the forebay near the Parr Shoals Dam. Fecal coliform 

concentrations at these stations were deemed low enough to support recreational 

(e.g., swimming) uses (SCDHEC 2007). According to SCDHEC (2007) water-monitoring 

results, water conditions were not optimal to support aquatic life at the two stations on Parr 

Reservoir. The total phosphorus concentrations at the upstream monitoring station above the 

intake/discharge canal for the FPSF were found to exceed the standards for supporting use by 

aquatic life. At the downstream station, elevated copper concentrations were deemed to 

exceed the aquatic life criterion, and therefore were not optimal to support aquatic life at this 

location (SCDHEC 2007). There are no fish consumption advisories in Parr Reservoir 

(SCDHEC 2009b).

Following commencement of operation at the VCSNS Unit 1, aquatic monitoring efforts in Parr 

Reservoir included an evaluation of the fish community composition by means of gillnetting and 

boat electroshocking. During 1983 and 1984, 27 species were sampled from Parr Reservoir 

(Dames and Moore 1985). Eight species of centrarchids accounted for 44 percent of the entire 

catch and two species of clupeids (gizzard shad [Dorosoma cepedianum] and threadfin shad 

[D. petenense]) accounted for 43 percent of the catch. The remaining catch included taxa that 

each contributed less than 10 percent of the total catch: ictalurids (6.5 percent), catostomids 

(3.3 percent), moronids (0.9 percent), cyprinids (0.9 percent), percids (0.7 percent), lepisosteids 

(0.2 percent), and esocids (0.02 percent) (Dames and Moore 1985).

During 2001 and 2002, SCDNR conducted an inventory of fishes in the Broad River. Using boat 

and backpack electroshocking methods, a total of 44 fish species were sampled throughout 

27 km of the Broad River at stations both upstream and downstream of Parr Reservoir 

(Bettinger et al. 2003). The most dominant species sampled throughout the study included 

redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (L. macrochirus), and notchlip redhorse 

(Moxostoma collapsum). These three fish species made up 50 percent of the total catch. 

Other commonly encountered taxa in the Broad River included gizzard shad, whitefin shiner 

(Cyprinella nivea), sandbar shiner (Notropis scepticus), and brassy jumprock (Moxostoma cf.

lachneri). A quantitative evaluation of the data set derived from electroshocking efforts 

indicated that the presence of impoundments along the Broad River did not result in 

fragmentation of the community composition of fishes; however Bettinger et al. (2003) suggest 

“...a different community composition might exist in the absence of dams.” The Bettinger et al. 

(2003) study did not include a sampling site within the vicinity of the VCSNS site. However two 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-63 NUREG-1939

sites between the Parr and Neal Shoals dams were included in the study (Figure 2-16); site 2 

was located upstream of the confluence of the Enoree River, 22 km above Parr Shoals Dam 

and site 3 was located upstream of the Tyger River confluence. Taxa comprising more than 10 

percent of the total combined catch at the sampling sites nearest the VCSNS site (i.e., sites 2 

and 3) included gizzard shad, whitefin shiner, greenfin shiner (Cyprinella chloristia), spottail 

shiner (Notropis hudsonius), sandbar shiner, notchlip redhorse, snail bullhead (Ameiurus 

brunneus), white perch (Morone americana), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), redbreast 

sunfish, bluegill, redear sunfish (L. microlophus), and Piedmont darter (Percina crassa)

(Bettinger et al. 2003).

Figure 2-16. Broad River Basin and Impoundments (after Bettinger et al. 2003)
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-64 April 2011

Between 2006 and 2009, SCE&G conducted intermittent inventories of fish community 

composition near the vicinity of the VCSNS site. The sampling efforts used a combination of 

boat electrofishing, gillnets, and hoop nets and documented 28 species of fish in Parr Reservoir 

(Table 2-18; Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a). Similar to the species 

composition determined during the 1983-1984 study year, the Normandeau (2007, 2008, 

2009a) and Quattlebaum (2008a) sampling efforts found that clupeids and centrarchids 

comprised the largest percentages of catch in Parr Reservoir; 31 and 24 percent, respectively. 

Ictalurids (five species) accounted for 18 percent of the total abundance during the 2006-2009 

effort, which represents an increase from the 1983-1984 Dames and Moore (1985) results. 

Gizzard shad, representing over 18 percent of the total catch, was the most abundant species 

sampled during the 2006-2009 Parr Reservoir sampling effort. Other predominant species 

included bluegill (15 percent of the total catch), threadfin shad (12 percent of the total catch), 

channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus; 12 percent of the total catch), and white perch (11 percent 

of the total catch) (data derived from Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a).

SCDNR (2005b) designated priority conservation species throughout the state. Designations 

were focused on species that are rare or at risk of imperilment and also included consideration 

for species that may be at risk in locations outside the state boundaries. The SCDNR (2005b) 

assessment identified 56 freshwater fishes, 6 diadromous fishes, 26 freshwater mussels, and 4 

freshwater snails. Species were ranked according to conservation priority, which included three 

categories: highest, high, and moderate. Of the 28 fish species collected during the 2006-2009 

Parr Reservoir sampling effort (Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a), 6 are 

included in the SCDNR priority conservation species list. Designation of these six species 

ranges from moderate to highest priority (Table 2-18).

To examine the benthic community in Parr Reservoir, SCE&G collected benthic invertebrates 

near the proposed location of the discharge structure for Units 2 and 3 (approximately 1 km 

upstream of Parr Shoals Dam) and at an upstream control station approximately 9 km upstream 

of Parr Shoals Dam. Benthic samples were analyzed by Carnagey Biological Services (CBS).

Seasonal (e.g., quarterly) monitoring occurred for one year between 2008 and 2009 (CBS 

2008a, c; CBS 2009c, d). Results were evaluated using a combination of bioassessment 

metrics and analyzed using statistical comparison techniques. The bioassessment metrics 

included taxa richness, various biotic indices (e.g., Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera 

[EPT] index, North Carolina Biotic Index [NCBI]), and comparisons of functional groups and 

abundances described by Plafkin et al. (1989) in Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in 

Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. The survey efforts yielded at least 

22 different taxa from 8 orders (CBS 2008a, c; CBS 2009c, d). A temporally complete 

evaluation indicated that overall bioassessment metrics were not significantly different through 

time. These results indicate few differences in benthic community and water-quality conditions 

between the reference station and the proposed discharge location (CBS 2009d).
April 2011

2-65 NUREG-1939

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

Family Common Name Scientific Name

Relative Abundance (percent)(a)

Mayo 

Creek

Parr 

Reservoir

Monticello 

Reservoir

Catostomidae Brassy jumprock Moxostoma cf. lachneri 4.43 0.590 0.00 

Highfin carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 0.00 0.147 0.00 

Northern hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans 0.6 0.00 0.194 

Notchlip redhorse Moxostoma collapsum 0.00 2.06 0.824 M

Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus 0.00 0.811 0.048 

Robust redhorse Moxostoma robustum 0.00 0.147 0.00 

Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum 0.00 5.16 1.45 

Centrarchidae Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 0.00 0.147 2.28 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 0.795 15.0 29.2 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 0.227 6.78 5.67 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 0.00 1.11 1.36 

Redbreast Lepomis auritus 15.4 0.074 0.582 

Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus 0.3 1.03 0.630 

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu 0.00 0.295 0.194 

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 0.00 0.00 0.291 

Clupeidae Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 0.00 18.4 25.3 

Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense 0.00 12.1 0.00 

Cyprinidae Bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus 29.6 0.00 0.00 

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus 7.83 0.00 0.00 

Eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius 0.00 0.516 0.388 

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 0.00 0.590 0.00 

Greenfin shiner Cyprinella chloristia 0.681 0.00 0.00 M

Sandbar shiner Notropis scepticus 10.8 0.147 0.00 

Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius 0.00 3.76 1.02 

Whitefin shiner Cyprinella nivea 0.00 0.221 1.60 

Yellowfin shiner Notropis lutipinnis 26.4 0.00 0.00 

Ictaluridae Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus 0.00 5.38 12.6 
NUREG-1939

2-66 April 2011

Table 2-18. (contd)

Family Common Name Scientific Name

Relative Abundance (percent)(a)

Mayo 

Creek

Parr 

Reservoir

Monticello 

Reservoir

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 0.00 11.6 3.73 

Flat bullhead Ameiurus platycephalus 0.114 0.00 0.485 M

Margined madtom Noturus insignis 0.114 0.00 0.00 

Snail bullhead Ameiurus brunneus 0.00 0.074 0.048 M

White catfish Ameiurus catus 0.00 0.884 1.60 M

Lepisosteidae Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 0.00 0.295 0.00 

Moronidae White bass Morone chrysops 0.00 0.00 0.097 

White perch Morone americana 0.00 11.2 9.94 

Percidae Piedmont darter Percina crassa 0.114 0.00 0.00 

Seagreen darter Etheostoma thalassinum 1.02 0.00 0.00 

Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi 2.38 0.00 0.00 

Yellow perch Perca flavescens 0.00 1.33 0.485 

Poeciliidae Eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 0.00 0.147 0.00 

Sources: Data were derived from Normandeau (2007, 2008, 2009a), Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. (2007, 2009b), and Quattlebaum (2

(a) Relative abundance was calculated as the total number of individuals (within a taxon) caught divided by the total number o

(among all taxa) within a particular waterbody. Note: survey approaches often included more than one sample method.

(b) The species status is a priority conservation rank designated by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCD

-- = No conservation status assigned
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-67 NUREG-1939

Aquatic vegetation provides structural and functional ecosystem services to aquatic 

communities. Structurally, aquatic vegetation stabilizes sediments, can reduce flow velocities, 

and provides habitat for aquatic biota. Functionally, aquatic vegetation facilitates nutrient 

cycling in aquatic communities through growth and addition of biomass to the system, which can 

contribute to the base of the aquatic food web. SCE&G implemented an investigation of the 

aquatic vegetation community of Parr Reservoir during October 2008 by qualitatively assessing 

the occurrence of vegetation along 11 transects throughout the reservoir. Eleven plant species 

were identified during the survey. Two invasive species, alligatorweed (Alternanthera 

philoxeroides) and water primrose were observed at all locations (Quattlebaum 2008c). Other 

species noted by Quattlebaum (2008c) included smooth beggartick (Bidens laevis), bulrush, 

coon’s tail (Ceratophyllum demersum), lizard’s tail, marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata), 

pickerelweed, smartweed (Polygonum persicaria), cattail, and rushes.

Monticello Reservoir

The Monticello Reservoir was formed in 1977 by damming Frees Creek, a small tributary of the 

Broad River that flowed into Parr Reservoir approximately 1 mi upstream from the Parr Shoals 

Dam (SCE&G 2010a; NRC 2004). Monticello Reservoir is hydraulically connected to the Parr 

Reservoir via the FPSF, and it serves both as an upper pool for the FPSF and as a cooling pond 

for VCSNS Unit 1 (NRC 2004) (Figure 2-1). To the northeast, the reservoir contains a 

subimpoundment which is a 300-ac area owned by SCE&G and co-managed by SCE&G and 

SCDNR (SCE&G 2010a, SCDNR 2002). The subimpoundment fishery is managed differently 

from the main reservoir in that SCDNR regulates lower allowable fishery catch limits and limits 

boat operations to electric motors (SCDNR 2002). The Monticello Reservoir, excluding the 

subimpoundment, is approximately 6 mi long with a total surface area of 6500 ac. The average 

water depth is 59 ft and the maximum depth is approximately 126 ft (SCE&G 2010a).

Between 2000 and 2004, the SCDHEC evaluated the water quality in the Broad River basin to 

assess the overall health and condition of aquatic areas throughout the basin. There are four 

SCDHEC stations in Monticello Reservoir as shown in Figure 2-12). Stations B-328 and B-327 

were sampled monthly. At station B-328, located in the Monticello subimpoundment, waterquality parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen, pH, toxins, turbidity, nutrients) met the compliance 

criteria and standards for supporting aquatic life and recreational uses. Throughout the 5-year 

monitoring period, this station yielded indications of improving conditions via a reduction in 

5-day biochemical oxygen demand, turbidity, fecal coliform, and total nitrogen and phosphorus 

concentrations (SCDHEC 2007). Approximately 3.5 mi southwest of the subimpoundment 

station, water conditions were suboptimal to support aquatic life due to an exceedance of pH 

criteria at station B-327. Recreational use was not restricted at this mid-lake location (SCDHEC 

2007). Two randomly selected stations on Monticello Reservoir were monitored monthly for 

1 year during 2004. The first station (RL-04370) was approximately 1.5 mi southwest of the 

subimpoundment station, and the second station (RL-04374) was approximately 1 mi southeast 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-68 April 2011

of the mid-lake station. Station RL-04370 yielded benzoic acid, cadmium, DDD and DDE 

(metabolites of DDT) in the sediment sample. Station RL-04374 yielded benzoic acid, 

cadmium, nickel, chromium, copper, zinc, bis(n-octyl) phthalate, DDT, and DDE in the sediment 

sample. Despite the occurrence of these chemical constituents, recreational use was not 

restricted and water conditions were optimal for aquatic life near both stations (SCDHEC 2007). 

Based on analysis of fish tissue, there are no consumption advisories on Monticello Reservoir 

(SCDHEC 2007).

Following commencement of operation at the VCSNS Unit 1, aquatic monitoring efforts in 

Monticello Reservoir included an evaluation of the fish community composition by means of 

gillnetting and boat electroshocking. During 1983 and 1984, 32 taxa representing 8 families 

were sampled from Monticello Reservoir (Dames and Moore 1985). Ten species of 

centrarchids made up 55 percent of the entire catch and two species of clupeids (gizzard shad 

and threadfin shad) made up 28 percent of the catch. Dames and Moore (1985), reported the 

remaining catch in Monticello Reservoir to include ictalurids (7 percent), catostomids 

(5 percent), percids (3 percent), cyprinids (2 percent), moronids (<1 percent), and lepisostids 

(<1 percent).

Cove rotenone studies conducted by SCDNR in 1987, 1988, 1995, and 1996 collected 29 

species of fish in Monticello Reservoir (Christie and Stroud 1996, 1997). Between 1988 and 

1995, the community composition of fish in the Monticello Reservoir remained stable. The 

predominant species were gizzard shad, channel catfish, white bass (Morone chrysops), and 

bluegill. In 1996, a shift in community structure was noted by a decrease in the standing stocks 

of white bass and a dramatic increase in the standing stocks of blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) 

(Christie and Stroud 1997). 

Seasonal creel surveys were conducted by SCDNR from 1997 to 1999. Fish targeted by 

anglers include ictalurids (blue catfish, channel catfish), centrarchids (bluegill, black crappie 

[Pomoxis nigromaculatus], largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), cyprinids (carp 

[Cyprinus carpio]), and moronids (white bass, white perch). In Monticello Reservoir, ictalurids 

were targeted 46 percent of the time. Bluegill and largemouth bass were also popular fish 

targeted by anglers (Christie and Stroud 1999). While fishing efforts in Monticello Reservoir 

were found to be lower compared with other reservoirs, an increasing trend in fishing effort 

within Monticello Reservoir was noted (Christie and Stroud 1999).

Between 2006 and 2009, SCE&G initiated inventories of fish community composition near the 

vicinity of the VCSNS site. The sampling effort used a combination of boat electrofishing, 

gillnets, and hoop nets and documented 24 fish species in Monticello Reservoir, excluding the 

subimpoundment (Table 2-18; Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a). Similar to the trends noted by 

Dames and Moore (1985), centrarchids (comprising seven species) contributed the largest 

proportion (40 percent) of the total catch and clupeids (e.g., gizzard shad) were secondary in 

abundance (25 percent) during the 2006-2009 sampling effort. As noted in the fish community 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-69 NUREG-1939

trends in Parr Reservoir, the abundance of ictalurids in Monticello Reservoir appears to have 

increased (18 percent of the total 2006-2009 catch) since the early 1980s (Normandeau 2007, 

2008, 2009a). The most predominant species captured in the Monticello Reservoir between 

2006 and 2009 included bluegill (29 percent of the total catch), gizzard shad (25 percent), blue 

catfish (13 percent), and white perch (10 percent).

To examine the benthic community in Monticello Reservoir, SCE&G collected macroinvertebrate 

samples at three stations in the reservoir. The reference station was located approximately 3 mi 

northwest of the VCSNS site. Two additional stations were located at the south end of the 

reservoir near the proposed Units 2 and 3 water-treatment intake and raw-water intake

structures, respectively (CBS 2009d). Samples were analyzed by CBS. Seasonal (e.g., 

quarterly) monitoring occurred from July 2008 to April 2009 (CBS 2008a, c; CBS 2009c, d). 

Results were evaluated using a combination of bioassessment metrics and analyzed using 

statistical comparison techniques. The survey efforts yielded at least 15 different taxa from 11 

orders (CBS 2008a, c; CBS 2009c, d). The general trends in benthic community structure at the 

control station and the two water-intake stations do not indicate disparate conditions (CBS

2008a, c; CBS 2009c, d).

SCE&G conducted an investigation of the aquatic vegetation community of Monticello Reservoir 

on November 6, 2008 at six locations, including the proposed raw-water and water-treatment 

intakes. Biologists used a viewing tube to facilitate observations in shallow-water locations and 

used a rake for sampling in deep water areas. No aquatic plants were observed in the shallow 

water at the six sampling locations. Only stoneworts (Nitella spp.), branched multicellular algae, 

were collected from a deeper-water area offshore of the public boat landing on the eastern 

shore of Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a). 

Onsite Streams

There are 49,288 linear feet of streams within the VCSNS site boundary. Most of the onsite 

streams are seasonal (see Table 2-19, Figure 4-2). Mayo Creek is the primary perennial stream 

located on the VCSNS site. Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. (2007) describes Mayo Creek as a typical 

Piedmont stream characterized by flowing through a mixed hardwood forest, almost completely 

shaded by tree canopy. The creek originates 0.5 mi southeast of VCSNS Unit 1, and flows 

approximately 3.6 mi southwest before draining into the Broad River, downstream of the Parr 

Shoals Dam (Figure 2-3). The Mayo Creek drainage area is approximately 6 mi2 and 

encompasses mixed hardwood forests that may mitigate surface-water temperatures during 

warm summer months (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007; SCE&G 2010a). In addition to Mayo Creek, 

there are intermittent and seasonal stream channels within the VCSNS site vicinity. Fish have 

been noted in residual pools associated with intermittent tributary channels, but there may be 

insufficient water to maintain connectivity between habitats to perpetuate aquatic biota (Tetra 

Tech NUS, Inc. 2007).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-70 April 2011

Aquatic biota rely on the overall quality of water within a particular habitat for survival and 

sustainability. The results of water-quality parameters measured in conjunction with four 

seasonal sampling events that occurred between July 2006 and July 2009 indicate that all 

sampling stations in Mayo Creek met the SCDHEC quality standards for temperature and 

dissolved oxygen in freshwater habitats (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b; Quattlebaum 

2008b; CBS 2008b, 2009a, b). The SCDHEC freshwater classification standards, which are 

approved by the EPA (in accordance with Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 

Part 131), indicate the suitability of a waterbody for various purposes including the sustainability 

of aquatic biota (SCDHEC 2004). One metric, pH, did not meet the SCDHEC freshwater 

standards at one or more stations during the 2009 winter and spring sampling events which may 

have been due to a faulty water quality meter (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009b). During the 2006 

summer and fall aquatic surveys, pH values met the criterion, but were detected at the minimum 

threshold value for the freshwater standard (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007; SCDHEC 2004). 

Increased acidity has been linked to environmental and biological conditions (organic content 

and phytoplankton production) within specific geographic regions (SCDHEC 2009c), but 

changes in increased acidity can impose adverse impacts on the growth and survival of critical 

early life stages of aquatic organisms (Fuiman 2002; Houde 2002).

Table 2-19. VCSNS Onsite Stream Characteristics

Stream 

Name

Linear 

Feet

Average 

Width (ft)

Average 

Depth (ft) Substrate

Tributary 

Stream Order

Flow 

Regime

C 3656 20 0.83 sand, gravel -- --

F 6850 12 <1 silt, sand First seasonal

G 1778 15 4 silt Second seasonal

H 1426 15 4 silt Second seasonal

K 9517 25 6 silt, sand Third seasonal

L 2342 12 4 sand Second seasonal

M 9364 15 -- -- -- perennial

N 5454 12 0.25-3 silt, sand, gravel First seasonal

P 2044 10 0.25-3 silt, sand, gravel First seasonal

T 6857 10 0.25-3 silt, sand, gravel First seasonal

Data Source: USACE 2009

-- Information not available

Fish surveys were conducted in Mayo Creek throughout the lower, middle, and upper stream 

segments and within a tributary channel of the creek. Methods for fish sampling included 

minnow traps (unbaited and left to fish overnight) and backpack electrofishing (single-pass 

sampling transects ranging from 166 to 205 ft in length) (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b; 

Quattlebaum 2008b). A total of 16 taxa were sampled during the 2006-2009 fish survey efforts 

(Table 2-18). While there were similarities in the type of taxa encountered throughout the 

various stream reaches, species abundances were not distributed similarly within Mayo Creek. 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-71 NUREG-1939

The most predominant species encountered during the Mayo Creek sampling efforts included 

the yellowfin shiner (Notropis lutipinnis), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), sandbar 

shiner, and redbreast sunfish.

Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled seasonally from three stations in Mayo Creek 

between July 2008 and April 2009. The intent of the sampling was to evaluate the community of 

macroinvertebrates and assess stream condition (CBS 2008b, d; CBS 2009a, b). The first 

station was the most upstream station sampled on Mayo Creek and located approximately 1 mi 

upstream of Parr Road. The second station was approximately 0.12 mi upstream of Parr Road 

on Mayo Creek, and the third station was located 164 ft downstream of Parr Road (CBS 2009b). 

Results were evaluated using a combination of 12 bioassessment metrics and analyzed using 

statistical comparison techniques. The bioassessment metrics included taxa richness, various 

biotic indices (e.g., EPT index, NCBI, community loss index, etc.), and comparisons of 

functional groups and abundances described by Plafkin et al. (1989) in Rapid Bioassessment 

Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish.

Based on the qualitative assessment of the composition of benthic macroinvertebrates in Mayo 

Creek, CBS concluded that the community was under duress, which may have been explained 

by drought conditions observed during the July 2008 sampling event (CBS 2008b). The 

October 2008 sampling event resulted in similar conclusions with regard to a community of 

benthic macroinvertebrates that demonstrated signs of stress. CBS (2008d) noted drought 

conditions persisted throughout much of the summer, which may partially explain the results, 

although no data were provided to support this supposition. According to the SCDHEC 

bioclassification rating system (e.g., the mean of the NCBI and EPT indices), conditions at the 

most upstream station improved slightly following the January 2009 sampling to achieve a score 

of “good” yet the remaining two downstream stations only achieved ratings of “good/fair,” 

indicating partial impairment (CBS 2009a). The April 2009 results indicated that conditions 

within Mayo Creek improved as all stations yielded “good” bioclassification scores. Throughout 

the study period, water quality (pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen) was measured in 

conjunction with macroinvertebrate collections. Despite a range of benthic community 

conditions (e.g., stressed, impaired, good), water-quality metrics were within the SCDHEC 

freshwater quality standards (CBS 2009b). During the survey efforts at least 43 taxa were 

encountered, representing 14 orders (CBS 2008b, d; CBS 2009a, b). Mayfly (Caenis sp.) and 

caddisfly (Cheumatopsyche sp.) were the most predominant.

2.4.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines

The delivery of power associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would require upgrading existing 

transmission-line corridors and substations, and clearing new transmission-line corridors, and 

construction of a new substation. Two entities, SCE&G and Santee Cooper, are responsible for 

identifying the proposed locations associated with new and upgraded transmission lines. In 

total, six new offsite 230-kV lines are proposed for the transmission of electricity associated with 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-72 April 2011

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (Figure 2-5) (SCE&G 2010b; Pike 2010; MACTEC 2009). 

Systematic field surveys for aquatic organisms are not included as part of the transmission-line 

site-selection process. In the absence of empirical data, reconnaissance-level information 

pertaining to species designated as endangered, threatened, or species of concern and critical 

habitat associated with the counties in which the transmission lines would occur was derived 

from FWS (2010, 2011) and SCDNR (2010a) and is provided in Table 2-20. In addition, mapbased evaluative summaries, which cross reference the co-locations of transmission-line 

corridors and Federally protected species, were used for analyses (Palmetto 2010; MACTEC 

2010). 

The following descriptions of the proposed actions associated with the Santee Cooper 

transmission lines were derived from the MACTEC (2008, 2009) transmission-line siting studies. 

Santee Cooper proposed the addition of 239 mi of transmission lines with 83 percent of the new 

transmission lines occurring within existing transmission-line corridors (

Santee Cooper Transmission Lines

Figure 2-5). The 

VCSNS-Flat Creek line, would extend 72 mi northeast from the VCSNS site to the existing Flat 

Creek substation, and would require approximately 17 mi of new corridor running adjacent to 

existing corridor. The VCSNS-Flat Creek line is located within the Piedmont ecoregion of the 

state and crosses an estimated 55 perennial streams and 13 watersheds within the Broad, 

Catawba, and Pee Dee river basins. The VCSNS-Varnville line would extend 167 mi south from 

the VCSNS site to the existing Varnville substation, and would require approximately 22 mi of 

new corridor running adjacent to existing corridor, and approximately 0.5 mi of new corridor not 

adjacent to existing corridor. The VCSNS-Varnville line is located within the Piedmont and 

Coastal Plain ecoregions of the state and crosses an estimated 85 perennial streams within 

23 watersheds and falls within the Salkehatchie, Edisto, Saluda, and Broad river basins. 

The largest water crossings associated with the VCSNS-Flat Creek line occur within an existing 

corridor at an unnamed impoundment near Winnsboro (1200 ft wide) and adjacent to an existing 

corridor at the Fishing Creek Reservoir (1300 ft wide). The Fishing Creek Reservoir crossing 

would require a new, 85-ft-wide corridor that would be placed adjacent and parallel to the north 

of an existing corridor (MACTEC 2009). The VCSNS-Varnville line crosses the Saluda River 

(240 ft wide) and the Broad River at two discrete locations (475 ft and 500 ft wide). The 

installation of transmission lines across waterbodies would be done in accordance with 

SCDHEC consultation and permitting. Four of the 18 navigable water crossings associated with 

the Santee Cooper transmission lines would include new transmission-line corridors spanning

the following waterbodies: Fishing Creek Reservoir, Parr Reservoir, Little River, and Cedar 

Creek (MACTEC 2009).
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-73 NUREG-1939

SCE&G Transmission Lines

SCE&G has outlined a plan to install approximately 6 mi of new transmission-line corridor as 

well as upgrade 147 mi of existing corridors. The only line proposed to include new 

transmission-line corridors is the VCSNS-Killian line, which totals 37 mi in length. The 

transmission-line route would primarily reside within existing transmission-line corridors. From 

the VCSNS site, the VCSNS-Killian line would extend northeast toward Winnsboro then follow a 

southeasterly direction to Blythewood. The final 6 mi of the VCSNS-Killian line, which 

represents approximately 16 percent of the total length, would occupy a new transmission-line 

corridor and would extend southeasterly from Blythewood to Killian (Pike 2010). Drainages 

associated within the VCSNS-Killian line would be primarily within the Piedmont ecoregion and 

include various streams within the Lower Broad River, Wateree River, and Congaree River 

watersheds (FP&S 2008; Pike 2010). 

Table 2-20. Aquatic Species Designated as Threatened, Endangered, Proposed for Federal 

Listing, or Species of Concern and Critical Habitat in Counties Crossed by

Transmission-Line Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name Status County

Reptiles

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle FT/ST Colleton

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle FE Colleton

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle FE Colleton

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley sea turtle FE Colleton

Fish

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon FE/SE Calhoun, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, 

Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland

Acipenser osyrinchus

oxyrinchus

Atlantic sturgeon PFE Calhoun, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, 

Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland

Etheostoma collis Carolina darter SE

ST

Fairfield

Richland

Fundulus diaphanus Banded killifish SC Richland

Notropis chiliticus Redlip shiner SC Richland

Rhinichthys atratulus Blacknose dace SC Richland

Semotilus lumbee Sandhills chub SC Lancaster

Mollusks

Alasmidonta varicosa Brook floater SC Lancaster

Anodonta couperiana Barrel floater SC Hampton

Elliptio congaraea Carolina slabshell SC Orangeburg

Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance SC Newberry, Lancaster

Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter FE/SE Chester, Fairfield, Lancaster, Lexington, 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-74 April 2011

Table 2-20. (contd)

Scientific Name Common Name Status County

Richland, Newberry

Pyganodon cataracta Eastern floater SC Hampton, Lancaster, Orangeburg

Strophitus undulatus Squawfoot SC Lancaster, Richland

Toxolasma pullus Savannah lilliput SC Orangeburg

Utterbackia imbecillis Paper pondshell SC Hampton, Orangeburg

Villosa constricta Notched rainbow SC Lancaster

Villosa delumbis Eastern creekshell SC Chester, Colleton, Hampton, Fairfield, 

Lancaster, Orangeburg, Richland

Elimia catenaria Gravel elimia SC Richland

Crustacean

Distocambarus youngineri Saluda crayfish SC Newberry

Aquatic Vegetation

Myriophyllum laxum Piedmont water-milfoil SC Orangeburg, Richland, Lexington

Potamogeton 

confervoides

Algae-like pondweed SC Richland

Potamogeton foliosus Leafy pondweed SC Orangeburg

Critical Habitat

Lasmigona decorata Flat Creek CH Lancaster

Sources: Pike 2010; MACTEC 2009; FWS 2010, 2011; SCDNR 2010; 67 FR 44502

FE = Federally Endangered, SE = State Endangered, FT = Federally Threatened, PFE = Proposed Federally 

Endangered, CH = Critical Habitat

The remaining SCE&G transmission-line routes would be placed within existing corridors. The 

VCSNS-St. George No. 1 and No. 2 corridors would be routed within the Piedmont and Coastal 

Plain ecoregions. and would encompass the drainage areas of the following systems: Lower 

Broad, Congaree, North Fork Edisto and the Edisto rivers. The remaining two SCE&G 

transmission lines,the VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2 and St. George No. 1 transmission-line and 

VCSNS-St. George No. 2 transmission-line, would be routed within the Piedmont ecoregion that 

includes the lower Broad and Saluda drainages (Pike 2010).

In addition to the four transmission lines described above, SCE&G would add three onsite lines 

to connect the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 switchyard to the existing Unit 1 switchyard (Pike 2010). 

These connector lines would cross streams located to the northeast and south of the Units 2 

and 3 switchyard (e.g., Streams C, F-2, F-4, and two unnamed streams; Figure 4-2).

2.4.2.3 Important Aquatic Species

The NRC has defined important species as any species that are rare, ecologically sensitive, 

play an ecological role, are relied on by a rare or valuable species, and/or have commercial or 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-75 NUREG-1939

recreational value (NUREG-1555 [NRC 2000]). The FWS identifies threatened or endangered 

species in 50 CFR 17.11 and 50 CFR 17.12. Important species also include rare species 

proposed for listing as threatened or endangered; published in the Federal Register as 

candidates for listing; or listed as threatened, endangered, or species of concern by the state in 

which they occur. Biological indicator species that respond to and indicate environmental 

change are also classed as important species. The following section includes recreationally 

important species, invasive species, important species, and protected species that have been 

documented at the VCSNS site, or are thought to occur in the vicinity of the site or in the 

counties proposed for transmission-line siting. The Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy developed by the SCDNR identifies conservation priority species (SCDNR 2005b), 

some of which are known to occur at the VCSNS site. Numerous aquatic taxa are State 

species of concern within the site and vicinity, including the counties proposed for the siting of 

transmission lines. The species specific to the proposed transmission-line corridors are listed in 

Table 2-20. No commercially important aquatic species are known to occur in the vicinity of the 

VCSNS site. No Federally or proposed Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic 

species are known to occur at the VCSNS site, but there are listed species present within 

counties that are proposed for transmission-line siting. Transmission-line routes for the VCSNS 

site cross waterbodies in the following counties: Calhoun, Chester, Colleton, Dorchester,

Fairfield, Hampton, Lancaster, Lexington, Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland.

Recreationally Important Species

The identification of species deemed to be recreationally important was derived from published 

creel surveys (Christie and Stroud 1998, 1999) and game fish outlined in the SCDNR freshwater 

fishing rules and regulations document (SCDNR 2009). Table 2-21 is a compilation of 

recreationally sought-after fish that are known to occur in the Parr and Monticello reservoirs.

In South Carolina, largemouth bass are among the most sought-after sportsfish (Bulak and 

Crane 2009). While largemouth bass occur within waters near the VCSNS site and accounted 

for 15 to 19 percent of the fishing effort in Monticello Reservoir during the late 1990s, SCDNR 

creel surveys indicate that the fishing effort in Monticello Reservoir was primarily directed at 

channel catfish and blue catfish (Christie and Stroud 1998, 1999). Qualitative data pertaining to 

fishing effort do not exist for Parr Reservoir, but efforts purportedly target catfish species in this 

reservoir as well (Hayes 1999). 

Invasive Species

While some circumstances may result in economical or ecological benefits from non-native 

species, biological invasions by non-native species are primarily associated with adverse 

impacts (OTA 1993; Strayer et al. 2006; Vitousek et al. 1996). The decline of native taxa, 

especially species at risk of imperilment, has been linked to the introduction of non-native 

species throughout the United States (Wilcove et al. 1998). There are many mechanisms by 
NUREG-1939

2-76 April 2011

Table 2-21. Summary of Recreational Fish Species Known to Occur in Parr or Monticello Rese

Family Common Name Scientific Name

Percent 

Abundance(a) State Distribution Habitat

Thermal 

Tolerance Size Diet 

Centrarchidae

Largemouth 

Bass(b)

Micropterus 

salmoides

Parr: 6.8

Monticello: 5.7

Found in waters 

throughout the state

Streams, lakes, 

reservoirs, ponds. 

Warm, clear, 

backwaters.

Tolerant of turbidity, 

and warm-water 

temps for short 

periods

Can tolerate 

warm water 

temp (36°C) 

for short 

periods

Spawning: 16-

24°C

120-650 

mm; 

adults

Plankton, insect

small fish, crayf

amphibians and 

mammals

Smallmouth 

Bass(c)

Micropterus 

dolomieu

Parr: 0.3; 

Monticello: 0.2

Occurs in the 

Broad, upper 

Saluda, and

Savannah river 

tributaries

Lakes, reservoirs, 

streams

Prefers cold, clear 

water

Spawning: 16-

24°C

200-686 

mm; 

adults

Microcrustacean

aquatic insects, 

larvae, other fis

crayfish

Black Crappie(b) Pomoxis 

nigromaculatus

Parr: 

0.1;

Monticello: 2.3 

Found in waters 

throughout the state

Backwater areas in 

rivers, reservoirs, 

and ponds.

Associates with 

vegetation, LWD, 

and cool, clear 

waters

Range: 4-33°C

Spawning: 15-

20°C

130-490 

mm; 

adults

Microcrustacean

insects, larval fis

small fish includ

gizzard and 

threadfin shad

Bluegill(b) Lepomis 

macrochirus

Parr: 15; 

Monticello: 29 

Found in waters 

throughout the state

Rivers, streams, 

lakes, ponds, 

reservoirs; pools, 

low-velocity waters, 

aquatic vegetation

Range: 5-

35°C. Critical 

thermal max: 

37-41°C

Spawning: 19-

25°C

178-410 

mm; 

adults

Insects, 

microcrustacean

crayfish, mollus

and small fish

Redbreast 

Sunfish(b)

Lepomis auritus Parr: 0.1; 

Monticello: 0.6 

Found in waters 

throughout the state

Streams, rivers, 

reservoirs; low 

velocity water; deep 

pools and 

backwaters; LWD 

and undercut banks

Spawning: 16-

31°C

60-240 

mm; 

adults

Insects, crayfish

mollusks, 

arthropods, som

fish
April 2011

2-77 NUREG-1939

Table 2-21. (contd)

Family Common Name Scientific Name

Percent 

Abundance(a) State Distribution Habitat

Thermal 

Tolerance Size Diet 

Centrarchidae

Redear 

Sunfish(b) Lepomis microlophus

Parr: 

Monticello: 0.6

Found in waters 

throughout the 

state

Streams, rivers, 

lakes, reservoirs, 

ponds, swamps 

Associated with 

vegetation and 

backwaters

Spawning: 16-

24°C

134-381 

mm; 

adults

Invertebrates, 

zooplankton, 

aquatic insects, 

gastropods, and 

mollusks

Pumpkinseed(b) Lepomis gibbosus Parr: 1.1; 

Monticello: 1.4 

Found in waters 

throughout the 

state

Backwaters of 

streams, rivers, 

ponds, and 

reservoirs 

Associated with 

vegetation

Range: 5-

33°C

Spawning: 16-

27°C

78-381 

mm; 

adults

Microcrustacea

aquatic insects, 

gastropods, cla

some fish and 

aquatic vegetat

Ictaluridae

Blue Catfish(b) Ictalurus furcatus Parr: 5.4; 

Monticello: 13 

Found in most 

major drainages

Rivers and 

reservoirs

Deep, swift, turbid 

water

Spawning: 21-

24°C

508-

1650 

mm; 

adults

Fish, crayfish, 

aquatic insects, 

vegetation, 

mollusks, crayfi

fish including 

threadfin and 

gizzard shad

Channel

Catfish(b)

Ictalurus 

punctatus

Parr: 12; 

Monticello: 3.7 

Found in most 

major drainages; 

often stocked in 

ponds

Small-to-large 

rivers, tributaries, 

reservoirs, ponds; 

deep pools with 

structure/cover; 

tolerates warm and 

turbid water

Spawning: 21-

30°C

267-

1270 

mm; 

adults

Fish, crayfish, 

mollusks, aquat

insects, and aq

vegetation

Percidae

Yellow perch(b) Perca flavescens Parr: 1.3; 

Monticello: 0.5 

Found in most 

major drainages

Rivers, streams, 

lakes, reservoirs. 

Can tolerate a 

range of 

temperatures; cool 

to warm

Spawning: 2-

19°C

152-400 

mm; 

adults

Insects, 

microcrustacea

crayfish, fish
NUREG-1939

2-78 April 2011

Table 2-21. (contd)

Family Common Name Scientific Name

Percent 

Abundance(a) State Distribution Habitat

Thermal 

Tolerance Size Diet 

Moronidae

White Bass(b) Morone chrysops Parr: 0.0; 

Monticello: 0.1 

Occurs in river 

basins within the 

Piedmont and 

Coastal Plains

Mainstream rivers 

and deep areas 

within reservoirs; 

low velocity water, 

aquatic vegetation 

and other structure

Spawning: 

15-17°C

275-450 

mm; 

adults

Zooplankton, aq

insects, crayfish

White perch(b) Morone americana Parr: 11; 

Monticello: 10 

Found in most major 

drainages

Initially associated 

with estuarine and 

brackish waters, but 

has established in 

freshwater 

environments

Spawning: 10-

16°C

100-350 

mm; 

adults

Microcrustacean

shrimp, crab, 

crayfish, worms

Percent abundance was determined based on total number of individuals sampled during the 2006-2009 (Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a, and Quattleb

surveys of Parr and Monticello reservoirs.

Sources: Rohde et al. 2009; Marcy et al. 2005; Jenkins and Burkhead 1994

Sources: Rohde et al. 2009; Jenkins and Burkhead 1994

LWD = large woody debris, SC = South Carolina
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-79 NUREG-1939

which non-native species affect native taxa. At the species level, the presence of invasive 

species can affect the growth and behavioral patterns of native species, and lead to increased 

competition. At the ecosystem level, large-scale effects of invasive species can induce changes 

in abundance and community structure and alteration of structural and functional integrity of 

habitats (Parker et al. 1999; Vitousek et al. 1996). Detriment from non-native species also 

includes economic impacts. Non-native vegetation can clog waterways by altering hydrologic 

flow and increasing sedimentation (OTA 1993). Invasive mollusks, including Asian 

clams (Corbicula fluminea), zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), and quagga mussels 

(D. bugensis), clog water systems associated with power-generation facilities and at a national 

level can cost $1 billion/year to manage (OTA 1993; Pimentel et al. 2005).

The South Carolina Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Task Force, represented by Federal, State, 

and nongovernmental entities, has developed a management strategy aimed at minimizing 

adverse impacts imposed by aquatic invasive species. The AIS Task Force has identified AIS 

as species that are nonindigenous to South Carolina and may be capable of asserting adverse 

impacts on aquatic ecosystems or presenting economic constraints. Of the list of invasive 

species considered to be a management concern within South Carolina, two plant species, two 

fish species, and one mollusk species are known to occur in the vicinity of the VCSNS site 

(Table 2-22). 

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

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name Type Invasive Attributes

Occurrence at 

the VCSNS Site 

Alligatorweed Alternanthera 

philoxeroides

Freshwater 

plant

Aggressive, rapid colonizing plant, 

affects flow and uptake of water

Parr Reservoir

Water 

primrose

Ludwigia 

uruguayensis

Freshwater 

plant

Rhizomatous, chokes shorelines, 

affects water use and access, 

decreases flow, clogs water-intake 

structures

Parr Reservoir

Blue catfish Ictalurus 

furcatus

Freshwater 

fish

Can tolerate a range of 

environmental conditions, 

piscivorous, competes for prey 

resources with native catfish

Parr Reservoir, 

Monticello 

Reservoir

White perch Morone 

americana

Freshwater 

fish

Competes with recreationally 

important fish such as white bass 

and crappie

Parr Reservoir, 

Monticello 

Reservoir

Asian clam Corbicula 

fluminea

Freshwater 

clam

Competes with native mollusks for 

food and space, alters substrate 

conditions; high densities clog 

water-intake structures 

Parr Reservoir

Sources: SCDNR 2008; SCE&G 2010a

Survey efforts included multiple sample methodologies and spanned multiple spatial and temporal scales
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-80 April 2011

Ecologically Important Species 

Species that occupy a role critical to the function of the local ecosystem are also considered 

important, in addition to species that may serve as biological indicators of environmental 

change.

The bluehead chub is an ecologically important species because of its role as an ecosystem 

engineer in freshwater habitats. The male bluehead chub facilitates spawning activities by 

constructing a nest from stream gravel. The nest structures are used by other species such as 

blackbanded darter (Percina nigrofasciata), yellowfin shiner, and rosyface chub (Hybopsis 

rubrifrons). The attribute of manipulating substrate, which provides structure beneficial to other 

fish, has resulted in the designation of bluehead chub as a keystone species (Rohde et al. 2009; 

Marcy et al. 2005). Wallin (1992) documented a symbiotic spawning relationship between 

bluehead chub and yellowfin shiner and suggested that yellowfin shiner cannot spawn in the 

absence of their symbiotic counterpart. 

Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus)

The bluehead chub is commonly found in the Piedmont ecoregion of South Carolina (Rohde et 

al. 2009). It was the most abundant species encountered during surveys in Mayo Creek (Tetra 

Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b). The diet of bluehead chub consists of aquatic and terrestrial 

insects as well as crustaceans, clams, and algae (Rohde et al. 2009).

The eastern creekshell maintains a global status rating of secure; however, the State-level 

status of this freshwater mussel is undetermined within South Carolina (NatureServe 2009b). 

It has been identified as a species of moderate conservation priority (SCDNR 2005b) and is 

listed as a species of concern within Fairfield County (SCDNR 2010a). This species occurs in 

streams and rivers in benthic conditions ranging from mud to coarse substrates and is often 

associated with tree roots near the edges of aquatic habitats. The eastern creekshell is thought 

to be sensitive to alterations of aquatic habitats (e.g., modifications, sedimentation, water 

quality), but empirical evidence to support these suppositions is lacking (SCDNR 2006b). It is 

unknown whether this species occurs at the VCSNS site.

Eastern Creekshell (Villosa delumbis)

At the global and national scales, the eastern floater, a freshwater mussel, has been designated 

as secure, yet the overall status of this species within the State of South Carolina is 

undetermined (NatureServe 2009b). In Fairfield County, the eastern floater is listed as a South 

Carolina species of concern (SCDNR 2005b). Eastern floaters commonly occur throughout 

drainages of the Atlantic Ocean. They are reportedly tolerant of a range of environmental 

Eastern Floater (Pyganodon cataracta)
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-81 NUREG-1939

conditions and are found within a variety of aquatic environments, including lakes, streams, and 

large rivers (NatureServe 2009b). The eastern floater is characterized by an easily penetrable 

thin shell, making it a preferred prey resource by other aquatic biota (PDCNR 2007). One 

individual of this species was collected near the proposed raw-water intake in April 2009 

(CBS 2009c, d).

This freshwater mussel is designated as being globally imperiled to vulnerable (NatureServe 

2009b) and is a species of concern in Newberry County, South Carolina (SCDNR 2005b). 

Precise population assessments are difficult to achieve due to questions regarding the 

taxonomic classification of Elliptio sp. As such, there are few detailed accounts of life-history 

information pertaining to the yellow lance. It occurs in association with sandy sediments and 

appears to be intolerant of fine sediments and chemical pollutants (NatureServe 2009b). It is 

unknown whether this species occurs at the VCSNS site.

Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata)

The Broad River spiny crayfish is relegated to a narrow distribution within the States of North 

and South Carolina. Little is known about the life-history characteristics of this crayfish 

(NatureServe 2009b; SCDNR 2006b). This species has been classified as vulnerable at both 

global and national scales. In South Carolina, the Broad River spiny crayfish is considered 

vulnerable and has been designated as a species with the highest ranked conservation priority 

(SCDNR 2006b; SCDNR 2005b). Fairfield County is one of three counties in which the Broad 

River spiny crayfish has been documented. Habitat associations include areas characterized by 

sand deposits, log jams, and debris (SCDNR 2006b). No spiny crayfish were collected during 

sampling efforts and it is unknown whether this species occurs at the VCSNS site (Tetra Tech 

NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b).

Broad River Spiny Crayfish (Cambarus spicatus)

Distocambarus youngineri, also commonly known as the Saluda crayfish (FWS 2008a) and the 

Newberry burrowing crayfish (Taylor et al. 2007), is a species of crayfish that is listed as 

critically imperiled at global, national, and State levels due to its very limited distribution 

(NatureServe 2009b). This species has been encountered in few locations in South Carolina; 

all occurrences have been limited to Newberry County and only one occurrence has been 

documented within the Broad River (SCDNR 2006b). The crayfish is designated as a South 

Carolina species with the highest conservation priority (SCDNR 2005b). It burrows in moist 

sediments and leaf litter and is associated with headwater or seasonal streams characterized by 

a mixed-hardwood overstory (SCDNR 2006b). No Saluda crayfish were collected during 

sampling efforts and it is unknown whether this species occurs at the VCSNS site (Tetra Tech 

NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b).

Crayfish (Distocambarus youngineri)
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-82 April 2011

While populations of this species are thought to be stable in South Carolina, the flat bullhead 

has become threatened by land-use practices and species interactions with non-native 

freshwater catfish (ictalurids) in other southern regions and is listed as a moderate conservation 

priority by SCDNR (Bettinger 2006b). The flat bullhead is distributed in all drainages of South 

Carolina, but is more commonly associated with the upper Catawba, Broad, and Savannah 

rivers (Rohde et al. 2009; Marcy et al. 2005). The largest populations of flat bullhead in South 

Carolina are thought to reside within the Broad River (Bettinger 2006b), yet these fish made up 

less than 1 percent of the overall catch during electrofishing efforts within the Broad River 

(Bettinger et al. 2003) and 0 to 7 percent of the catch among several Broad River tributary 

streams (Bettinger et al. 2006). Flat bullhead have been encountered in Mayo Creek 

(0.1 percent of the total abundance) (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b) and Monticello 

Reservoir (0.5 percent of the total abundance), but none was captured during recent Parr 

Reservoir sampling efforts (Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a). Juvenile 

fishes are associated with small, clear streams, while adults tend to reside in the slow-moving, 

soft-bottom habitats of rivers. Flat bullhead are omnivorous; food items include aquatic insects, 

small fish, mollusks, bryozoans, and vegetation (Rohde et al. 2009; Marcy et al. 2005).

Flat Bullhead (Ameiurus platycephalus)

The greenfin shiner is a South Carolina species of moderate conservation priority (SCDNR 

2005b). Its distribution is relegated to the Piedmont ecoregion within the Santee and Pee Dee 

drainages; it is endemic to the Carolinas (Rohde et al. 2009; Bettinger 2006a). Greenfin shiners 

were encountered during sampling efforts in Mayo Creek (2006-2009) where their abundance 

represented approximately 1 percent of the total catch (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b). 

Current populations appear to be stable in South Carolina, but the ability of this species to 

perpetuate within a fairly limited geographic region is unknown (Bettinger 2006a). Greenfin 

shiners are typically found in large creeks, medium-sized rivers, and sometimes in reservoirs. 

They tend to be associated with pools, slow-moving, cool, clear waters, and substrates that 

range from sand to rocks. They are crevice spawners, and as such, require coarse substratum 

for egg deposition (Rohde et al. 2009; Bettinger 2006a). Prey items include terrestrial insects, 

benthic insect larvae (chironomid, caddisfly, stonefly, and beetle larvae), and dragonfly nymphs 

(Rohde et al. 2009).

Greenfin Shiner (Cyprinella chloristia)

The notchlip redhorse was formerly described as a race of the silver redhorse (Moxostoma 

anisurum), but is currently recognized as a distinct species (Marcy et al. 2005; Jenkins and 

Burkhead 1994). Because of this former taxonomic classification, existing knowledge pertaining 

to life-history attributes of the notchlip redhorse likely encompasses attributes of the silver 

redhorse. Categorized as a South Carolina species of moderate conservation priority, the 

Notchlip Redhorse (Moxostoma collapsum)
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-83 NUREG-1939

notchlip redhorse is documented to occur within the Broad, Pee Dee, Santee, and Savannah 

rivers (Sessions et al. 2006; Rohde et al. 2009). The notchlip redhorse has been captured in 

aquatic surveys in the Parr and Monticello reservoirs. Data from these surveys indicate that the 

notchlip redhorse comprised 2 and 0.8 percent of the total catch in the Parr and Monticello 

reservoirs, respectively (Normandeau 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a). Population declines 

of the notchlip redhorse have been noted in several rivers in North Carolina; and the status of 

this species is being reviewed in South Carolina, where this species is thought to be affected by 

land-use activities that increase siltation in waterways (Sessions et al. 2006). Aquatic habitat for 

the notchlip redhorse includes large rivers and tributary channels (Sessions et al. 2006; Rohde 

et al. 2009). Adults and juveniles are associated with pool habitats, but adults are found in 

pools with greater depths and larger flows, while juveniles reside in pools found in backwaters. 

The notchlip redhorse is found in benthic conditions that range from silt to rocky (Rohde et al. 

2009).

Snail bullheads are found throughout the State of South Carolina and are common in the 

Santee and Savannah river watersheds (Rohde et al. 2009). Snail bullheads are thought to 

maintain stable populations in South Carolina; however, this species is experiencing declines in 

many drainages throughout its range. Furthermore, non-native flathead catfish 

(Pylodictis olivaris) and blue catfish pose a threat to the sustainability of snail bullhead 

populations. For these reasons, the snail bullhead is a species of moderate conservation 

priority in South Carolina (Bettinger 2006b). During 2006-2009 aquatic surveys at the VCSNS 

site, one snail bullhead was captured in each of the two reservoirs (Parr and Monticello) 

(Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a). Dames and Moore (1985) also 

captured this species in Parr (1978, 1982-1984) and Monticello reservoirs (1979-1984). The 

Broad River is said to maintain some of the largest populations of snail bullhead (Bettinger 

2006b). Snail bullheads occupy moderate-sized rivers and can tolerate warm water 

temperatures. These fish are associated with runs and riffle habitat and rock substratum 

(Jenkins and Burkhead 1994; Rohde et al. 2009). Snail bullheads are omnivores. Their diet 

includes insect larvae, snails, fish, algae, and aquatic vegetation (Rohde et al. 2009).

Snail Bullhead (Ameiurus brunneus)

The white catfish is considered stable throughout much of its range, including South Carolina. 

However, the link between introductions of non-native species (flathead and blue catfish) and 

localized population declines of white catfish has resulted in this fish being designated as a 

species of moderate conservation priority in South Carolina (Sessions et al. 2006). The white 

catfish is distributed throughout all watersheds of South Carolina (Rohde et al. 2009; Sessions 

et al. 2006). In the Parr Reservoir and Monticello reservoirs, this species accounted for 

0.9 percent and 1.6 percent of the respective catches during the 2006-2009 surveys at the 

VCSNS site (Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a).

White Catfish (Ameiurus catus)
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-84 April 2011

White catfish reside in rivers of medium-to-large size and are associated with low-velocity, turbid 

waters. Their occupation of small streams is reportedly rare; however, white catfish can occur 

in reservoirs, warm-water ponds, and brackish waters (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994; Rohde et 

al. 2009). Benthic habitat associations include substrates of small grain-size fractions; i.e., sand 

or silt. White catfish prey on a diversity of items, including gizzard and threadfin shad, herring, 

bream, other catfishes, mayfly nymphs, and vegetation (Rohde et al. 2009). The diet of juvenile 

white catfish consists primarily aquatic insects. Adults are omnivorous and their diet includes 

aquatic invertebrates, fish, and vegetation (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).

The populations of highfin carpsuckers in the upper Santee River basin are thought to be stable, 

but because populations of this species in other river systems are imperiled, conservation of this 

species in South Carolina is thought to be integral to the preservation of highfin carpsuckers at 

larger spatial scales. Distribution of the highfin carpsucker is limited to the Broad, Congaree, 

Santee, and Savannah rivers (Self and Bettinger 2006; Rohde et al. 2009). There are historical 

accounts of this species in the Pee Dee River, but current knowledge suggests that the highfin 

carpsucker may have been extirpated from this drainage. Due to the limited distribution of the 

highfin carpsucker in South Carolina, this species has been deemed a State species of highest 

conservation priority (Self and Bettinger 2006). The highfin carpsucker was encountered during 

the 2006-2008 aquatic surveys in Parr Reservoir (0.1 percent of the total catch); however, none 

was collected from Monticello Reservoir. Survey efforts during the late 1970s to early 1980s 

noted the presence of this species in both reservoirs (Dames and Moore 1985).

Highfin Carpsucker (Carpiodes velifer)

The highfin carpsucker resides in river habitats characterized by clean water and moderate 

current velocities. Substrate conditions range from sand to gravel (Marcy et al. 2005; Rohde et 

al. 2009). Compared to other carpsucker species, the highfin appears less tolerant of siltation 

(Pflieger 1997). Food items are derived from the benthos and include algae, insect larvae, and 

mollusks (Rohde et al. 2009).

The Piedmont darter is a South Carolina species of high conservation priority (SCDNR 2005b). 

Information pertaining to this species is sparse (Rohde et al. 2009). While it is often 

encountered during aquatic inventories, knowledge pertaining to the overall abundance of 

Piedmont darters in streams is limited. In addition, its conservation status stems from the 

limited global distribution, which reportedly identifies South Carolina as making up one-third of 

the spatial extent of Piedmont darter habitat (Hayes and Bettinger 2006a). In South Carolina, 

Piedmont darters have been documented to occur between the Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and 

Inner Coastal Plain ecoregions (Rohde et al. 2009). They are associated with riffle habitats 

where stream temperatures vary from cool to warm. Known prey items include caddisfly and 

dipteran larvae, as well as stonefly and mayfly nymphs. During the 2006-2009 aquatic surveys 

Piedmont Darter (Percina crassa)
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-85 NUREG-1939

only one Piedmont darter was captured and this occurred in Mayo Creek (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 

2007, 2009b; Quattlebaum 2008b).

Populations of quillback are thought to be stable throughout its geographic range. In South 

Carolina, quillback are distributed across South Carolina within the Coastal Plain and Piedmont 

ecoregions (Rohde et al. 2009). The upper Santee and Savannah watersheds purportedly 

sustain ample populations. However, the quillback has been designated as a State species of 

high conservation priority because taxonomic data indicate that the quillback found along the 

Atlantic slope may be distinct from those found in other regions (Lamprecht and Bettinger 2006). 

Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) suggest that while the quillback is a widely distributed species, its 

abundance is difficult to assess because this fish is rarely encountered during aquatic survey 

efforts due in part to its association with large deep pools, which are difficult to adequately 

sample. Few quillback were captured during 2006-2008 sampling efforts in Parr and Monticello 

reservoirs, where they accounted for 0.8 and 0.1 percent of the total catches, respectively 

(Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a). Quillback were also encountered 

during 1978-1984 survey efforts in Parr and Monticello reservoirs (Dames and Moore 1985). 

Quillback can occupy a range of aquatic habitats from rivers to reservoirs and lakes. They are 

typically found in association with low river velocities and a range of substrate types (Jenkins 

and Burkhead 1994; Pflieger 1997). Quillback migrate into smaller, tributary streams to spawn 

(Rohde et al. 2009). Their diet includes algae, detritus, insects, and mollusks (Jenkins and 

Burkhead 1994; Pflieger 1997).

Quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus)

The robust redhorse is a large riverine catostomid (sucker) whose taxonomy was in dispute until 

1991 when it was collected from the Oconee River, Georgia. Originally thought to have 

inhabited the Atlantic slope drainages from the Pee Dee River in North Carolina to the Altamaha 

River in Georgia, remnant populations of the robust redhorse are known to exist in the Oconee 

and Ocmulgee rivers in Georgia, the Savannah River of Georgia and South Carolina, and the 

Pee Dee River of North and South Carolina (Nichols 2003). Once the rediscovery of this lost 

species was confirmed, efforts to document the existing robust redhorse indicated the need for 

conservation efforts. During 1995, in lieu of designating a Federal listing of this species through 

the Endangered Species Act, a Memorandum of Understanding between State and Federal 

agencies as well as industrial partners was instituted in the form of the Robust Redhorse 

Conservation Committee. While this species is listed as endangered in Georgia, the robust 

redhorse does not maintain a legal status for protection in the Carolinas; it is listed as a South 

Carolina species of highest conservation priority (Self and Bettinger 2006). The Robust 

Redhorse Conservation Committee has implemented efforts to reintroduce this native species to 

river basins such as the Broad River by stocking rivers with robust redhorse fingerlings (Self and 

Robust Redhorse (Moxostoma robustum)
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-86 April 2011

Bettinger 2006; Rohde et al. 2009). In 2008, SCDNR caught two robust redhorse while 

electrofishing for smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) in Monticello Reservoir (NRC 2009a). 

Aquatic surveys in the vicinity of the VCSNS site resulted in the capture of two robust redhorse 

in the Parr Reservoir, representing 0.1 percent of the total catch (Quattlebaum 2008a; 

Normandeau 2008).

Robust redhorse have been found in mainstream river habitats that include riffles, runs, and 

pools. These fish have been noted to associate with deep water pools and in-stream habitat 

structures such as woody debris. Prey items include mollusks, which the species crushes with 

pharyngeal teeth that resemble molars (Self and Bettinger 2006; Rohde et al. 2009). Spawning 

reportedly occurs in areas with coarse substrate (Rohde et al. 2009).

In South Carolina, the seagreen darter is found in tributaries of the Santee River and is 

commonly encountered within the upper Santee drainage (Rohde et al. 2009). Populations of 

the seagreen darter are considered stable in South Carolina, but it has been listed as a State 

species of high conservation priority because half of the global distribution of this darter 

purportedly occurs within the state. Furthermore, the overall distribution of this species is 

constrained to a small geographic region (Hayes and Bettinger 2006a).

Seagreen Darter (Etheostoma thalassinum)

The seagreen darter is associated with large creeks and small rivers. Habitat use includes 

riffles characterized by moderate to swift currents (Hayes and Bettinger 2006a; Rohde et al. 

2009). This species can tolerate a range of thermal and turbid conditions (Rohde et al. 2009). 

The seagreen darter was encountered during the 2006-2009 Mayo Creek aquatic surveys 

where it accounted for 1 percent of the total catch (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007). 

The Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage Restoration Plan (FWS 2001) focuses on 

restoring habitat connectivity for diadromous fish that were historically present within the Basin. 

Target species include American eel (Anguilla rostrata), American shad, blueback herring,

hickory shad, Atlantic sturgeon, and shortnose sturgeon. The Columbia Dam fishway was 

completed in 2006, allowing fish to access an additional 24 mi of habitat on the Broad River. It 

was designed to facilitate the passage of American shad and blueback herring (Kleinschmidt

2007). Both sturgeon species are described in the following section on Federally and Statelisted species.

Diadromous Fish

American eel (Anguilla rostrata). The American eel prefers soft mud or sand substrates and is 

widespread throughout the mid-Atlantic in estuaries, rivers, creeks, lakes, and ponds. American 

eel were not present in Monticello Reservoir, Parr Reservoir, or Mayo Creek during recent 

sampling surverys (Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a; Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-87 NUREG-1939

2007, 2009b). Historical records indicate that American eels were present in the Santee basin, 

which includes the Broad River, above the fall line and into North Carolina (FWS 2001). This 

catadromous species spawns in the Sargasso Sea and migrates to fresh inland waters as 

juveniles and young adults. Females continue migration upstream to freshwater habitats that 

are highly oxygenated and provide sufficient food resources. Males tend to stay in brackish, 

estuarine waters. Migration for reproductively active adults begins in the fall, and spawning 

occurs in mid-winter.

American shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring (A. aestivalis), and hickory shad 

(A. mediocris)

Critical Habitats

. The anadromous American shad, blueback herring, and hickory shad spend 

most of their adult life in the open ocean, returning to natal freshwater streams for spawning 

activities. The spawning season begins in March and ends in May, and the young migrate 

downriver to estuary habitat following hatching where they wait for water temperatures to begin 

to decrease before moving offshore (Rohde et al. 2009). All three species were not detected in 

recent sampling events in Monticello Reservoir, Parr Reservoir, or Mayo Creek (Normandeau 

2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a; Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b). All three species

are important for recreational or commercial fisheries, and all life stages represent important 

food sources for other predatory fish and wildlife. The once huge populations of shad and 

herring in South Carolina rivers started to decline in the mid-nineteenth century due to dam 

construction, pollution, and overfishing (FWS 2001). 

No areas designated by FWS as critical habitat exist at the VCSNS site (NRC 2004). However, 

critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) is present in Flat Creek,

proposed for a transmission-line crossing in Lancaster County. This is discussed in the 

following section. 

Federally and State-Listed Species

Eight Federally or State-listed threatened or endangered aquatic species are currently listed for 

counties relevant to the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and associated transmission-line corridors in 

South Carolina.

The Carolina darter is listed as a State endangered species in Fairfield County and a State 

threatened species in Richland County (SCDNR 2010a) and is also classified as a species of 

high conservation priority in South Carolina (SCDNR 2005b). While there are reported accounts 

pertaining to the distribution of the Carolina darter within the Piedmont ecoregion, the overall 

abundance of this species is unknown (Hayes and Bettinger 2006b). Bettinger et al. (2006) 

suggest that the Carolina darter does not exist within the Broad River drainage, yet Rohde et al. 

Carolina Darter (Etheostoma collis)
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-88 April 2011

(2009) refer to accounts of this species in the upper and lower Broad River. This disparate 

information may be confounded by the taxonomic status of the Saluda darter (E. saludae) 

because debate continues regarding the separation of the two fish at the subspecies level or at 

the species level (NatureServe 2009b; Rohde et al. 2009; Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).

The Carolina darter was not documented during the SCDNR 2000-2004 Broad River drainage 

aquatic surveys, but the Saluda darter was captured at several stream stations during the study 

(Bettinger et al. 2003, 2006). Neither of these darters was encountered during the 2006-2009 

aquatic surveys within the vicinity of the VCSNS site (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b; 

Quattlebaum 2008a, 2008b; Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a), nor was either captured during 

the 1978-1984 survey efforts within Parr and Monticello reservoirs (Dames and Moore 1985).

The Carolina darter resides in small streams within the Piedmont ecoregion characterized by 

slow current velocities. Habitat associations include in-stream structure, such as large woody 

debris and a range of substrate conditions: mud, sand, and rock. The diet of the Carolina 

darter includes chironomid larvae, ostracods, copepods, and amphipods (Rhode et al. 2009).

The Carolina heelsplitter is the sole freshwater mussel within South Carolina that maintains a 

designation as a Federally endangered species, and it is designated as a State species of 

highest conservation priority. The six known populations of the Carolina heelsplitter within the 

state are defined by geographic location: (1) Savannah River tributaries in Edgefield and 

McCormick Counties; (2) Cuffeytown Creek in Greenwood and McCormick Counties; 

(3) Lynches River and Flat Creek in Chesterfield, Kershaw, and Lancaster Counties; (4) Gills 

Creek in Lancaster County; (5) Fishing Creek in Chester County; and (6) Bull Run Creek in 

Chester County (SCDNR 2006b; 67 FR 44502). In addition to the counties containing critical 

habitat, FWS (2011) lists Chester, Fairfield, Lancaster, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland

Counties as having potential habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter. However, there are no verified 

species occurrences within Fairfield, Lexington, and Newberry Counties. 

Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)

Historic distribution of this species in South Carolina included the Pee Dee and Savannah 

drainages and possibly the Saluda drainage. Historic associations included freshwater habitats 

ranging from small-to-large streams and rivers. The Carolina heelsplitter has been noted to occur 

in association with substrate ranging from fine to coarse grain size fractions. Occurrences of the 

Carolina heelsplitter have been correlated in stream habitat complexity characterized as shaded, 

stable stream banks, and the presence of undercut banks, root wads, and large woody debris.

Designated critical habitat includes 103.2 km of streams and rivers in South Carolina that occur 

in conjunction with the known populations. The lateral boundaries of the critical habitats for the 

Carolina heelsplitter are denoted by the ordinary high-water mark along channel edges 

(67 FR 44502). Designated critical habitats for the Carolina heelsplitter do not occur in the 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-89 NUREG-1939

vicinity of the VCSNS site, and the species has never been found in the Parr and Monticello 

reservoirs or in onsite creeks and streams. 

The routing of Santee Cooper transmission-line corridors for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is proposed 

to occur within two South Carolina counties that contain critical habitat for the Carolina 

heelsplitter: Chester and Lancaster Counties. The VCSNS-Flat Creek line will require a new 

corridor crossing across Fishing Creek Reservoir in Lancaster County near drainages known to 

support the Carolina heelsplitter. However, the known Gills Creek population is upstream from 

the location of the proposed new corridor; approximately 15 mi north and 12 mi northeast

(MACTEC 2010). The existing VCSNS-Flat Creek corridor crosses a portion of Flat Creek in 

Lancaster County that is listed by FWS as critical habitat and supports the Lynches River / Flat 

Creek population of Carolina heelsplitter (Figure 2-17). The Carolina heelsplitter is also known 

to occur within 1 mi of the existing VCSNS-Varnville and VCSNS-Flat Creek transmission-line 

corridors at several locations in Richland and Lancaster Counties (SCDNR 2010b). 

A portion of the SCE&G VCSNS-Killian line occurs within Fairfield County near watersheds that 

are potential Carolina heelsplitter habitat; however, Pike (2010) reported no occurrences of the 

heelsplitter associated with this transmission-line corridor. GIS-based analysis confirms no 

spatial overlap in known locations of this species and SCE&G transmission lines (SCDNR 

2010b). 

Further discussion of life-history attributes and potential for impacts on the Carolina heelsplitter 

is presented in Appendix F in a biological assessment and supplement prepared for FWS.

The shortnose sturgeon was initially listed as a Federally endangered species in 1967 and is 

designated as a species of highest conservation priority by SCDNR (McCord 2006; NMFS 

2009). This amphidromous species uses freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats to 

complete its life cycle (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006; NMFS 2009). In South Carolina, 

populations of shortnose sturgeon exist in the Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto rivers (flowing 

to St. Helena Sound), the Pee Dee, Waccamaw, and Black rivers (flowing to Winyah Bay), and 

the Savannah, Cooper, and Santee rivers. There is also a small landlocked population of 

shortnose sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper Lake system (Collins et al. 2003). 

Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)

In freshwater habitats, shortnose sturgeon are associated with soft bottom substrates in deep 

water. Spawning occurs in freshwaters characterized by low-to-moderate velocities and over 

substrates that include clay, sand, gravel, and woody debris (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006). 

Eggs are adhesive and survival is reportedly dependent on water with little turbidity 

(McCord 2006).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-90 April 2011

Figure 2-17. Existing Portion of Santee Cooper VCSNS-Flat Creek Line Crossing of Carolina 

Heelsplitter Critical Habitat (MACTEC 2010; 67 FR 44502)

The shortnose sturgeon has not been reported to occur in the vicinity of the VCSNS site, but the 

routing of transmission-line corridors for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is proposed to occur within seven

South Carolina counties that are associated with the occurrence of shortnose sturgeon: 

Calhoun, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, Lexington, Orangeburg, and Richland Counties.

Shortnose sturgeon are not reported to occur in river systems that would be crossed by new 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-91 NUREG-1939

corridor associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 transmission lines (Palmetto 2010; MACTEC 

2010). Further discussion of life-history attributes and the potential for impacts is presented in 

Appendix F in a biological assessment and supplement prepared for the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS).

The Atlantic sturgeon is not currently listed either Federally or by the State of South Carolina. 

However, on October 6, 2010, the NMFS published in the Federal Register (75 FR 61904) a 

proposed rule for listing the Carolina and South Atlantic distinct population segments of the 

Atlantic sturgeon as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. In light of this proposed 

listing, the review team is now considering the Atlantic sturgeon in its analysis. 

Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)

According to the Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT 2007), it is likely that Atlantic 

sturgeon once occurred in many riverine and estuarine ecosystems within South Carolina.

While Atlantic sturgeon have been noted to occur in many South Carolina coastal rivers during 

the past several decades, specific information detailing population records for each of these 

rivers is not readily available. There appears to be little quantitative evidence linking the 

occurrence of Atlantic sturgeon in specific streams and rivers to spawning populations in South 

Carolina. South Carolina Rivers with recent documented occurrences of Atlantic sturgeon 

include Waccamaw, Pee Dee, Santee, Cooper, Edisto, Combahee, Coosawatchie, and 

Savannah Rivers (ASSRT 2007). Because these river systems are also habitat for shortnose 

sturgeon, counties for potential occurrence of Atlantic sturgeon will be considered the same as 

for the shortnose sturgeon. Carcasses of three adult Atlantic sturgeon were found above the 

Wilson and Pinopolis dams in Lake Moultrie during the 1990s. However, while a fish lift at the 

St. Stephen Hydroelectric Project operates to pass fish during the spring, there have been no 

observations of an adult Atlantic sturgeon passing this facility. It is assumed that the fall zone 

on the Santee-Cooper River system was the uppermost limit to spawning of Atlantic sturgeon 

prior to development of the Santee-Cooper Hydroelectric Project (ASSRT 2007). 

Characteristics of the early life-history attributes of Atlantic sturgeon such as age at seaward 

migration and residence time in freshwater habitats varies within natal streams as well as 

across geographic regions (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Juveniles migrate from spawning 

areas toward saline habitats where individuals spend months to years rearing in estuarine 

environments. In marine environments, Atlantic sturgeon make extensive migrations from their 

natal estuary presumably to productive foraging grounds (ASSRT 2007). Spawning is believed 

to occur in flowing water between the salt wedge and the fall line of large rivers. Like the 

shortnose sturgeon, spawning adults generally migrate upriver during the spring (February to 

March) in southern rivers. A fall-spawning migration also may occur in some southern rivers 

(ASSRT 2007). 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-92 April 2011

The Atlantic sturgeon have not been reported to occur in the vicinity of the VCSNS site, but may 

occur in waterbodies spanned by the existing VCSNS-Varnville transmission-line corridors. 

Atlantic sturgeon are not reported to occur in river systems that will be crossed by new corridor

associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 transmission lines (Palmetto 2010; MACTEC 2010).

Further discussion of life-history attributes and the potential for impacts is presented in 

Appendix F as a supplement to the biological assessment prepared for the NMFS.

Sea Turtles

Four Federally listed species of sea turtles exist in South Carolina and are associated with one 

county, Colleton, which is proposed to include transmission-line corridors for VCSNS Units 2 

and 3 (Figure 2-5). The loggerhead (Caretta caretta)sea turtle is listed as threatened whereas 

the green (Chelonia mydas), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and Kemp’s ridley 

(Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtles are listed as endangered (see Table 2-20) (FWS 2010). The 

loggerhead sea turtle is also listed as a State threatened species for Colleton County (SCDNR 

2010a). All sea turtles have certain life-history similarities in that females swim ashore to sandy 

beaches and deposit eggs in nesting pits that are covered to allow incubation. Juveniles hatch, 

struggle out of the sandy nest, and make their way to their respective ocean habitats (Carr et al. 

1982). Colleton County has a sandy shoreline on the Atlantic coast that includes habitat where 

it is possible for sea turtle nesting to occur. The portion of the VCSNS-Varnville transmissionline corridor within Colleton County would run within existing transmission-line corridors that are

adjacent to and west of I-95, which is over 25 mi west from the coastline and is not proposed to

cross any marine habitats (MACTEC 2009). Therefore, although the four species of sea turtles 

occur in Colleton County, no activities associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would affect these 

species, and they are not discussed further.

2.4.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring

The aquatic ecology near the vicinity of the VCSNS site has been described through various 

monitoring programs since the 1970s (e.g., Dames and Moore 1985; Christie and Stroud 1998, 

1999; Hayes 1999). Recent monitoring efforts were implemented to document the condition of 

aquatic ecology in Mayo Creek and Monticello and Parr reservoirs as part of the preparation of 

the SCE&G COL application (e.g., Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a, b; Quattlebaum 2008a, b; 

Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b; CBS 2008a, b, c, d; CBS 2009a, b, c, d). These recent 

(2006-2009) efforts summarized fish community composition, benthic resources, and 

submerged aquatic vegetation at select locations near the vicinity of the VCSNS. 

2.5 Socioeconomics

This section describes the socioeconomic baseline of the proposed VCCNS project site. It also 

describes the characteristics of the region surrounding the VCSNS site, including population 

demographics and density, and uses the data to form the basis for assessing the potential 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-93 NUREG-1939

social and economic impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3. Unless otherwise specified, the information presented in this section is based on 

the VCSNS ER (SCE&G 2010a), and has been confirmed by the review team.

Socioeconomic impacts may occur in the region surrounding the proposed site. This discussion 

emphasizes the socioeconomic characteristics of Fairfield, Newberry, Lexington, and Richland 

Counties, although it considers the entire region within the 50-mi radius of the site.(a

The population data for the region are based on the 2000 U.S. Census or more recent estimates 

and population projections from the South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB) as 

noted. In addition, the review team analyzed the economic, employment, and population trends 

for the region using additional U.S. Census data sets and population projections from the 

SCBCB.

)

 The scope 

of the review of site-specific community characteristics is guided by the magnitude and nature of 

the expected impacts of construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed project. The 

four counties identified above constitute the economic impact area where the review team 

expects all noticeable economic impacts such as employment, income effects, and tax impacts 

would occur.

The region is a 50-mi circle centered on the proposed powerblock and covers all or a portion of 

21 counties in South Carolina, including Aiken, Calhoun, Cherokee, Chester, Edgefield, 

Fairfield, Greenwood, Kershaw, Lancaster, Laurens, Lee, Lexington, McCormick, Newberry, 

Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda, Spartanburg, Sumter, Union, and York. The region also covers 

a portion of Union County, North Carolina. Figure 2-2 shows a map of the region.

2.5.1 Demographics

For the purposes of this analysis, the review team 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 and then leave after their job is done. Transients and 

migrant workers are not fully characterized by the U.S. Census, which generally captures only 

resident populations.

 

(a) For the purposes of this EIS, the relevant region is limited to the area necessary to include social 

and economic base data for (1) the county in which the proposed facility would be located and 

(2) the specific portions of surrounding counties and urbanized areas (generally, up to 50 mi from the 

VCSNS site) from which the construction/operations workforce would be principally drawn, or that 

would receive stresses to community services by a change in the residence of 

construction/operations workers.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-94 April 2011

2.5.1.1 Resident Population

In its ER (SCE&G 2010a), SCE&G reports that, based on the 2000 U.S. Census, 111 people 

live within 2 mi of the center of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 powerblock, about 289 within 3 mi, 

12,209 within 10 mi, 151,925 within 20 mi, and 1,028,075 within 50 mi. The population density 

for the 50-mi region surrounding the VCSNS site is approximately 131 persons/mi2

. Table 2-23

presents population trends and projections for the region and various subset areas.

The population growth rates shown in Table 2-23 were calculated for each county based on 

county projections obtained from the SCBCB. The SCBCB presents annual population 

projections by county for the 2010-2035 period using standard population cohort-component 

methods.

Data in Table 2-23 indicate that the region has been growing and is projected to continue to 

grow at a slightly faster rate than the State of South Carolina as a whole for the foreseeable 

future. The majority of the population distribution is to the east and south of the VCSNS site. 

Significant population centers are shown in Table 2-24. The distribution of the 2000 resident 

population in the 50-mi region by age is shown in Table 2-25.

The combined resident population of the four counties closest to the VCSNS site could be 

characterized as being predominately Caucasian (62.8 percent compared to 68.4 percent 

Caucasian in the State of South Carolina), although Fairfield County had a higher percentage of 

African American residents than the region as a whole (57.7 percent compared to 34.2 percent 

state-wide) (SCBCB 2009a). Median family income in the Columbia Metropolitan Statistical 

Area (including Richland, Fairfield, Lexington, Calhoun, and Saluda Counties) in 2009 was 

$62,100, compared to the State median family income of $55,000 (HUD 2009). Newberry 

County’s 2009 median family income was $50,500 and is reported separately because the 

county is not part of a metropolitan area.

2.5.1.2 Transient Population

Transients include people who work in or visit large workplaces, schools, hospitals and nursing 

homes, correctional facilities, hotels and motels, or work at recreational areas or special events 

where there may be seasonal and workday variations in population. The VCSNS 50-mi region 

includes a number of facilities, venues, and recreational areas that attract transient populations 

in substantial numbers.

Outdoor recreation opportunities in the VCSNS 50-mi region include a number of parks and 

water-based and forest-based recreational opportunities. Several large lake-based recreation 

areas in the four closest counties to the site are accessible to relatively large numbers of annual 

visitors. These parks provide locations for a range of activities, including fishing, camping, 

biking, horse-riding, picnicking, and hiking. Table 2-26 summarizes the overnight capacity and 

recent visitation trends for these resources.
April 2011

2-95 NUREG-1939

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

County 1970(a) 1980(a) 1990(a) 2000(a) 2007(b) 2010(c) 2020(c) 2030(c) 2040(d) 20

Fairfield 19,999 20,700 22,295 23,454 23,333 23,760 25,190 26,610 28,058 

Lexington 89,012 140,353 167,611 216,014 243,270 255,100 294,510 333,180 373,865 4

Newberry 29,273 31,242 33,172 36,108 37,633 38,390 40,900 43,400 45,942 

Richland 233,868 269,735 285,720 320,677 357,734 366,550 395,920 425,960 457,424 4

Economic 

Impact Area

372,152 462,030 508,798 596,253 661,970 683,800 756,520 829,150 905,289 9

Annual Average 

Growth Rate

2.4% 1.0% 1.7% 1.1% 0.3% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% 

Aiken 91,023 105,625 120,940 142,552 152,307 158,120 177,510 196,500 216,243 2

Calhoun 10,780 12,206 12,753 15,185 14,777 15,210 16,660 17,980 19,272 

Cherokee 36,791 40,983 44,506 52,537 54,015 55,800 61,760 67,350 72,976 

Chester 29,811 30,148 32,170 34,068 32,531 33,020 34,620 36,000 37,280 

Edgefield 15,692 17,528 18,375 24,595 25,435 26,560 30,270 33,520 36,692 

Greenwood 49,686 57,847 59,567 66,271 68,259 69,770 74,840 79,750 84,770 

Kershaw 34,727 39,015 43,599 52,647 58,168 60,370 67,700 74,810 82,135 

Lancaster 43,328 53,361 54,516 61,351 73,393 74,800 79,480 83,940 88,402 

Laurens 49,713 52,214 58,092 69,567 69,582 72,040 80,220 87,660 95,073 1

Lee 18,323 18,929 18,437 20,119 19,988 20,270 21,180 22,060 22,937 

McCormick 7955 7797 8868 9958 10,098 10,450 11,590 12,720 13,880 

Orangeburg 69,789 82,276 84,803 91,582 89,952 91,450 96,400 100,700 104,784 1

Saluda 14,528 16,150 16,357 19,181 18,748 19,150 20,470 21,570 22,580 

Spartanburg 173,724 201,861 226,800 253,791 275,534 283,530 310,220 336,810 364,459 3

Sumter 79,425 88,243 102,637 104,646 103,943 106,180 113,630 121,160 128,954 1

Union 29,230 30,751 30,337 29,881 27,770 27,640 27,190 26,570 25,861 

York 85,216 106,720 131,497 164,614 208,827 218,990 252,860 287,970 326,022 3

Union, NC(e) 54,714 70,380 84,211 123,677 181,652 210,069 304,688 399,306 493,924 5

50-mi Region 1,266,607 1,494,064 1,657,263 1,932,475 2,146,949 2,237,219 2,537,808 2,835,526 3,141,533 3,4

Annual Average 

Growth Rate

NA 1.8% 1.1% 1.7% 1.2% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 

South Carolina 2,590,516 3,121,820 3,486,703 4,012,012 4,407,709 4,549,150 5,020,400 5,488,460 5,975,731 6,5

Annual Average 

Growth Rate

NA 2.1% 1.2% 1.5% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 

North Carolina(e) 5,084,411 5,880,095 6,632,448 8,049,313 9,041,821 9,572,644 11,272,964 12,935,056 14,597,148 16,2

Annual Average 

Growth Rate

NA 1.6% 1.3% 2.1% 1.4% 2.0% 1.8% 1.5% 1.3% 

(a) SCBCB 2009b

(b) SCBCB 2009c

(c) SCBCB 2009d

(d) Extension of the SCBCB 2025-2035 trend 

(e) North Carolina data from the following sources: USCB 1995; USCB 2009a; NCOSBM (2009a, b, c);
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-96 April 2011

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

City Population 

Columbia 124,818

Lexington 14,995

West Columbia 13,907

Cayce 12,556

Irmo 11,542

Newberry 10,893

Chester 6040

Winnsboro 3564

Blythewood 1299

Source: SCBCB 2009e

Table 2-25. 2000 Age Distribution Near the VCSNS Site

Age Group

Fairfield Lexington Newberry Richland South Carolina

Number

Percent of 

Population Number

Percent of 

Population Number

Percent of 

Population Number

Percent of 

Population Number

Percent of 

Population

Under 18 6128 26.1 56,313 26.1 8701 24.1 77,609 24.2 1,009,641 25.2 

18 to 24 2019 8.6 17,874 8.3 3551 9.8 44,135 13.8 407,851 10.2 

25 to 44 6520 27.8 68,334 31.6 9977 27.6 101,459 31.6 1,185,955 29.6 

45 to 64 5693 24.3 51,504 23.8 8556 23.7 65,999 20.6 923,232 23.0 

65 and over 3094 13.2 21,989 10.2 5323 14.7 31,475 9.8 485,333 12.1 

Totals 24,545 216,014 36,108 320,677 4,012,012

Source: SCE&G 2010a

Table 2-26. High-Capacity Recreation Areas in the Region

Recreation Site

Camp 

Sites(a)

2004-5 

Campers(b)

2004-5 All 

Visitors(b)

2006-7 

Campers(c)

2006-7 All 

Visitors(c)

Chester State Park 31 6411 29,166 6324 36,675 

Dreher Island State Recreation Area 112 30,577 206,948 38,410 154,749 

Lake Greenwood State Recreation Area 145 51,125 139,152 53,840 151,233 

Lake Wateree State Recreation Area 72 32,435 133,008 32,011 156,580 

Sesquicentennial State Park 89 9641 105,672 18,795 105,648 

(a) SCBCB 2007

(b) SCBCB 2009f

(c) SCBCB 2009g
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-97 NUREG-1939

The Sumter National Forest is located north of the VCSNS site and offers a wide range of 

recreational activities, including camping, fishing, hiking, and hunting. The region features many 

other developed recreation sites, including parks, wildlife management areas, historic sites, 

forests, and recreation areas, but the sites listed in Table 2-26 represent most of the capacity 

among all recreation sites in the region.

The Fort Jackson military base is within the 50-mi analytical region, located about 30 mi east of 

the VCSNS site. Fort Jackson employs 4000 civilians and is the largest and most active Initial 

Entry Training Center in the Army, training 19,000 new soldiers each year.

The largest capacity and greatest number of hotels and motels in the area are concentrated 

primarily in the larger cities, and hence, are at some distance from the VCSNS site. However, 

there are several motels in the vicinity of the site. The greater Columbia area has more than 

10,334 hotel rooms spread over 110 separate properties (SCBCB 2008).

2.5.1.3 Migrant Labor

The U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) defines a migrant laborer as someone who is working 

seasonally or temporarily and moves one or more times from one place to another for seasonal 

or temporary employment. During VCSNS scheduled refueling outages, there is an influx of 

construction-related migrant laborers to the area who are hired by VCSNS to carry out fuelreloading activities, equipment maintenance, and other projects associated with the outage. 

VCSNS employs an average of about 655 contract employees during refueling outages, which 

occur every 18 months (NRC 2004), and approximately 90 percent of those employees come 

from outside the 50-mi region.

Migrant farm workers are defined as workers whose employment requires travel that prevents 

them from returning to their permanent place of residence the same day. Migrant farm workers 

tend to work short-duration, labor-intensive jobs, such as harvesting fruits and vegetables. The 

2007 Census of Agriculture indicates that the reported migrant farm worker population in the 

region is approximately 200 (USDA 2007a). The number is approximate because of differences 

between the county- and State-level reporting requirements (USDA 2007b).

2.5.2 Community Characteristics

The VCSNS site is located in a rural area of western Fairfield County. The site itself is on the 

Monticello Reservoir, which is surrounded by wetlands and pine forest, with sparse residential 

development. The site is near metropolitan Columbia, the Richland County Seat and capital of 

South Carolina. However, Fairfield County is much more rural than Richland County; and is 

governed from the County Seat of Winnsboro.

An unincorporated residential area surrounds the VCSNS site, although it remains sparsely 

populated. The land surrounding the site is also zoned for low-density residential development. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-98 April 2011

To the west, I-26 passes the site, although the site itself is only accessible by State and county 

roads, or by a railroad spur. Besides Columbia, the VCSNS site is not near other large 

population centers.

The characteristics of the populations of the four most local counties vary widely around the 

State averages for minority proportion and the proportion living below the poverty level. Fairfield 

County, the host county for the new nuclear units, has nearly double the minority proportion of 

the state as a whole and a proportion of individuals living in poverty that is 22 percent higher 

than the State average. The other three counties all have poverty proportions that are lower 

than the State average and closer to the national average. Lexington County, composed mostly 

of suburbs of Columbia, is more than 80 percent Caucasian, which differs significantly from the 

rest of the area. The four-county local area is described in terms of racial characteristics and 

income level in Table 2-27. 

Further discussion of the demographic composition of the local area can be found under 

Environmental Justice (see Section 2.6). 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.

Table 2-27. Minority and Low-Income Populations 

Location

Percentage 

Minority

Percentage 

Below Poverty

United States 30.9 13.3

South Carolina 32.7 15.6

 Fairfield 60.4 20.0

 Lexington 18.5 11.8

 Newberry 37.6 13.4

 Richland 50.6 13.5

Source: Adapted from USCB 2005-2007 American 

Community Survey (USCB 2009b, c, d, e, f)

2.5.2.1 Economy

As the economic hub of the Central Midlands, the City of Columbia is the center of government 

and industry for a wide area in central South Carolina. Relatively recently, the I-26 corridor has 

seen significant commercial and residential development in the areas of West Columbia and 

Irmo. The University of South Carolina and several regional medical facilities have attracted a 

well-educated workforce to this area. Fort Jackson, a large military installation in Columbia, is 

supported by nearly 4000 civilian employees.

The principal economic centers within the region are found in Columbia (Richland and Lexington 

Counties), Newberry (Newberry County), Clinton (Laurens County) and Union (Union County). 

However, the economy of the Central Midlands is dominated by Columbia.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-99 NUREG-1939

The construction of Unit 1 provides context for what the potential impacts of constructing the 

new units would be. The NRC was completing its Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the 

Operating License (OL) for VCSNS Unit 1 just as final construction of that unit was winding 

down over the 1979-1981 period. As such, the Unit 1 OL FES provides a glimpse of the 

observed socioeconomic impacts from that construction project. The review team noted that at 

that time the construction contractor commissioned a workforce survey to ascertain information 

such as the residence pattern of the construction workers. Of the approximately 2400 workers 

surveyed, 1913, or about 80 percent came from within the VCSNS region, and 927, or nearly 

50 percent came from either Lexington or Richland Counties (NRC 1981). The review team 

also observed that more than 70 percent of the workers came from the Central Midlands area, 

with the remainder coming from outside the region.

The VCSNS site currently employs approximately 635 full-time operations employees (SCE&G 

2009e), with an average of 740 additional contract workers over two recent maintenance 

outages (SCE&G 2010a). About 95 percent of the current operating workforce resides in 

Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties (see Table 2-28). Therefore, this fourcounty area is considered to be the economic impact area when discussing employment, 

income, and output impacts from construction and operations. The review team used the 

distribution of VCSNS employees as the basis for several demographic assumptions in its 

economic impact assessment, which is discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this EIS.

Table 2-28. VCSNS Unit 1 Operations Employment by County and State

County or Summary Level 2006 Employment Percent

Fairfield County 58 9.1

Lexington County 219 34.5

Newberry County 115 18.1

Richland County 209 32.9

Economic impact area 601 94.6

Other counties 34 5.4

VCSNS Operations Employment 635 100.0

Source: After SCE&G 2009e

Table 2-29 shows the unemployment rates for all counties in the 50-mi region for the 2005-2009

period. Between 2005 and 2008, the four-county economic impact area remained relatively 

stable. However, unemployment in Fairfield County has risen significantly in the last year as a 

result of economic conditions similar to those seen elsewhere in the country associated with the 

current economic downturn. The four-county economic impact area’s unemployment rate has 

recently risen to about the national unemployment rate. As the current recession has 

deepened, the Central Midlands and Columbia, specifically, have not been able to avoid 

impacts of the national economic downturn. The increase in unemployment is largely tied to 

construction and manufacturing-based industries.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-100 April 2011

Table 2-29. Employment Trends in the Region

County or 

Summary Level

Labor Force Unemployment Rate

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Aiken 69,850 70,462 70,579 70,640 69,590 5.9 6.3 5.3 5.9 9.7

Calhoun 6567 6585 6466 6478 6,070 7.3 7.0 6.2 7.7 12.6

Cherokee 22,920 23,234 23,609 23,198 21,782 7.9 7.5 6.7 9.3 16.4

Chester 14,425 14,550 13,826 13,383 12,697 9.2 10.0 10.8 12.3 20.5

Edgefield 10,358 10,229 10,282 10,291 10,066 7.2 7.6 6.2 6.8 10.7

Fairfield(a) 10,424 10,401 10,176 10,195 9,722 7.8 8.8 8.4 10.8 13.4

Greenwood 29,562 29,259 28,913 28,014 27,597 9.1 7.8 6.8 7.9 12.9

Kershaw 27,075 27,769 28,053 28,103 27,018 6.6 6.2 5.3 6.6 11.0

Lancaster 27,219 27,884 27,009 26,016 25,409 8.4 8.8 9.5 11.8 17.9

Laurens 30,956 31,203 30,948 31,270 28,946 6.7 6.8 7.1 7.4 12.0

Lee 7511 7601 7489 7331 7,340 9.5 9.4 8.1 9.6 14.9

Lexington(a) 121,271 124,747 126,165 126,391 122,588 4.9 4.6 4.1 4.9 8.4

McCormick 3152 3216 3159 3057 2,904 11.2 10.8 9.8 11.1 16.8

Newberry(a) 16,425 16,831 17,060 17,207 16,412 7.0 6.3 5.5 7.2 11.8

Orangeburg 36,630 36,590 37,160 36,633 35,703 9.6 9.0 8.0 10.5 15.9

Richland(a) 160,746 165,869 170,132 170,437 164,652 6.0 5.7 5.2 6.1 9.6

Saluda 8648 8791 8634 8650 8,158 6.6 6.1 5.2 5.9 9.9

Spartanburg 121,762 124,974 126,527 128,179 119,763 7.5 6.5 5.6 6.9 12.4

Sumter County 42,470 42,218 41,479 39,420 39,164 8.5 7.7 7.0 8.6 13.0

Union County 11,293 10,985 10,637 10,455 9,907 10.8 10.7 8.9 11.1 19.9

York County 89,815 94,695 99,019 99,076 96,185 6.7 6.2 5.3 7.2 14.2

Region 869,079 888,093 897,322 894,424 861,673 6.9 6.5 5.9 7.1 12.0

Economic impact 

area

308,866 317,848 323,533 324,230 313,374 5.7 5.4 4.9 5.9 9.4

South Carolina 1,927,674 1,976,649 2,006,179 2,004,244 1,915,794 6.7 6.3 5.6 6.9 11.7

Source: BLS 2009c, 2010. 

(a) Part of the four-county economic impact area
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-101 NUREG-1939

Table 2-30 shows the occupational characteristics of residents of Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, 

and Richland Counties. Richland County is the center of retail and health care industries in the 

Central Midlands. In addition, because Columbia, the capital of South Carolina, is in Richland 

County, government and government enterprises play a large role in the local economy. 

Lexington County has become a suburb of Columbia. State government employment accounts 

for 16.7 percent of nonfarm employment in Richland County. Nearly 30 percent of employment 

in Newberry County is in manufacturing industries. Table 2-31 illustrates the occupational 

makeup of construction employment in the Columbia metropolitan area. The metropolitan area 

appears to support healthy levels of the construction trades, which could be expected to be 

needed for the development of the VCSNS units.

Table 2-32 shows median family income information covering the four-county economic impact 

area based on the 2000 census and 2009 Housing and Urban Development estimates. In 

general, family incomes in the four-county economic impact area grew faster than the South 

Carolina pace but lagged behind the rest of the country. Family incomes in Newberry County 

appear to be noticeably below the State and national averages in 2009, while family incomes 

across the Columbia metropolitan area appear to be about equal to the national average. The 

Columbia metropolitan area family median income is about 13 percent higher than the statewide 

average.

2.5.2.2 Taxes

The VCSNS site is located in Fairfield County. SCE&G would pay all of its property taxes to 

Fairfield County. Table 2-33 illustrates recent trends in property tax payments SCE&G has 

made, attributable to the current VCSNS facility and SCE&G lands. These revenues currently 

represent about 37 percent of the Fairfield County property tax collections. This share has 

declined slightly over time because of Unit 1 depreciation and Fairfield County’s tax base has 

grown modestly over the last 10 years – most significantly in the last 3 to 4 years. Property tax 

revenues are distributed primarily into education, human services, and capital and debt, with the 

rest being distributed among several other categories (sheriff, community services, and general 

administration). Santee Cooper also contributes a minor amount of fee-in-lieu-of-taxes to 

Fairfield County, but this amount represents only a negligible source of revenue. Of note, 

SCE&G is the single largest property tax payer in Fairfield County.

SCE&G also pays sales and use taxes on the in-state purchases of goods and services made in 

support of VCSNS Unit 1 operations; however, for Unit 1 operations, these revenues are not 

significant revenue sources for the State. Additional sales taxes would be raised by the 

additional purchases and consumption from new workers associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

(SCE&G 2010a). Tax impacts from construction and operations are discussed in Sections 

4.4.3.2 and 5.4.3.2 of this EIS.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-102 April 2011

Table 2-30. 2007 Employment by Industry in the Economic Impact Area

Industry Fairfield Lexington Newberry Richland 

Total employment 8735 140,579 18,046 273,583

 Wage and salary employment 6779 105,478 15,302 244,897

 Proprietors employment 1956 35,101 2744 28,686

 Farm proprietors employment 209 962 621 398

 Nonfarm proprietors employment 1747 34,139 2123 28,288

 Farm employment 229 1213 812 451

 Nonfarm employment 8506 139,366 17,234 273,132

 Private employment 6788 120,756 14,563 207,517

 Forestry, fishing, related activities, and other D 316 400 D

 Mining D 193 D D

 Utilities D 560 D 2246

 Construction 519 13,408 1,258 12,163

 Manufacturing 865 12,176 5,004 11,560

 Wholesale trade 604 7328 389 9467

 Retail trade 827 17,242 1775 26,263

 Transportation and warehousing D 6670 D 2870

 Information D 1166 70 D

 Finance and insurance 95 5265 298 19,970

 Real estate and rental and leasing 342 9707 326 10,973

 Professional, scientific, and technical services D 6198 D 16,167

 Management of companies and enterprises D 711 D 3290

 Administrative and waste services 434 8435 906 19,787

 Educational services D 1302 398 4,795

 Health care and social assistance D 9569 1225 27,148

 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 91 2291 189 3389

 Accommodation and food services 294 9730 732 18,330

 Other services, except public administration 575 8489 892 D

 Government and government enterprises 1718 18,610 2671 65,615

 Federal, civilian 46 587 112 8547

 Military 98 1019 158 11,354

 State and local 1574 17,004 2401 45,714

 State government 241 1766 245 32,075

 Local government 1333 15,238 2156 13,639

Source: BEA 2009

D = Data not disclosed
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-103 NUREG-1939

Table 2-31. 2006-2009 Construction Industry Occupational Employment in the Columbia 

Metropolitan Area

Occupation Title 2006 2007 2008 2009

Construction and extraction occupations 15,780 18,170 16,880 14,360

First-line supervisors/managers of construction trades and 

extraction workers 

1850 2120 2140 1920

Brickmasons and blockmasons 490 450 310 280

Carpenters 1810 2450 2180 1590

Tile and marble setters 120 D D D

Cement Masons and concrete finishers 410 280 340 300

Construction laborers 1650 1860 1740 2070

Paving, surfacing, and tamping equipment operators 180 370 370 260

Operating engineers and other construction equipment 

operators 

1140 1120 1130 800

Drywall and ceiling tile installers 520 710 670 450

Electricians 1470 1830 1670 1190

Glaziers 100 D D D

Insulation workers, mechanical D 130 260 230

Painters, construction and maintenance 620 700 600 550

Pipelayers 220 210 270 140

Plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters 1230 1790 1490 1060

Reinforcing iron and rebar workers 60 60 D D

Roofers 260 290 300 240

Sheet metal workers 320 320 340 480

Structural iron and steel workers 110 40 40 70

Helpers – brickmasons, blockmasons, stonemasons, and tile 

and marble setters 

370 250 150 50

Helpers – carpenters 510 470 400 310

Helpers – electricians 550 560 540 440

Helpers – painters, paperhangers, plasterers, and stucco 

masons 

D D 110 D

Helpers – pipelayers, plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters 490 490 420 320

Helpers, construction trades, all other 170 280 180 120

Construction and building inspectors 300 280 160 170

Hazardous materials removal workers 160 100 130 170

Septic tank servicers and sewer pipe cleaners 80 70 D D

Helpers – extraction workers 50 D D D

Sources: BLS 2008, 2009a, b

D = Data not revealed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for disclosure reasons
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-104 April 2011

Table 2-32. Annual Median Family Income (Current Dollars) by County for the Four-County 

Economic Impact Area

County

2000 Median 

Family Income

2009 Median 

Family Income

2000 to 2009 

Percent 

Change

2009 Index 

Versus SC

2009 Index 

Versus US

Fairfield 49,269 62,100 26.0 1.129 0.970

Lexington 49,269 62,100 26.0 1.129 0.970

Newberry 40,582 50,500 24.4 0.918 0.789

Richland 49,269 62,100 26.0 1.129 0.970

South Carolina 44,227 55,000 24.4 1.000 0.859

United States 50,046 64,000 27.9 1.164 1.000

Source: HUD 2009

Table 2-33. 2003-2008 Property Tax Revenue Trends Related to VCSNS Unit 1 (dollars)

Year

VCSNS-Related 

Property Taxes 

Paid to 

Fairfield 

County

Other SCE&GRelated 

Property Taxes 

Paid to Fairfield 

County

Total SCE&GRelated Tax 

Revenue 

Accrued to 

Fairfield County

Fairfield 

County Total 

Property Tax 

Revenue

(all sources)

VCSNS 

Percent of 

Fairfield 

County 

Property Tax 

Revenue

1999 12,529,680 4,952,021 17,481,701 27,772,061 45.1 

2000 12,272,620 4,984,243 17,256,863 29,604,792 41.5 

2001 12,273,100 4,898,955 17,172,055 28,801,287 37.6 

2002 12,199,280 4,912,241 17,111,521 32,624,790 37.4 

2003 12,903,760 5,157,484 18,061,244 32,225,887 40.0 

2004 12,711,245 5,173,217 17,884,462 32,381,035 39.3 

2005 13,564,310 5,565,492 19,129,802 32,527,833 41.7 

2006 14,209,970 5,065,878 19,275,848 37,733,947 37.7 

2007 14,295,100 5,730,027 20,025,127 37,988,361 37.6 

2008 14,280,560 5,714,524 19,995,084 38,649,841 36.9 

Sources: SCE&G 2009m; SCORS 2009
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-105 NUREG-1939

2.5.2.3 Transportation

The VCSNS 50-mi region has a well-developed transportation network of Federal, State, and 

county highways, a primary freight railroad service, a primary commercial airport, and 11 

smaller public airports that provide ready access to the population centers of the region.

The major interstate highways near the VCSNS site include I-26, which links the regional 

population center of Columbia to the VCSNS site and neighboring counties; I-77, which links 

Columbia to Charlotte, North Carolina; and I-20, which links Columbia to Atlanta, Georgia. 

Fairfield County is linked to Columbia via US-321 to Winnsboro, while SC-215 connects 

Jenkinsville with Columbia and provides primary access to the VCSNS site.

Primary road access to the VCSNS site from the greater Columbia area to the southeast uses 

I-20 to US-176, which connects to SC-213. SC-213 connects to SC-215 in Jenkinsville, and 

SC-215 runs north to the current site access road. The roads providing primary access from 

I-20 to the site are two-lane highways. There are no alternate routes that would provide the 

majority of the workforce with efficient access to the site. Hence, the local highways (SC-213 

and SC-215) currently exhibit heavy traffic volumes during shift change time periods at existing 

VCSNS Unit 1. Table 2-34 provides current traffic volume data for routes in the vicinity of the 

VCSNS site compared to the rated capacity of those roadways in terms of “level of service” 

(LOS). LOS is a generally accepted transportation metric estimated on a scale from A to F,

where A is the best and F is the worst in terms of traffic volume and related road wear. SC-213 

and SC-215 are two-lane rural roadways managed to maintain LOS “C” conditions (SCDOT 

2009c).

Table 2-34. 2008 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for Selected Routes in the Vicinity of 

the VCSNS Site

Route Route Location

2008 

AADT

LOS “C” 

Capacity

SC-213 Newberry County Line to SC-215 2400 8600

SC-213 US-176 to Fairfield County Line 1700 8600

SC-215 Richland County Line to SC-213 1600 10,800

SC-34 Newberry County Line to SC-215 1600 16,800

SC-34 SC-215 to US-321 2300 16,800

SC-34 I-26 to Fairfield County Line 2200 16,800

US-176 Newberry County Line to I-26 5900 16,800

Sources: SCDOT 2009a, b
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-106 April 2011

The review team assessed whether projects funded under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 might affect transportation routes in the vicinity of the site. Although 

many projects are planned within South Carolina, none is in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. The 

review team did not identify any transportation planning documents that address the routes 

listed in Table 2-34. 

The only airport in the region with scheduled commercial air service is the Columbia 

Metropolitan Airport. Eleven other public general aviation airports are in the region. These 

include Lexington County, Columbia Owens (Richland County), Newberry County, Trenton 

Younce Field (Edgefield County), Saluda County, Greenwood County, Laurens County, Aiken 

Municipal (Aiken County), Chester Catawba Regional (Chester County), Woodward Field 

(Kershaw County), and Fairfield County airports. Over the last 10 years, the Columbia 

Metropolitan Airport has averaged about 58,000 commercial flight operations per year 

(SC Aeronautics 2009).

Railroad service in the vicinity is provided by two freight rail carriers, CSX Transportation and 

Norfolk Southern Railway (SCE&G 2010a). Passenger railroad service from Amtrak is only 

available from Columbia. The Norfolk Southern Railway serves the northern half of the state 

with lines connecting Columbia to the Greenville/Spartanburg area and to Charlotte (SCE&G 

2010a). VCSNS has a railroad spur that connects to the Norfolk Southern line on the east side 

of the Broad River that runs through Columbia and Spartanburg (NRC 2004).

A high-speed railroad corridor is being planned along a northeast corridor that would link 

Columbia, South Carolina and Raleigh, North Carolina. A second corridor would connect 

Atlanta, Georgia, to Greenville/Spartanburg, South Carolina, and then link to Charlotte and 

Greensboro, North Carolina (SCE&G 2010a). As currently envisioned, the Raleigh line would 

run through central Fairfield County.

2.5.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation

The VCSNS site is on a plateau south of Monticello Reservoir and is surrounded by forests. 

When observed from on land, the site is largely concealed by the surrounding forest. From 

Monticello Reservoir the view toward the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be somewhat 

obscured by the existing Unit 1. The site has already been altered with the construction of the 

original Unit 1, and the proposed expansion would add four new cooling towers and associated 

plumes. The multiple high-voltage transmission lines associated with the VCSNS site and the 

Unit 1 containment building are the dominant man-made visual features in the surrounding 

landscape. 

Fairfield County offers a wide array of outdoor activities around Monticello Reservoir and the 

surrounding woodlands including hiking, camping, fishing, boating, horseback riding, and 

hunting. The region includes many opportunities for outdoor activities, in addition to those found 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-107 NUREG-1939

at Monticello Reservoir. Other major lakes within the region include Lake Wateree, Lake 

Murray, and Lake Greenwood. Outdoor activities in the region include backpacking, climbing, 

camping, hunting, hiking, boating, fishing, and swimming, among others. There are a number of 

public historic sites and the Congaree Swamp National Monument preserves the largest 

remnant of old-growth floodplain forest remaining in North America (NPS 2009).

Within the immediate vicinity of the VCSNS site, hunting, fishing, and pleasure boating are 

among the most popular recreational activities. Fairfield County operates a recreation site on 

the shore of Monticello Reservoir, in the town of Jenkinsville. SCE&G provides recreation sites 

and boat launch facilities around the reservoir, which are managed by SCDNR. The nearby 

Sumter National Forest offers opportunities for many forms of outdoor recreation, including 

hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking, among others.

2.5.2.5 Housing

Within the region of the VCSNS site are a number of communities ranging from the urban center 

of greater Columbia to the smaller cities and towns of Newberry, Winnsboro, Batesburg, 

Camden, Clinton, Lancaster, and smaller towns and rural areas such as Jenkinsville, Peak, 

Ridgeway, and Chester. The communities in Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland 

Counties, where the majority of in-migrating labor is expected to live, are connected by an 

extensive highway, county road, and railroad system that support the area surrounding the 

VCSNS site. Many of the residential areas in the immediate vicinity of the VCSNS site are 

outside the jurisdictional boundaries of cities and towns. Rental property is available in the 

larger communities such as Newberry, Chapin, Irmo, and West Columbia. There also are 

several hotels/motels in the four-county area.

The greater Columbia metropolitan area has grown significantly since the 2000 U.S. Census. 

The USCB (2009g) estimates showed a total of 10,913 housing units in Fairfield County in 

2008. Assuming that the vacancy rate remains relatively constant, 1692 of the units would be 

vacant and available when construction begins. Over the 2000-2008 period, the housing stock 

in the four-county area grew by 18.3 percent, with the addition of more than 33,300 new units 

(USCB 2009g). Housing stock growth in Richland County has significantly outpaced that of the 

other three counties in the four county area – 20.9 percent for Richland County compared to 

11.8 percent elsewhere since 2000.

Recent residential development principally has been focused in the adjacent communities of 

Irmo, West Columbia, and Lexington, to support population growth in the Columbia metropolitan 

area as a whole. While three new housing developments are planned or awaiting construction 

in the Jenkinsville area bordering the Monticello Reservoir, the land surrounding the VCSNS site 

remains sparsely populated. Table 2-35 provides a snapshot of the real estate market in the 

counties closest to the VCSNS site.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-108 April 2011

Table 2-35. 2000 Census Housing Characteristics in the Four-County Area

Characteristic Fairfield Lexington Newberry Richland

FourCountiesSouth 

Carolina

Total Housing Units 10,383 90,978 16,805 129,793 247,959 1,753,670

Total Occupied Units 8774 83,240 14,026 120,101 226,141 1,533,854

Owner-Occupied 6794 64,265 10,776 73,757 155,592 1,107,617

Renter-Occupied 1980 18,975 3250 46,344 70,549 426,237

Total Vacant Units 1609 7738 2779 9692 21,818 219,816

Percent Total Vacant Units 15.5 8.5 16.5 7.5 8.8 12.5

Median Value (singlefamily owner occupied)$69,900 $106,300 $78,000 $98,700 $98,880 $94,900

Percent Change 1990 to 

2000 in Commuter

18.9 34.7 16.3 18.5 23.8 24.3

Mean Travel Time to 

Work, Minutes

28.3 26 25.3 21.7 NA 24.3

Source: SCE&G 2010a

NA = Not applicable

2.5.2.6 Public Services

The political jurisdictions providing public services in the region include State, county, and 

municipal agencies and school districts. The review team expects that the public service 

impacts from the proposed action would be largely proportional to where the workers would 

reside. Therefore, the four-county area would likely bound the extent of such impacts, and the 

review team would not expect any significant public service impacts beyond the four-county 

area. The ensuing discussion of baseline conditions is confined to just the four-county area. As 

part of its evaluation, the review team visited the region to meet with local officials regarding the 

potentially affected public services and to validate SCE&G’s assertions in its ER.

Water Supply and Waste Treatment 

In the Central Midlands region, public water systems draw from surface water (i.e., rivers, lakes, 

and streams) or groundwater. The fall line, a line marking the transition between the Piedmont 

and the Coastal Plain physiographic ecoregions, approximately follows I-20 and splits the 

Central Midlands. VCSNS site is in the Piedmont, north of the fall line. Two of the four counties 

(Fairfield and Newberry) of interest lie entirely in the Piedmont. Approximately one-third of 

Lexington and Richland Counties lies in the Piedmont, with the remainder in the Coastal Plain.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-109 NUREG-1939

The Piedmont is characterized by a limited groundwater supply due to the dense, crystalline 

rock substrate. Most of the large municipal systems in the Central Midlands north of the fall line 

obtain water from the Broad or Saluda rivers or one of their impoundments. However, some 

smaller municipalities have wells that can adequately meet water demands. 

Currently, public water-supply facilities have excess capacity. According to local planning 

officials, water supply in the region is not a concern. Communities are adequately served by the 

current water supplies and planners estimate that the counties will continue to have adequate 

supply through current planning periods (SCE&G 2010a). Table 2-36 and Table 2-37 describe 

water suppliers in the four-county area, their current capacities, and their average daily 

production. 

Wastewater treatment in the region is provided by local jurisdictions. Municipalities determine 

treatment methods based on needs and available technologies, within budget constraints. 

Currently, the municipalities in the four counties are able to meet projected wastewatertreatment needs (SCE&G 2010a). Table 2-38 provides public wastewater capacities and 

average daily production. Rural areas of each county use septic systems.

Police, Fire, and Medical Services

The Fairfield County Emergency Management Office is the lead agency responsible for 

emergency management planning in Fairfield County. It coordinates planning with both the 

Governor’s Division of Emergency Management and SCE&G when responding to emergencies. 

Table 2-39 and Table 2-40 provide police and fire information for the four-county area, 

respectively. Emergency management officials consider current police and fire protection to be 

adequate at this time (SCE&G 2010a).

Scoping comments indicated that crime in the vicinity of the VCSNS site is a concern, and the 

review team’s visits to the area confirmed that during Unit 1 construction, the presence of a 

large number of construction workers in the area contributed to noticeable increases in crime, 

such as assaults and drug- and alcohol-related misdemeanors. The review team compiled 

baseline crime statistics for the region from 2006 State-reported data (SCLED 2009). 

Table 2-41 lists the most recent detailed county-level arrest data reported in the State. Of note, 

the rate of violent crime in Lexington and Richland Counties was noticeably lower than the more 

rural local counties and the State in the 2007 report. The overall arrest rate in Fairfield County 

is about equal to the State arrest rate.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-110 April 2011

Table 2-36. Public Groundwater Supply Resources(a)

Groundwater System Name

System 

Number

Treatment 

Capacity 

(Mgd)

Reported 

Annual 

Average 

Withdrawal 

(Mgd)

Population 

Served

Fairfield County 

Jenkinsville Water District 

(9 wells and purchased from Midcounty)

2020001 NA 0.15 1969

Midcounty Water District #1 

(4 wells(a)

and purchased from Winnsboro)

2020002 NA 0.083 1487 

Town of Ridgeway 

(1 well and purchased from Winnsboro)

2010002 NA 0.056 950 

Lexington County 

Gaston Rural Water District 

(7 wells)

3220002 NA 0.46 6756 

Gilbert Summit 

(7 wells and purchased from Lexington Co. Joint)

3220001 NA 0.41 4518 

Newberry County 

Town of Prosperity 

(3 wells)

3610005 NA 0.058 1347 

Source: After SCE&G 2010a

(a) Includes community water systems of 3 million gallons per month or greater; smaller systems are not required to 

report groundwater withdrawal.

NA = not applicable
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-111 NUREG-1939

Table 2-37. Public Surface-Water Supply Resources by County(a)

Surface-Water System Name

Treatment 

Capacity 

(Mgd)

Reported 

Annual 

Average 

Withdrawal 

(Mgd)

Population 

Served

Excess 

Capacity 

(Mgd)

Fairfield County

Town of Winnsboro

(Sand Creek and 192-ac Lake)

3.1 1.54 8303 1.56

Lexington County

Town of Batesburg-Leesville

(Lightwood Knot Creek, Duncan Creek)

2.4 1.1 7652 1.3

City of Cayce

(Congaree Creek and purchased from 

Lexington Co. Joint, Lexington, and 

Columbia)

(a)

6.0 3.1 15,250 2.9

City of West Columbia

(Saluda River and Lake Murray and 

purchased from Cayce)

20 9.8 29,763 10.2

Lexington Co. Joint Municipal Water System

(Lake Murray and purchased from West 

Columbia)

4.3 2.3 12,264 2.0

Town of Lexington

(purchased from West Columbia and 

Lexington Co. Joint)

4.5 1.8 7659 2.7

Newberry County

City of Newberry

(Saluda River)

8.1 5.1 10,145 3.0

Town of Whitmire

(Enoree River, Duncan Creek)

1.0 0.64 2755 0.36

Richland County

Fort Jackson (US Army)

(purchased from Columbia)

6.6 2.2 32,841 4.4

City of Columbia

[(Lake Murray and Columbia Canal [Broad 

River])

126 65 223,660 61

Source: SCE&G 2010a

(a) Includes community water systems of 3 million gallons per month or greater.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-112 April 2011

Table 2-38. Public Wastewater-Treatment Systems by County(a)

System Name

Maximum 

Treatment 

Capacity 

(Mgd)

Average Daily 

Wastewater 

Processed 

(Mgd)

Estimated 

Excess 

WastewaterTreatment 

Capacity 

(Mgd)(b)

Fairfield County 

Winnsboro/Jackson Creek Plant 1.5 Not Provided Unknown

Lexington County 

Cayce Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) 9.5 5.5 to 6.0 3.5 to 4.0

Town of Chapin 5.0 (proposed) 0.58 4.4 (proposed)

Batesburg-Leesville WWTF 2.5 1.3 to 1.5 1.0 to 1.2

Lexington-Coventry Woods Wastewater 

Treatment Plant 

1.95 1.0 0.95

Newberry County 

City of Newberry/Bush River Wastewater 

Treatment Plant 

3.22 2.5 0.7

Town of Whitmire 1.0 0.5 to 0.6 0.4 to 0.5

Richland County 

Columbia Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant 60 35 25

East Richland County Public Service 

District/Gills Creek 

16.0 Not Provided Unknown

Richland County/Broad River WWTF 6.0 1.2 4.8

Source: SCE&G 2010a

(a) Includes major facilities with a capacity of 1 million gpd or more

(b) Estimate assumes entire maximum treatment capacity is available to treat wastewater flow that is above 

average.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-113 NUREG-1939

Table 2-39. Law Enforcement Personnel in 2005 by County 

Political 

Jurisdiction

Total Law 

Enforcement 

Employees

Total 

Police 

Officers(a)

Total 

Civilians(b)

Fairfield County 

Fairfield County 47 45 2

Winnsboro 27 26 1

Ridgeway 2 2 0

Total 76 73 3

Lexington County 

Lexington County 376 214 162

Cayce 74 61 13

West Columbia 56 45 11

Lexington 38 33 5

Batesburg-Leesville 25 20 5

Irmo 21 19 2

Springdale 9 8 1

Swansea 7 7 0

Chapin 6 6 0

Pelion 3 3 0

Total 615 416 199

Newberry County 

Newberry County 94 46 48

Newberry 29 25 4

Prosperity 4 4 0

Total 127 75 52

Richland County 

Richland County 490 453 37

Columbia 339 301 38

Eastover 4 4 0

Total 833 758 75

Total All Counties 1651 1322 329

Sources: FBI 2006a, b

(a) Individuals who ordinarily carry a badge and a firearm and have full 

arrest powers.

(b) Personnel such as clerks, radio dispatchers, stenographers, jailers, 

and mechanics.
NUREG-1939

2-114 April 2011

Table 2-40. Fire Protection Personnel by County(a)

Fire Department Name

Number 

of 

Stations

Active 

Firefighters 

(Career)

Active 

Firefighters 

(Volunteer)

Active 

Firefighters 

(Paid per Call)

Non 

Firefighting 

(Civilian)

Non 

Firefigh

(Volunt

Fairfield County

Winnsboro Public Safety 1 22 0 9 2 0 

Fairfield Community Volunteer Fire Department 2 0 25 0 0 0 

Dutchman Creek Volunteer Fire Department 1 0 16 0 0 2 

Jenkinsville Volunteer Fire Department 1 0 9 0 0 6 

Greenbrier-Bethel Volunteer Fire Department 2 0 9 0 0 2 

Lexington County 

Lexington County Fire Service 24 134 380 0 0 0 

Voridian Fire & Rescue 1 14 0 70 5 0 

Cayce Fire Department 1 48 2 0 12 2 

Batesburg-Leesville Fire Department Station 25 2 3 38 0 0 0 

Irmo Fire District 2 31 0 6 0 0 

Pine Grove Fire Station 1 6 0 25 0 1 

Oak Grove Fire Station 1 9 8 8 0 0 

West Columbia Fire Department 1 24 0 0 0 0 

South Congaree Fire Station 1 8 8 3 0 0 

Gaston Fire Station 1 4 12 0 0 2 

Sandy Run - Calhoun Volunteer Fire Department 1 0 16 0 0 0 

Columbia Metropolitan Airport Fire/Rescue 1 15 0 0 0 0 

Newberry County

Consolidated Volunteer Fire Department 2 0 42 0 0 10 

Fairview Volunteer Fire Department 2 0 27 0 1 15 

City of Newberry Fire Department 1 19 18 0 1 1 
April 2011

2-115 NUREG-1939

Table 2-40. (contd)

Fire Department Name

Number 

of 

Stations

Active 

Firefighters 

(Career)

Active 

Firefighters 

(Volunteer)

Active 

Firefighters 

(Paid per Call)

Non 

Firefighting 

(Civilian)

Non 

Firefight

(Volunte

Newberry City Fire Department 2 19 18 0 1 1 

Prosperity Fire Department 2 0 35 0 0 0 

Silverstreet Volunteer Fire Department 1 0 28 0 0 0 

Whitmire Fire Department 1 0 25 0 0 0 

Chappells Volunteer Fire Department Station #10 1 0 18 0 0 6 

Pomaria Fire Department 1 0 19 0 0 0 

Richland County

Columbia Fire Department 31 385 107 0 23 5 

McEntire Air National Guard Fire Department 1 52 0 0 0 0 

Total All Counties 89 793 860 121 45 53 

Source: USFA 2008

(a) Data are from the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) National Fire Department Census. Responses are voluntary and the US

that, as of 2008, approximately 85 percent of the nation's fire departments have responded.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-116 April 2011

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

Offense Category Fairfield Lexington Newberry Richland

South 

Carolina

Alcohol-related 9.09 6.27 15.20 6.43 8.08

Drug-related 9.04 6.82 12.49 8.66 8.56

Family offenses 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.04 0.37

Fraud and related 1.11 1.99 7.55 7.10 4.92

Juvenile-related 0.13 0.56 0.11 0.53 0.54

Nuisance-related 8.40 3.50 11.48 3.88 5.62

Personal (abductions, 

intimidation, extortion)

0.39 0.17 0.48 0.20 0.53

Property destruction 3.90 1.11 4.46 1.86 2.43

Thefts 4.80 2.96 6.62 4.58 5.87

Vice (sex, gambling, weapons 

offenses)

0.56 0.33 0.85 1.38 0.94

Violent (murder, rape, assault) 8.40 4.51 8.56 5.31 7.40

All other (traffic, etc.) 5.23 3.19 67.44 2.46 6.68

Total arrests per 1000 45.90 28.30 67.92 39.97 45.27

2006 Population 23,333 243,270 37,633 357,734 4,407,709

Source: SCLED 2009

Table 2-42 presents hospital use and medical practitioner data by county. Hospitals in Richland 

County include five general hospitals (with one under construction) and one military hospital. 

More than 8000 people are employed in the medical industry in Richland County. Fairfield, 

Lexington, and Newberry Counties each have one general hospital and Lexington County is 

adding a second smaller hospital (SCE&G 2010a).

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

County

2000 

Population

Hospital 

Beds

Hospital Beds 

per 1000 

Population Physicians

Physicians 

per 1000 

Population

Fairfield 23,454 50 2.1 19 0.81 

Lexington 216,014 376 1.7 337 1.6 

Newberry 36,108 103 2.9 52 1.4 

Richland 320,677 1533 4.8 1330 4.2 

Total 596,253 2062 3.5 1738 2.9

Source: SCE&G 2010a

All four counties have health departments that are available to residents regardless of their 

ability to pay. Services offered include child and adolescent health programs, women's health 

programs, immunizations, laboratory services, teen pregnancy prevention programs, scoliosis 

screening, parasite screening, diabetes screening, health education and counseling, 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-117 NUREG-1939

homemaker services for the elderly, prenatal services, and sexually transmitted disease 

prevention and education (SCE&G 2010a).

Social services in the four-county area are provided by State and local governmental and 

nongovernmental organizations. The United Way helps support many organizations in the four 

counties. The primary State-level organization that provides social services is the South 

Carolina Department of Social Services, which oversees numerous programs and services, 

similar to other such departments in other states (SCE&G 2010a).

2.5.2.7 Education

Fairfield and Newberry Counties each have a single-county school district. However, there are 

five districts in Lexington County and two districts in Richland County. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-118 April 2011

Table 2-43 lists the total 2008 student enrollment, the proportion of students participating in free 

and reduced lunch programs, the number of schools in each district, and each district’s studentto-teacher ratio for the four county area. Of note, the Fairfield School District shows 

considerably higher eligibility for free and reduced school lunch programs than the other districts 

in the four-county area. Within the Fairfield district, the closest school to the VCSNS site is 

McCrorey Liston Elementary. Table 2-44 presents the school-by-school free and reduced meal 

program eligibility in Fairfield County.

All of the school districts that are likely to feel some impact from an influx of students associated 

with the development of the VCSNS site have been growing in recent years and making 

accommodations to manage that growth. Each district has a facilities plan that provides a 

roadmap for addressing enrollment increases. Currently, all of the districts have been 

addressing increased enrollments either through new revenue generation or the increased tax 

base that is attributable to population growth and property development (SCE&G 2010a).
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-119 NUREG-1939

Table 2-43. School Characteristics in the Four-County Area

Public School 

District 2008 Enrollment

Free and Reduced 

Lunch Participation 

Percent

Number of 

Schools

Student/ 

Teacher Ratio

Fairfield 3719 83.8 8 11.3

Lexington 01 20,421 30.6 23 13.7

Lexington 02 9378 55.6 16 13.4

Lexington 03 2092 61.8 4 13.6

Lexington 04 3567 68.2 5 14.7

Lexington 05* 16,929 25.1 19 13.5

Newberry 6146 63.6 11 13.1

Richland 01 24,600 62.2 49 12.4

Richland 02 24,008 39.2 27 13.7

Totals 110,860 46.2 162 13.3

Source: SCDOE 2009

Note: Lexington District 5 includes portions of Richland County.

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

Public School 

2008 

Enrollment

Percent of 

Students 

Eligible for Free 

and Reduced 

Lunch 

Fairfield Central High School 980 73.47

Fairfield Intermediate 572 82.17

Fairfield Middle School 510 86.47

Fairfield Primary 539 92.95

Geiger Elementary 391 86.96

Gordon Odyssey Academy 156 89.74

Kelly Miller Elementary 305 92.79

McCrorey Liston Elementary 266 83.46

District Total 3719 83.81

Source: After SCDOE 2009

Table 2-45 lists the colleges and universities found in the region. The local community colleges 

are partnering with the VCSNS site-development team to develop training curricula that would 

produce qualified local technicians and construction workers for the jobs at the VCSNS site.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-120 April 2011

Table 2-45. Colleges and Universities in the VCSNS Region

Institution City County Highest Degree Offered

Public Senior Institutions 

University of South Carolina 

Lander University 

Winthrop University 

Columbia 

Greenwood 

Rock Hill 

Richland County 

Greenwood County 

York County 

Doctoral Degrees

Master’s Degrees

Master’s Degrees

Other Public Institutions 

University of South Carolina – Lancaster 

University of South Carolina – Union 

Lancaster 

Union 

Lancaster County

Union County 

Associates Degrees 

Associates Degrees 

Public Technical Colleges 

Midlands Technical College 

York Technical College 

Columbia 

Rock Hill 

Richland County 

York County 

Associates Degrees 

Associates Degrees 

Private Senior Institutions 

Allen University 

Benedict College 

Columbia International University 

Columbia College 

Lutheran Theological Seminary 

Newberry College 

Presbyterian College 

Columbia 

Columbia 

Columbia 

Columbia 

Columbia 

Newberry 

Clinton 

Richland County 

Richland County 

Richland County 

Richland County 

Richland County 

Newberry County 

Laurens County 

Baccalaureate Degrees 

Baccalaureate Degrees 

Doctoral Degrees 

Master’s Degrees 

Doctoral Degrees 

Baccalaureate Degrees 

Baccalaureate Degrees 

Source: SCE&G 2010a

2.6 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy established by Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629) 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(b

 

(a) Minority categories are defined as: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islander; Black races; or Hispanic ethnicity; “other” may be considered a separate 

minority category. Low income refers to individuals living in households meeting the official poverty 

measure. To see the U.S. Census definition and values for 2000, visit the U.S. Census website at 

http://ask.census.gov/.

) 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).

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

regulations governing nuclear reactor and nuclear material safety, issues orders to licensees, and 

adjudicates legal matters.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-121 NUREG-1939

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 determined. 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 American Indian settlements. 

The racial population is expressed in terms of the percentage of people that are minorities in an 

area, and, in this discussion, the sum of the racial minority populations is referred to as the 

aggregate racial minority population. Persons of Hispanic/Latino origin are considered an ethnic 

minority and may be of any race. The review team did not include Hispanics in its aggregate 

race estimate because the Federal government considers race and Hispanic origin to be two 

separate and distinct concepts (USCB 2001). Table 2-46 shows the overall representation of 

the populations of interest in the VCSNS 50-mi region and the State of South Carolina as a 

whole.

Table 2-46. Regional Minority and Low-Income Populations by Census Blocks Meeting 

Environmental Justice Criteria

Category

Number of Blocks 

(out of 864 Total)

Percent of 

Total

African American 211 24.4

Aggregate minority 241 27.9

Hispanic 12 1.4

American Indian or Alaskan native 1 0.1

Asian 1 0.1

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0

Persons reporting some other race 0 0.0

Multiracial 0 0.0

Low-income population 54 6.3

Source: Review team U.S. Census data analysis.

2.6.1 Methodology

The review team first examines the geographic distribution of minority and low-income 

populations within 50 mi of the VCSNS site, using a GIS and the 2000 U.S. Census to identify 

minority and low-income populations. The review team then verifies its analysis by conducting 

field inquiries of numerous agencies and groups (see Appendix B for list of organizations 

contacted).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-122 April 2011

The first step in the review team’s environmental justice methodology is to examine each 

census block group that is fully or partially included within the 50-mi region to determine for 

each minority or low-income population whether it should be considered a population of interest. 

If either of the two criteria discussed below identifies a census block group, that census block 

group was considered a population of interest. The two criteria are whether

• the population of interest exceeds 50 percent of the total population for the census block 

group, or

• the population of interest is 20 percentage points (or more) greater than the same 

population’s percentage in the census block group’s state.

The identification of census block groups that meet the above two-step criterion is not sufficient 

for the review team to conclude that a disproportionately high and adverse impact exists. 

Likewise, the lack of census block groups meeting the above criteria cannot be construed as 

evidence of no disproportionate and adverse impacts. To reach an environmental justice 

conclusion, starting with the identified populations of interest, the review team must investigate 

all populations in greater detail to determine if there are potentially significant environmental 

effects that may have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income 

populations. To determine whether such effects may be present, the review team considers the 

following:

• Health Considerations 

1. Are the radiological or other health effects significant or above generally accepted 

norms? 

2. Is the risk or rate of hazard significant and appreciably in excess of the general 

population? 

3. Do the radiological or other health effects occur in groups affected by cumulative or 

multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards? 

• Environmental Considerations 

4. Is there an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly and adversely 

affects a particular group? 

5. Are there any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or [are] 

likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population? 

6. Do the environment effects occur in groups affected by cumulative or multiple adverse 

exposure from environmental hazard? (NRC 2007b)

If this investigation in greater detail does not yield any potentially high and adverse impacts on 

populations of interest, the review team may conclude that there are no disproportionately high 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-123 NUREG-1939

and adverse impacts. If, however, the review team finds any potentially disproportionate and 

adverse impacts, the review team would fully characterize the nature and extent of that impact 

and consider possible mitigation measures that may be used to lessen that impact. The 

remainder of this section discusses the results of the search for potentially affected populations 

of interest. 

The review team estimated that in the 2000 U.S. Census, 864 census block groups were wholly 

or partially within the 50-mi region. Using the individual comparison criteria (comparing the 

block group to the state in which it is located), GIS analysis found 211 block groups that have 

African American populations of interest, 12 with Hispanic ethnicity, 1 with American Indian or 

Alaskan Native populations, 1 with Asian populations, and none with multiracial populations of 

interest. There are 241 block groups in the region with aggregate minority populations that were 

20 percent or greater than the State average, all of which also have a minority population of 50 

percent or greater. There were no blocks with minority populations of Hawaiian or other Pacific 

Islander, or multi-racial groups exceeding either the 20-percent or 50-percent criterion. Fiftyfour blocks were identified as having low-income households that are 20 percent or greater than 

the State or County average, 16 of which have 50 percent or more low-income households.

Figure 2-18 and Figure 2-19 illustrate the findings of the analysis of the 2000 U.S. Census data. 

None of the identified low-income census block groups with populations of interest are located 

within the 6-mi vicinity of the VCSNS site. However, the review team identified three African 

American census block groups within the site vicinity. Upon further investigation, local officials 

within and near Jenkinsville revealed that not only was the local population comprised almost 

exclusively of African Americans, but it also included a high proportion of low-income 

populations (NRC 2010). The review team also noted that the Fairfield County School District 

exhibits a proportion of free and reduced lunch participation that is significantly greater than the 

other districts (see Section 2.5.2.7) in the general area. Based on the information in the VCSNS 

ER, public input, and the review team’s outreach and analysis, the review team determined that 

because there are minority and low-income communities within the vicinity of the site, impacts 

on these communities must be considered in greater detail, as discussed in Section 2.6.2. The 

result of the review team’s analyses can be found in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 of this EIS.

Transmission-line corridor impacts on potentially affected populations are discussed in the 

context of cumulative impacts in Section 7.4. The routes of the planned corridors have been 

presented in Section 2.2.2. Generally, the transmission-line siting process attempts to minimize 

effects on all residential development, and impacts are considered by the review team in the full 

context of building and operating the new units.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-124 April 2011

Figure 2-18. Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups That Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-125 NUREG-1939

Figure 2-19. Low-Income Populations in Block Groups That Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-126 April 2011

2.6.2 Scoping and Outreach

The review team interviewed local, State, and county officials, business leaders, and key 

members of minority communities within the economic impact area to assess the potential for 

disproportionately high and adverse socioeconomic effects that may be experienced by minority 

and low-income communities during construction and operation of the proposed new VCSNS 

units (NRC 2010). The NRC staff issued an advanced notice of public meetings for EIS scoping 

purposes in accordance with the NRC’s guidance (see Appendix D). The review team also 

contacted local Tribal governments to determine historic or cultural uses in the region (see 

Section 2.7.4). It was through this scoping and outreach process that the review team 

determined that the populations within the vicinity of the VCSNS site included a percentage of 

low-income families not captured by the two-step assessment of census block groups. The 

review team was also made aware of anecdotal information about local subsistence fishing by 

the members of the town of Jenkinsville and communities of Dawkins and Blair (NRC 2010).

2.6.3 Subsistence and Communities with Unique Characteristics

For each of the identified low-income and minority populations, it is necessary to determine if 

any of the populations appears to have a unique characteristic at the population level that would 

cause an impact to disproportionately affect them. Examples of unique characteristics might 

include lack of vehicles, sensitivity to noise, location within the site vicinity, or subsistence 

activities, but such unique characteristics need to be demonstrably present in the population 

and relevant to the potential environmental impacts of the plant. If the impacts from the 

proposed action would appear to affect an identified minority or low-income population more 

than the general population because of one of these or other unique characteristics, then a 

determination would be made about whether the impact is disproportionate when compared to 

the general population. Through its review of the applicant’s ER, its own outreach and research

(NRC 2010), and through scoping meeting comments, the review team identified potentially 

unique community characteristics for further consideration: location along access roads that 

may become congested, subsistence fishing and hunting in the lands near the VCSNS site, and 

a common practice of home vegetable gardening to supplement diets. The review team 

assesses these unique characteristics and practices of this population in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 of 

this EIS.

2.6.4 Migrant Populations

The USCB 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/her 

permanent place of residence. From an environmental justice perspective, there is a potential 

for outdoor workers to be disproportionately affected by emissions in the environment. Although 

Richland County and immediately adjacent counties are urban population centers, there are a 

number of farms within the region. Based on agricultural census data, these farms do not hire 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-127 NUREG-1939

an especially large number of migrant workers, and none is located within the 6-mi vicinity of the 

VCSNS site (see Section 2.5.1.3). 

2.6.5 Environmental Justice Summary 

The review team found low-income, African American, and aggregated minority populations that 

exceed the percentage criteria established for environmental justice analyses within the 50-mi 

region. Several of these minority census block groups are clustered in the vicinity of the 

VCSNS site and further investigation by the review team revealed that these block groups 

displayed a high concentration of low-income populations not evident at the census block group 

level. Therefore, the review team performed additional analyses before making a final 

environmental justice determination. The results of the analyses can be found in Sections 4.5 

and 5.5. 

2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the staff has elected to use the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) process to comply with the obligations found under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA). The NRC has determined that the 

physical and visual Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the COL review is the area at the VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 site and the immediate environs that may be affected by land-disturbing activities 

associated with construction and operation of the new VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The USACE also 

considers the transmission-line rights-of-way to be within the APE for its permit review. In 

addition to NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000), NRC Staff Memorandum (NRC 2010b) provides guidance 

to staff on cultural and historic resource analysis in its environmental reviews.

USACE regulations at 33 CFR Part 325, Appendix C, describe the USACE obligation to comply 

with the regulations of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800). In addition to any specific conditions 

regarding known cultural resources coordinated with the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

(THPO) or South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), every USACE DA permit 

includes a general condition that advises and requires the permittee to immediately notify

USACE if any previously unknown resources are encountered during activities that would 

constitute preconstruction and construction.

This section discusses the historic and cultural background in the VCSNS 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 building and operation are found 

in Sections 4.6 and 5.6, respectively.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-128 April 2011

2.7.1 Cultural Background 

This section provides an overview and summary of the cultural history of the VCSNS site and 

region based on documentation provided in the Supplemental EIS for renewal of the VCSNS 

Unit 1 Operating License (NRC 2004, Section 2.2.9), Revision 1 of the ER (SCE&G 2009a), and 

the first cultural resources survey report completed by SCE&G’s cultural resources contractor, 

New South Associates (NSA 2007a) submitted by SCE&G (2009b). The area in and around the 

VCSNS site has a rich cultural history and a substantial record of significant cultural resources 

associated with the prehistoric and historic periods. This part of southern South Carolina has a 

cultural sequence that extends back to about 12,000 years Before Present (BP).

Prehistoric occupation of the area is generally grouped into four periods: Paleo-Indian (12,000 

to 10,000 BP), Archaic (10,000 to 3000 BP), Woodland (3000 BP to 800 BP) and Mississippian 

(A.D. 1100–1640) (NSA 2007a). Settlement during the early prehistoric period is characterized 

by mobile groups exploiting big game and the presence of the Clovis projectile point. 

Subsistence on multiple resources including smaller game and plants as well as more sedentary 

settlement patterns particularly along rivers, characterize the Archaic period. Reliance on 

shellfish and the development of pottery occurred during the late Archaic period. Ceramic 

typology, use, and function evolved and diversified during the Woodland period with an increase 

in sedentary settlement patterns and a reliance on agriculture in the Mississippian period. Two 

significant Mississippian period archaeological sites are located in the vicinity of the VCSNS 

site; the Blair Mound and the McCollum Mound (NSA 2007a).

The contact period is the transitional period between the prehistoric and historic periods when 

Euro-American settlers and explorers first visited the area in the mid-16th century (NSA 2007a; 

NRC 2004). Several groups of American Indians lived in South Carolina during this time, many 

of which became extinct or merged with other groups due to non-American Indian 

encroachment by Spanish, French, and British explorers and settlers by the mid-1700s. The 

largest groups were the Catawba and the Cherokee who likely used the Broad River region for 

resource gathering (SCE&G 2009a). Several Tribal groups and descendants of earlier groups 

are present today in South Carolina (descendants of the Cherokee, the Catawba, Pee Dee, 

Chicora, Edisto, Santee, and Chicora-Waccamaw Tribes) (NRC 2004). In 1838, the Cherokee 

were forced to leave the eastern United States and resettle in Oklahoma (NRC 2004). Today, 

the Catawba are the only Federally recognized Tribe that resides in the State of South Carolina, 

but there are several other Federally and non-Federally recognized groups that have an interest 

in South Carolina and are officially recognized by the State of South Carolina (SCE&G 2009a). 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-129 NUREG-1939

The historic period overlaps with the contact period and begins with the arrival of Euro-American 

settlers. The European colonization of South Carolina began in the early 1600s. South 

Carolina was established in 1670 with the founding of Charleston (NSA 2007a) and was divided 

into South and North Carolina in 1710 (NRC 2004). Permanent European settlement did not 

occur in the Fairfield County area until the early 1740s with settlement occurring along the 

Broad River. During the American Revolution, many settlers in the area were divided between 

the British and Patriot sides, which resulted in several skirmishes. With the culmination of the 

war during the nearby Battle of Cowpens, the British eventually withdrew from Charleston in 

1782 (NSA 2007a; SCE&G 2009a). 

Cotton production and plantations were established in the area in the 1800s and increased 

during the 1850s. An increase in slave populations accompanied the increase in cotton 

plantations in the area (SCE&G 2009a; NSA 2007a). During the late 19th century, the Civil War 

and Reconstruction period resulted in major economic social adjustments in the area. Cotton 

production ceased in the 1930s as a result of hard economic times, the boll weevil, and 

depletion of the area’s topsoil (NRC 2004; NSA 2007a; SCE&G 2009a). Camp Pearson, a 

Civilian Conservation Corps camp was established in 1933 as a soil erosion camp at Parr, 

which is located just south and west of the VCSNS site (NSA 2007a; SCE&G 2009a). 

2.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Site

This section describes cultural resources that may be affected by building and operating the 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The direct effects APE, which takes into account physical 

impacts on known resources resulting from constructing and operating VCSNS Units 2 and 3, 

has been defined by SCE&G (2009c) as “the area where ground disturbing activities could 

potentially occur and was selected to encompass SCE&G property lines, all of the water-intake 

locations, the northern boundary of the switchyard, rework along Parr Road, the northern edge 

of Fairfield Hydro Road and the Norfolk Southern Railroad” (SCE&G 2009f) (see Figure 2-20). 

The APE is based on property boundaries and not on areas to be affected by building activities 

(SCE&G 2009h). A visual effects APE was not defined because the proposed project activities 

would be located in rolling terrain that is forested and not visible from major roads or nearby 

public property (SCE&G 2009a, c, g).

Transmission lines leaving the site would be visible in places (SCE&G 2009g). The South 

Carolina SHPO has concurred with the APE definitions identified by each of the individual 

surveys completed for the COL activities that are summarized and referenced below. 

Previous cultural resources investigations occurred in the vicinity of and within the VCSNS site 

APE indicating that the region was used during prehistoric times, particularly during the Middle 

Archaic period and Mississippian period (Teague 1979; SCDHPT 1984). Six prehistoric sites 

were recorded in these areas by the South Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology 

(SCIAA) in 1972, and reported by Teague in 1979, as part of an archaeological survey 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-130 April 2011

Figure 2-20. Area of Potential Effect for the VCSNS Site Units 2 and 3
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-131 NUREG-1939

conducted for the Parr Hydroelectric Project, which was constructed in part to supply cooling 

water for VCSNS Unit 1 (NRC 2004; SCE&G 2009a; NSA 2007a). Six archaeological sites 

consisting of lithic material, but lacking in any intact archaeological deposits as a result of 

erosion, transmission-line maintenance activities, and agricultural practices (38FA30, 38FA38, 

38FA39, 38FA40, 38FA44, 38FA47), were located on SCE&G property (Teague 1979; SCE&G 

2009a; NSA 2007a). None of the sites was formally evaluated for eligibility for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or the National Register) (Teague 1979; SCE&G 

2009a). Teague’s report indicates that the 38FA30 site was not located again and most of the 

archaeological artifacts (lithic tools and debris associated with the Middle Archaic period) at the 

remaining five sites were collected (Teague 1979). In Teague’s report, sites 38FA38, 38FA39, 

and 38FA40 are depicted as being within SCE&G’s APE, but outside of areas to be disturbed by 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 building activities (NSA 2007a and South Carolina Department of 

Archives and History [SCDAH] records). Archaeological site 38FA164 is located outside of the 

APE and consists of a prehistoric lithic scatter and one historic artifact; the site was recorded on 

SCE&G property in 1984 and was recommended as not eligible for listing in the National 

Register (SCDHPT 1984; NSA 2007a; SCE&G 2009a; and SCDAH records).

Between 2006 and 2009, SCE&G contracted with R.S. Webb and Associates (Webb) and New 

South Associates (NSA) to conduct archaeological investigations for proposed VCSNS Units 2 

and 3; the investigations resulted in extensive archaeological survey of the project APE (Webb 

2006; NSA 2007a, b; NSA 2008; NSA 2009a, b). Areas not surveyed include areas previously 

disturbed during Unit 1 building activities such as the raw-water intake and pipeline route and 

the location of the New Nuclear Deployment Office (SCE&G 2009n). In 2006, Webb completed 

an archaeological inventory of the land around the site of the proposed meteorological tower for 

SCE&G. Webb identified archaeological site 38FA322, a multi-component site containing 

prehistoric archaeological material and domestic debris associated with the early 19th to mid20th century. Early 19th century historic maps indicate that General John Pearson’s house may 

have been located in the vicinity of site 38FA322. The presence of early 19th century artifacts 

and foundation stones discovered by Webb’s archaeological investigation at 38FA322 resulted 

in Webb’s conclusion that these materials may be associated with the location of General 

Pearson’s house (Webb 2006 submitted by SCE&G [2009n]). Webb recommended that the site 

was ineligible for listing in the National Register due to lack of integrity. On August 16, 2006, 

the South Carolina SHPO sent a letter concurring that archaeological site 38FA38 is not eligible 

for the National Register (SCDAH 2006b). It was later confirmed that this letter mistakenly 

referred to site 38FA38, which was corrected by a new letter sent to the NRC issued on October 

20, 2009 further clarifying that it is site 38FA322 that has been determined to be ineligible for 

the National Register not site 38FA38 (SCDAH 2009b). 

On July 27, 2006, the South Carolina SHPO requested that additional testing be conducted at 

site 38FA322 to evaluate it for National Register eligibility (SCDAH 2006a). Webb (2006) 

completed 26 shovel tests recovering artifact assemblages associated with the Middle Archaic 

period and domestic-related artifacts associated with the 19th to mid-20th century (Webb 2006). 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-132 April 2011

Webb concluded that because historic maps indicate that General Pearson’s house was located 

in the area, the foundation remnants at site 38FA322 “may have been General Pearson’s 

house” (Webb 2006). However, Webb recommended that 38FA322 was ineligible for listing in 

the National Register due to lack of integrity of the multiple components of the site as a result of 

heavy disturbance by historic agriculture activities and modern silviculture activities (Webb 

2006). The report was revised accordingly. The South Carolina SHPO concurred with this 

recommendation and that the proposed meteorological tower would not result in direct or visual 

effects on historic properties (SCDAH 2006a). 

In 2006, NSA delineated the boundary of and recorded site 38FA330, a cemetery associated 

with General John Pearson whose grave is marked by a monument installed by the Daughters 

of the American Revolution (DAR) (NSA 2006 submitted by SCE&G (2009n). Also in 2006, 

NSA completed an archeological survey of 428 ac of 515 ac of land planned for improvements 

associated with the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (NSA 2007a) locating seven new 

archaeological sites (38FA323–38FA330) and six isolated finds consisting of lithic and ceramic 

material and historic debris (Table 2-47). Eighty-seven acres of land were not surveyed 

because the area had been used by SCE&G in the past for fill for Unit 1 and was extensively 

disturbed (NSA 2007a). None of the newly recorded sites or isolates was recommended as 

eligible by NSA due to the lack of integrity of the sites resulting from soil disturbance from 

historic logging activities in the area (NSA 2007a). The 2007 report also evaluated the National 

Register eligibility of 38FA330 (the Pearson Cemetery) and the DAR monument recommending 

both as being eligible (NSA 2007a). 

In 2007, NSA conducted additional field surveys of approximately 1311 ac of SCE&G land also 

planned for improvements associated with proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (NSA 2007b), 

recording 19 new archaeological sites (38FA331–38FA349) and 24 isolated finds consisting of 

prehistoric lithic flakes, ceramics, and historic ceramics, and horseshoes (NSA 2007b)(see 

Table 2-47). None of the newly recorded sites or isolates was recommended as eligible by NSA 

due to the lack of integrity of the sites resulting from soil disturbance from historic logging 

activities in the area (NSA 2007a). However, site 38FA349 (a historic tree carving associated 

with the Civilian Conservation Corps camp at Parr), was recommended for preservation. On 

April 9, 2007, SCE&G sent a letter to the South Carolina SHPO (SCE&G 2007d) indicating that 

three Phase 1 surveys had been completed for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (referring to 

Webb 2006 and the two surveys completed by NSA [2007a, b]). In the letter, SCE&G 

expressed concurrence with NSA’s and SCE&G’s recommendation for National Register 

eligibility of site 38FA330 (the Pearson Cemetery) and the associated DAR monument, their 

decision to protect the Pearson cemetery, and a finding of no adverse effect. On April 27, 2007, 

the South Carolina SHPO responded with a request to review the cultural resources survey 

reports referenced in SCE&G’s April 9, 2007 letter (SCDAH 2007a). Having received these 

reports, the South Carolina SHPO sent another letter to SCE&G concurring with these 

recommendations and findings (SCDAH 2007b). The South Carolina SHPO also recommended 
April 2011

2-133 NUREG-1939

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

Site Site Type Age Work Effort

SCDHPT/Teague/ 

Webb/NSA 

Recommended 

NRHP Status Location

38FA30 Unknown. Unknown Phase 1 Not intact or 

relocated

Outside APE. N

38FA38 Located at base of transmissionline tower. Lithic flakes and tools 

all of which were collected.

Middle Phase 1 Not intact or 

relocated

Inside APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed. Exact 

location is unknown 

and was not 

relocated. 

N

30FA39 Located along dirt access road. 

Lithic flakes and projectile point. 

Projectile point was collected.

Middle 

Archaic

Phase 1 Not intact or 

relocated

Inside APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed. Exact 

location is unknown 

and was not 

relocated.

N

30FA40 Located at base of transmissionline tower.

Lithic flakes and projectile point. 

Projectile point was collected.

Middle 

Archaic

Phase 1 Not intact or 

relocated

Inside APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

N

38FA44 Located on a knoll. 

12 lithic flakes, 9 were collected. 

Unknown Phase 1 Not intact Outside APE. N

38FA47 Located on a hilltop. 12 lithic 

flakes, 5 were collected.

Unknown Phase 1 Not intact Outside APE. N

38FA164 Lithic scatter and one historic 

ceramic fragment

Unknown Phase 1 Not eligible Outside APE. N

38FA322 Multicomponent site. Prehistoric 

lithic debris, and historic domestic 

debris. Former homestead of 

General Pearson

Middle 

Archaic, 

Mississippian, 

mid19th/Early 

20th Century

Phase 1 Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE and 

inside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne
NUREG-1939

2-134 April 2011

Table 2-47. (contd)

Site Site Type Age Work Effort

SCDHPT/Teague/ 

Webb/NSA 

Recommended 

NRHP Status Location

38FA323 Prehistoric Scatter/House Site Unknown 

Prehistoric/

Early to Late 

19th Century

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on Historic 

Properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed. 

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA324 Prehistoric Scatter/House Site Unknown 

Prehistoric/

Early to Late 

19th Century

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE and 

within areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA325 Isolated Prehistoric Find/Historic 

Scatter

Unknown 

Prehistoric/

Mid-19th to 

early 20th 

Century

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE and 

within areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA326 Unidentified Historic Structure Unknown 

Historic

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA327 Prehistoric Scatter/Historic 

Scatter

Late ArchaicWoodland/ 

Early 20th 

Century

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne
April 2011

2-135 NUREG-1939

Table 2-47. (contd)

Site Site Type Age Work Effort

SCDHPT/Teague/ 

Webb/NSA 

Recommended 

NRHP Status Location

38FA328 House Site Late 19th to 

Early 20th 

Century

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE and 

within areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA329 Lithic Scatter Late ArchaicEarly 

Woodland

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA330 General Pearson Cemetery Early to Late 

19th Century

Phase I and 

delineation of 

cemetery 

boundary.

Eligible Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed. Site 

would be avoided 

and protected.

C

ad

hi

R

pr

co

38FA331 Historic House Site/Prehistoric 

Lithic Scatter

19th–20th 

Century/ Late 

Archaic

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE and 

within areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA332 Historic Artifact Scatter 19th–20th 

Century/

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE and 

within areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne
NUREG-1939

2-136 April 2011

Table 2-47. (contd)

Site Site Type Age Work Effort

SCDHPT/Teague/ 

Webb/NSA 

Recommended 

NRHP Status Location

38FA333 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Unknown 

Prehistoric

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on Historic 

Properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA334 Prehistoric Artifact 

Scatter/Historic Isolate

Late Archaic 

to Middle 

Woodland/

20th Century

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA335 Prehistoric Artifact Scatter Unknown 

Prehistoric

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA336 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/Historic 

House Site

Middle 

Archaic/

19th–20th 

Century

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE and 

within areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA337 Prehistoric Sherd Scatter Unknown 

Prehistoric

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA338 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/Historic 

Isolate

Middle 

Archaic/17th 

18th Century

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE and 

within areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne
April 2011

2-137 NUREG-1939

Table 2-47. (contd)

Site Site Type Age Work Effort

SCDHPT/Teague/ 

Webb/NSA 

Recommended 

NRHP Status Location

38FA339 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/Historic 

Artifact Scatter

Middle 

Archaic/

19th–20th 

Century 

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE and 

within areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA340 Prehistoric Artifact 

Scatter/Historic Isolate

Late PaleoIndian–Late 

Archaic/19th–

20th Century

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE and 

within areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA341 Historic House Site 19th–20th 

Century

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA342 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/Historic 

Isolate

Late 

Pale-IndianEarly Archaic/

20th Century

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on Historic 

Properties

Within APE and 

within areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA343 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Early-Middle 

Archaic

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA344 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Early 

Woodland

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne
NUREG-1939

2-138 April 2011

Table 2-47. (contd)

Site Site Type Age Work Effort

SCDHPT/Teague/ 

Webb/NSA 

Recommended 

NRHP Status Location

38FA345 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Early-Middle 

Archaic

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA346 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Unknown 

Prehistoric

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE and 

within areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA347 Historic House Site 19th–20th 

Century

Phase I Not eligible. No

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE and 

within areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

F

N

38FA348 Historic Stone Piles Unknown 

Historic

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on Historic 

Properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

P

F

N

38FA349 Historic Tree Carving 20th Century Phase I Not eligible, but 

recommend 

preservation.

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

be

re

pr
April 2011

2-139 NUREG-1939

Table 2-47. (contd)

Site Site Type Age Work Effort

SCDHPT/Teague/ 

Webb/NSA 

Recommended 

NRHP Status Location

38FA359 Historic Home Site Early to Mid20th CenturyPhase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA360 Prehistoric Ceramic Scatter Middle 

Woodland

Phase I and 

Phase II

Eligible. Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed. Site 

would be avoided 

and protected from 

road improvements

C

ad

hi

th

38FA361 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Early to 

Middle 

Archaic

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA362 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Late Archaic Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA363 Historic Home Site Late 19th to 

Early 20th 

Century

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE and 

within areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne
NUREG-1939

2-140 April 2011

Table 2-47. (contd)

Site Site Type Age Work Effort

SCDHPT/Teague/ 

Webb/NSA 

Recommended 

NRHP Status Location

38FA364 Historic Home Site Early to Mid 

Twentieth 

Century

Phase 1 Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA365 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Middle

Archaic

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic 

properties

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

38FA366 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Unknown Phase I Potentially eligible. 

Site would be 

avoided.

Within APE but 

outside areas to be 

disturbed. Would 

be avoided.

C

on 

pr

fu

ne

(a) See Section 4.6 for a discussion on SHPO consultation

APE = Area of Potential Effect

NSA = New South Associates

NHRP = National Register of Historic Places

SCDHPT = South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-141 NUREG-1939

that a preservation covenant be recorded to protect site 38FA330 and the DAR monument 

(SCDAH 2007b). In addition, the SHPO recommended that a Programmatic Agreement be 

developed to last the lifetime of the COLs issued for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCDAH 2007b). 

Further discussion is provided in Section 4.6 on the development of this agreement. Sites 

38FA38, 38FA39, and 38FA40 are located within NSA’s 2007 survey area, but apparently were 

not located again. Having been collected in 1979 and with minimal integrity or presence of 

archaeological deposits, the tangible evidence of these sites is no longer present (Teague 1979; 

NSA 2007a). 

In 2008, NSA conducted a third archaeological survey of 232 ac on the VCSNS site planned for 

improvements and 5800 ft of planned road improvements (NSA 2008) submitted by SCE&G 

(2009n). Eight new archaeological sites (38FA359–38FA366) and three isolated finds 

consisting of prehistoric lithic material were recorded. Two were recommended as potentially 

eligible: site 38FA360, a Middle Woodland period prehistoric ceramic scatter, and site 

38FA366, a prehistoric lithic scatter (see Table 2-47). Avoidance was recommended at both of 

these sites and if avoidance was not possible it was recommended that Phase II testing occur to 

officially evaluate their eligibility for listing in the National Register (NSA 2008). The remaining 

six archaeological sites and isolated finds were recommended as not being eligible because of 

their lack of integrity due to heavy disturbance of these sites (NSA 2008). SCE&G concurred 

with NSA’s findings and forwarded these to the South Carolina SHPO (SCE&G 2008a). The 

South Carolina SHPO concurred with the recommendations made by NSA (SCDAH 2009a). 

While conducting surveys at the VCSNS site, NSA was unable to re-locate sites 38FA38, 

38FA39, and 38FA40, despite Teague having reported them to be within the project APE but 

outside of the areas to be disturbed. Site files at SCIAA listed the location of the sites as 

questionable due to a gap in time between the date of survey (1972) and the date of reporting 

(1979) (NSA 2009d). NSA was unable to re-locate archaeological sites 38FA38, 38FA39, and 

38FA40 to correlate them with those reported by Teague (1979) due to “significant 

discrepancies in location, size, and cultural components.” With concurrence from the SCIAA 

site files manager, it was decided to assign new site numbers to all archaeological sites located 

by NSA on the VCSNS site (NSA 2009d).

Because site 38FA360 was located in an area that may be affected by road widening, Phase II 

archaeological testing was completed by NSA in 2008 (NSA 2009a). Based on the results of 

the Phase II testing, NSA concluded and recommended that 38FA360 be determined eligible for 

listing in the National Register for its potential to yield information regarding Middle to Late 

Woodland settlement systems (NSA 2009a). Specifically, the site contained archaeological 

material associated with four to five households including ceramics and lithic material. NSA 

recommended that the site be preserved in place and if it could not be protected that the site be 

mitigated (NSA 2009a). SCE&G concurred with NSA’s findings and forwarded them to the 

South Carolina SHPO (SCE&G 2009r). The South Carolina SHPO concurred with the 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-142 April 2011

recommendations made by NSA and recommended that the site be avoided or that a 

Memorandum of Agreement be developed with a data-recovery plan if the site could not be 

avoided (SCDAH 2009a).

In 2009, NSA inventoried a 5-ac area proposed for road improvements along SC-213 for 

archaeological resources (NSA 2009b). One isolated historic ceramic was recorded. NSA 

concluded that the proposed improvements would not affect historic properties (NSA 2009b). 

SCE&G concurred with NSA’s findings and forwarded them to the South Carolina SHPO 

(SCE&G 2009s). SHPO concurred with the identification of APE and historic properties 

identified within the APE and the finding that no historic properties would be affected (SCDAH 

2009c).

Also in 2009, a 7.7-ac area in the vicinity of the proposed water-treatment plant was inventoried 

for cultural resources via surface inspection and shovel testing (SCE&G 2009t; NSA 2009c). 

Old car parts were noted, but not formally recorded. No archaeological sites were recorded by 

this survey. The South Carolina SHPO concurred with NSA’s assessment that no historic 

properties would be affected by this activity (SCDAH 2009d). 

In summary, a total of 43 archaeological sites have been recorded by these investigations and 

are listed in Table 2-47. Of these, 39 archaeological sites are located within the VCSNS site 

APE, most of which have been recommended as ineligible for listing in the National Register. 

Four archaeological sites have either been recommended as National Register eligible –

38FA330 (General Pearson Cemetery) and 38FA360; potentially eligible – 38FA366; or 

recommended for preservation – 38FA349. Of the remaining 35 archeological sites recorded 

and recommended as ineligible for listing in the National Register, 14 would actually be affected 

by building activities associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

No aboveground structures have been identified within the project APE. Consultations 

conducted by SCE&G and NSA with the Fairfield County Museum, Fairfield County Archives, 

and the South Carolina SHPO indicate that no knowledge of significant standing structures 

within the project APE or within the vicinity of the project APE (SCE&G 2009h, j). The Mayo 

family cemetery is located 1.5 mi south of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and is marked on 

plant layout maps and protected by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009a). There are 20 National Registerlisted standing structures within 10 mi of the APE, 13 of which are located within Fairfield 

County (SCE&G 2009a).

2.7.3 Historic and Cultural Resources Within Transmission-Lines

Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper completed siting studies for the proposed transmission lines 

associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (Pike 2010; MACTEC 2009). The proposed transmission 

rights-of-way are described in Section 2.2.2. Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper completed 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-143 NUREG-1939

literature reviews for areas within 1.2 mi of the proposed transmission-line rights-of-way, using 

known cultural resources data from the SCIAA and the SCDAH (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008).

Before completing siting studies, SCE&G contracted with NSA to complete a literature search 

for all National Register-listed properties within the counties through which SCE&G expected 

the transmission-line rights-of-way to pass (NSA 2007c) submitted by SCE&G (2009n). NSA 

identified 353 National Register-listed sites (NSA 2007c). As part of SCE&G’s revised 

transmission-line siting study SCE&G contracted with Brockington Cultural Resources 

Consulting, which completed a review of the SCDAH and SCIAA cultural resources databases 

to identify previously recorded archaeological sites and above-ground resources located within 

1.2 mi of and within existing rights-of-way. Specifically, the report identified known 

archaeological sites and above-ground resources recorded after 1989 and their National 

Register eligibility, all National Register-listed cultural resources (archaeological, structures, and 

districts), and all cultural resource investigations completed since 1989 located within 1.2 mi

lines that compose SCE&G’s proposed rights-of-way (VCSNS-Killian, VCSNS-St. George No. 1 

and No. 2, and VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2 transmission-line rights-of-way). The report did not 

include surveys conducted prior to 1989 due to survey methodology and standards being

outdated. Twenty-two archaeological sites and one historic district have been identified within 

SCE&G’s right-of-way (Pike 2010). A total of 245 above-ground resources and 255 

archaeological sites have been previously recorded within the total study area.

Santee Cooper also completed desktop assessments using available GIS cultural resources 

data and literature reviews for areas within 1.2 mi of the proposed transmission-line rights-ofway, using known cultural resources data from the SCIAA and the SCDAH (MACTEC 2009). 

Santee Cooper contracted with TRC Companies Inc. (TRC), which summarized similar data for 

its proposed rights-of-way (VCSNS-Varnville and VCSNS-Flat Creek) (TRC 2008). This study 

indicates that there are National Register-eligible and -listed above-ground resources and 

archaeological resources within 1.2 mi of Santee Cooper’s proposed transmission-line rights-ofway (MACTEC 2009). 

However, none of SCE&G’s or Santee Cooper’s proposed transmission-line rights-of-way has

been systematically surveyed for cultural resources (SCE&G 2010b), so the current data set 

based on literature reviews is informative, but does not provide specific identification of cultural 

resources that could be affected by transmission-line installation. The USACE, SCE&G, and 

the SHPO have entered into a management agreement, which describes what future cultural 

resources survey and management efforts will be undertaken and how they will be performed 

for the SCE&G transmission-line rights-of-way (SCE&G 2009h, j; USACE 2011a). The USACE, 

Santee Cooper, and the SHPO have entered into a management agreement that describes 

what future cultural resources survey and management efforts will be undertaken and how they 

will be performed for the Santee Cooper transmission-line rights-of-way (SCE&G 2009h, j;

USACE 2011b). 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-144 April 2011

2.7.4 Consultation

In January 2009, the NRC initiated consultation with the South Carolina SHPO, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and four American Indian Tribes (see Appendix B for 

a complete list of contacts). The letters informed consulting parties that the NRC is coordinating 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA through NEPA. The ACHP responded, indicating that 

NRC must also consult with the South Carolina SHPO and notify the ACHP in consultation with 

SHPO if NRC concludes that there is a finding of adverse effect on historic properties resulting 

from the issuance of the COLs for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (ACHP 2009). No responses

to these letters were received from American Indian Tribes. 

The NRC conducted a public scoping meeting in Winnsboro, South Carolina, on January 27, 

2009, and one in Blair, South Carolina, on January 28, 2009. No comments or concerns 

regarding historic and cultural resources were made at these public scoping meetings. During 

the scoping period, the NRC received one written comment from an individual indicating that a 

relative is buried at the VCSNS site. The staff responded that locations of known cemeteries 

have been identified on the SCE&G property and are marked on SCE&G plant layout maps. No 

building or operational activities are planned to occur near these cemeteries.

In April 2010 in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC conducted follow-on consultation 

with the South Carolina SHPO, the ACHP, and the four American Indian Tribes seeking 

comments on the conclusions and a finding of no adverse effect in the draft EIS. On May 25, 

2010, the South Carolina SHPO replied with its concurrence (SCDAH 2010). (See Appendix F 

for a copy of this letter and Section 4.6 for additional discussion of this correspondence). 

2.8 Geology

A detailed description of geological, seismological, and geotechnical conditions at the VCSNS 

site is provided in Section 2.5 of the VCSNS FSAR (SCE&G 2010d) submitted as part of the 

COL application. A description of the hydrogeological setting of the proposed site is addressed 

in the ER (SCE&G 2010a) and described in Section 2.3 of this EIS. In addition to the site 

characterization conducted originally for VCSNS Unit 1, results of the SCE&G subsurface 

investigations performed as part of the applicant’s safety analysis for this COL application 

(Section 2.5 of the FSAR) provide further definition of the site geology. These descriptions are 

based on published geologic reports of the region and site-specific characterization activities 

that were conducted during construction of Unit 1 and as part of the preapplication activities for 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2010a, d). The NRC staff’s SER will provide a 

detailed description of the VCSNS site vicinity and document the NRC staff’s independent 

assessment of the applicant’s detailed analysis and evaluations of geological, seismic, and 

geotechnical data.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-145 NUREG-1939

The VCSNS site is located on the eastern edge of the Piedmont physiographic province (see 

Figure 2-9), approximately 20 mi northwest of the fall line that delineates the boundary with the 

Coastal Plain physiographic province (SCE&G 2010d). Regionally, the Piedmont physiographic 

province is generally characterized by rolling hills with greater relief than the adjacent Coastal 

Plain physiographic province to the southeast and less relief than the Blue Ridge physiographic 

province to the northwest (Figure 2-9). According to the FSAR (SCE&G 2010d), “[t]he site 

topography is characteristic of the region, consisting of gently to moderately rolling hills and 

generally well-drained mature valleys.” The elevation at the site ranges from “approximately 

560 feet to 210 feet above MSL” (SCE&G 2010a). In addition, the FSAR states that “[t]he local 

drainage pattern is generally dendritic, with subtle trellis patterns that are likely the result of 

regional bedrock structure and joint systems” (SCE&G 2010d). 

“Most of the local terrain is mantled by residual soils and saprolite that overlie igneous and 

metamorphic bedrock at depth” (SCE&G 2010d). As described by SCE&G, “[t]he residual soil 

and saprolite predominantly consist of red to reddish-brown stiff clayey and silty soils with 

varying sand content” with a combined thickness ranging “from about 25 to 70 feet at Units 2 

and 3 (SCE&G 2010d). Depths to sound bedrock range “from about 40 to 75 feet in the vicinity 

of Units 2 and 3” (SCE&G 2010d).

Based on the borehole characterization at the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 site, in addition to earlier 

subsurface characterization around VCSNS Unit 1 that included extensive excavations, SCE&G 

describes the most common rock types at the site as being granitic (granodiorite and quartz 

diorite) as part of the Winnsboro plutonic complex (SCE&G 2010d). Less common rock types 

found in the area are older amphibolite-grade metamorphic rocks (biotite, hornblende gneiss, 

and amphibolite schist), into which the Winnsboro pluton intruded, and migmatites, which form 

from the partial melting of rocks from high-temperature metamorphism (SCE&G 2010d).

In FSAR Section 2.5.1.2.5 (SCE&G 2010d), SCE&G describes the economic geologic 

resources in the area and states that “[w]ithin 25 miles of the site, there are numerous active 

and abandoned mines and quarries.” SCE&G also stated that “[n]o mining operations (other 

than borrow of surficial soils) or excessive extraction and/or injection of groundwater occur or 

have occurred within the site area that could affect site area geologic conditions” (SCE&G 

2010d).

2.9 Meteorology and Air Quality

The following three sections describe the climate and air quality of the VCSNS site. 

Section 2.9.1 describes the local and large-scale climate of the region and area in the 

immediate vicinity of the site, Section 2.9.2 describes the air quality of the region, and Section 

2.9.3 describes atmospheric dispersion at the site. Section 2.9.4 describes the meteorological 

monitoring program at the site.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-146 April 2011

2.9.1 Climate

The VCSNS site has a humid subtropical climate (Koeppe and De Long 1958) with mild winters 

and hot humid summers. Air masses may approach the region from any direction. During the 

summer, high pressure off the coast of the eastern continental United States leads to 

southwesterly winds over South Carolina leading to large amounts of low-altitude moisture 

(LCD 2007). This semi-permanent feature also blocks many summer-time cold fronts. During 

the winter, the Appalachian Mountains frequently block the cold air associated with winter-time 

storm systems. The closest first-order weather station with long periods of record is in 

Columbia, South Carolina, about 26 mi southeast of the site. This station provides a good 

indication of the general climate at the site because of its proximity and similarities in 

topography and vegetation. The closest National Weather Service Cooperative Network Station 

is a short distance away on the Parr Reservoir. Other National Weather Service Cooperative 

Network Stations include Little Mountain, South Carolina, approximately 9 mi southwest of the 

site, and Winnsboro, South Carolina, approximately 15 mi northeast of the site. The VCSNS 

site is located near the Monticello and Parr reservoirs in an area of rolling hills (SCE&G 2010a). 

The proposed site is on a ridge between these two reservoirs.

The following statistics were derived from local climatological data for Parr, Little Mountain, 

Winnsboro, and Columbia. The mean daily maximum temperatures at Columbia range from 

92°F in August to 55°F in January, while daily minimum temperatures range from 71°F in 

August to 34°F in February (LCD 2007). While not identical to the conditions at Columbia, the 

average temperatures at Parr, Winnsboro, and Little Mountain range from 0.5°F larger to -3°F 

smaller than the observations at Columbia (NCDC 2004). Monthly average wind speeds at 

Columbia range from about 6 mph in the summer to about 7 mph in the winter and early spring. 

Approximately 33 percent of the annual precipitation occurs during the months of June, July, 

and August. Large amounts of precipitation can occur in the late summer and early fall, due to 

tropical storms that move through the region. Snow can occur, but accumulations are small, 

and the normal amount of snowfall is only 2 in. 

The relative humidity in Columbia varies with both the time of day and the season. The smallest 

values of relative humidity occur during the late winter and through the spring. The highest 

normal relative humidity is 76 percent and occurs in August. The lowest normal relative 

humidity is 62 percent and occurs in April. The daily range of relative humidity is much larger 

than the month-to-month changes. On a daily basis, the highest relative humidity occurs in the 

early morning hours, ranging from peak values of 92 percent during the summer and fall to 

83 percent in the winter; the lowest relative humidity occurs in the early afternoon and is 

generally between 60 percent and 30 percent (LCD 2007).

On a larger scale, climate change is a subject of national and international interest. The recent 

compilation of the state of knowledge in this area by the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

[GCRP], a Federal Advisory Committee (Karl et al. 2009), has been considered in preparation of 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-147 NUREG-1939

this EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region over the period encompassing the 

licensing action (i.e., to the period of 2040 to 2059 in the GCRP report) include an increase in 

average temperature of 2 to 3°F; a decrease in precipitation in the winter, spring, and summer; 

and a small precipitation increase in the fall. Changes in climate during the life of proposed 

Units 2 and 3 could result in either an increase or decrease in the amount of runoff; the 

divergence in model projections for the southeastern United States precludes a definitive 

estimate (Karl et al. 2009).

Based on the assessments of the GCRP and the National Academy of Sciences’ National 

Research Council, the EPA determined that potential changes in climate caused by greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions endanger public health and welfare (74 FR 66496). The EPA indicated 

that, while ambient concentrations of GHGs do not cause direct adverse health effects (such as 

respiratory or toxic effects), public health risks and impacts can result indirectly from changes in 

climate. As a result of the determination by the EPA and the recognition that mitigative actions 

are necessary to reduce impacts, the review team concludes that the effect of GHG on climate 

and the environment is already noticeable, but not yet destabilizing. In CLI-09-21, the 

Commission provided guidance to the NRC staff to consider carbon dioxide and other GHG 

emissions in its NEPA reviews and directed that it should encompass emissions from 

constructing and operating a facility as well as from the fuel cycle (NRC 2009b). NRC Staff 

Memorandum (NRC 2010c) provides additional guidance to NRC staff on consideration of 

GHGs and carbon dioxide in its environmental reviews. The review team characterized the 

affected environment and the potential GHG impacts of the proposed action and alternatives in 

this EIS. Consideration of GHG emissions was treated as an element of the existing air quality 

assessment that is essential in a NEPA analysis. In addition, where it was important to do so, 

the review team considered the effects of the changing environment during the period of the 

proposed action on other resource assessments.

2.9.1.1 Wind

The prevailing wind direction at Columbia is from the west-southwest. At the VCSNS Units 2 

and 3 meteorological tower, the prevailing wind direction at 10 m above the ground is also from 

the west-southwest, but northwesterly winds occur approximately 20 percent of the time 

(SCE&G 2010a). Observations made at the VCSNS Unit 1 meteorological tower are somewhat 

different. During the same 1-year period, northwesterly winds are less common and 

northeasterly winds are more common than at the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 meteorological tower 

(SCE&G 2010a). This can be explained by the proximity of the Unit 1 tower to the Monticello 

Reservoir, which can lead to lake breezes associated with differences in the relative heating 

rate of the land and water (e.g., Ahrens 1988), and also changes in low-altitude wind speed 

because of the smoother surface of the water compared to the land. There is also a small ridge 

to the northwest of the tower that leads to some channeling of the low-altitude winds. The 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-148 April 2011

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 meteorological tower is located away from the Monticello Reservoir on a 

plateau that slopes gently to the west and south. 

2.9.1.2 Atmospheric Stability

Atmospheric stability is a calculated 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 Regulatory Guide 1.23, Revision 1 (NRC 2007a). When 

the temperature decreases rapidly with height, the atmosphere is unstable and atmospheric 

dispersion is greater. Conversely, when temperature increases with height, the atmosphere is 

stable and dispersion is more limited. The stability varies with season as well as time of day, 

with stable conditions occurring more frequently at night and unstable conditions occurring more 

frequently during the day.

Conditions at the VCSNS site are generally neutral or slightly stable (occurring nearly 

63 percent of the year). Unstable or stable conditions occur onsite 16 percent or 21 percent of 

the year, respectively. While stable conditions can occur at any time during the year, they are 

more common in the winter, spring, and fall. For example, during the winter, stable or very 

stable conditions occur more frequently, approximately 23 percent of the time, while during the 

summer stable conditions are observed 16 percent of the time (SCE&G 2010a).

The presence of the Monticello and Parr reservoirs has little impact on the stability observed at 

the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 meteorological tower because the tower is approximately 1 mi south 

of the Monticello Reservoir and 1 mi east of the Parr Reservoir. In contrast, the static stability at 

the VCSNS Unit 1 meteorological tower is influenced by its close proximity to the Monticello 

Reservoir and associated differences in the reservoir and land temperatures. When the water in 

the reservoir is warmer than the surrounding land, and the winds are blowing from the water 

towards the Unit 1 tower, then conditions at the meteorological tower are less stable than they 

would otherwise have been. This condition is most common in the fall. At the Unit 1 tower, 

moderately to extremely stable conditions were observed 16 percent of the time during the fall, 

while at the Units 2 and 3 tower, stable conditions were observed 26 percent of the time. If the 

winds are blowing in the opposite direction, then conditions at the tower are more stable than 

the conditions over the reservoir. In fact, conditions over the reservoir could even be unstable 

while conditions at the tower would be stable. When the water is cooler than the land, the 

conditions are reversed; in situations when the wind is blowing from the water to the land then 

conditions at the tower could be more stable than they would have otherwise been.

2.9.1.3 Temperature

The temperature measured at the 33-ft level of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 meteorological tower 

is considered to be representative of the VCSNS site. Temperature data from the tower for the 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-149 NUREG-1939

January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 time period show the daily average temperature 

ranges from a low of 30.4°F in January to a high of 90.4°F in August. During this 12-month 

period, the absolute minimum temperature was 20.5°F and the absolute maximum temperature 

was 99.7°F. These temperatures are consistent with long-term values for Columbia.

2.9.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture

The moisture content of the atmosphere can be represented in a variety of ways, the most 

common being relative humidity and dewpoint. Both the dew-point temperature and relative 

humidity are reported at the VCSNS site. For the period from January 1, 2007 through 

December 31, 2007, the daily average relative humidity ranged from a low of 23 percent in June 

to a high of 98 percent in January. These values are more extreme than those reported at 

Columbia, South Carolina, but this is likely due to the short period of record at the VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 tower. South Carolina has suffered a severe drought from 1998 through 2002 

(Crouch 2006) and during 2007–2008 (NCDC 2009a). 

In Part 2 of the VCSNS COL application FSAR, the applicant presented the site characteristics 

for a number of meteorological variables. Most of these site characteristics are conservatively 

bounded by the Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactor Design Control 

Document (DCD) site parameters, with the exception of the wet-bulb temperature. In FSAR 

Table 2.0-201, the applicant presented site characteristic dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures

that were recorded at the National Weather Service observation station in Columbia, South 

Carolina. These temperatures included the 100-year return period dry-bulb temperatures with 

the maximum coincident in time wet-bulb temperatures and the 100-year return period 

noncoincident wet-bulb temperatures. The applicant stated that the 100-year return period 

noncoincident wet-bulb temperature of 87.3°F exceeds the AP1000 DCD site parameter value 

of 86.1°F (SCE&G 2010d). The applicant’s value bounds the staff’s independently calculated 

100-year return period noncoincident wet-bulb temperature, and is, therefore, acceptable to 

the staff.

The applicant stated that due to the exceedence of the noncoincident wet-bulb temperature site 

characteristic, an exemption from 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section IV.A.2.d, pursuant to 

10 CFR 52.7 and 10 CFR 52.93 and a departure from the parameters listed in AP1000 DCD 

Table 2-1 are necessary. Details about the departure from the DCD (VCS DEP 2.0-2) and 

associated exemption for the maximum noncoincident wet-bulb air temperature of 87.3°F can 

be found in Part 7.B.3 of the VCSNS COL application (SCE&G 2010f). The staff has 

determined that the applicant’s stated maximum noncoincident wet-bulb air temperature of 

87.3°F is appropriate for characterizing the VCSNS site.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-150 April 2011

2.9.1.5 Severe Weather

The site can experience severe weather in the form of thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes, 

hurricanes, and snow and ice. While thunderstorms can occur during any month of the year at 

the VCSNS site, they are much more common in the late spring and summer. On average 

there are 52 days per year during which thunder is heard at the First Order Station in Columbia, 

South Carolina; of these 52 days, 37 of them occur during the period from May through August. 

Tornadoes occur with some frequency. A total of 79 tornadoes were reported in a 1° latitude by 

1° longitude box that includes the VCSNS site during the period from January 1, 1950 through 

August 2003 (Ramsdell Jr. and Rishel 2007). The total probability of a tornado strike at the site 

is 0.00768 yr-1 (Ramsdell Jr. and Rishel 2007). The strongest tornado reported in Fairfield 

County was an F4 (wind speeds of 207–260 mph) tornado on March 28, 1984. This tornado led 

to 5 deaths and 49 injuries. All other tornadoes reported in Fairfield County were F2 (wind 

speeds of 113–157 mph) or smaller (NCDC 2009b).

Snow can occur during the months of December, January, February, and March. The average 

snowfall at Columbia, South Carolina, is 2.1 in. The maximum monthly snowfall was 16 in., 

which was observed in February of 1973 (LCD 2007). Ice storms can occur when rain falls

through cold air that is trapped against the Appalachian Mountains. Freezing precipitation is 

observed to occur on approximately 4 days per year (NCDC 2000). 

Because of its location on the Atlantic Coast of the United States, South Carolina is susceptible 

to hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions. The VCSNS site is sufficiently far 

inland that the majority of hurricanes weaken before reaching the site. Only hurricanes Hugo in 

1989, Able in 1952, and an unnamed storm in 1893 were of hurricane strength when they 

passed within 50 nautical mi of the site (NOAA 2009). Focusing on the period from 1952 to 

2006, a total of 17 hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions have passed within 

50 nautical mi of the site (NOAA 2009). Before 1952, storms were not named, which may have 

led to double counting when a storm moved slowly through the area or changed strength. 

2.9.2 Air Quality

The discussion on air quality includes the six common “criteria pollutants” for which the EPA has 

set national ambient air quality standards (ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen 

oxides, sulfur dioxide, and lead). The air quality discussion also includes heat-trapping GHGs 

(primarily carbon dioxide), which have been the principal factor causing climate change over the 

last 50 years (Karl et al. 2009). 

The VCSNS site is located in Fairfield County, South Carolina, which is in the Columbia 

Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) (40 CFR 81.108). In addition to Fairfield County, 

this AQCR consists of Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties. The Columbia Intrastate 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-151 NUREG-1939

AQCR is bordered by the Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate AQCR to the north, the CamdenSumter Intrastate AQCR to the east, the Augusta (Georgia)-Aiken (South Carolina) Interstate 

AQCR to the south, and the Greenwood Intrastate AQCR to the west. All of the counties in the 

Columbia Intrastate AQCR are in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQSs) for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.341). Part of York County, which is located in 

the Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate AQCR, has been designated as nonattainment for ozone 

(8-hour standard). This area is located approximately 35 mi north of the VCSNS site.

There are no mandatory Class 1 Federal Areas where visibility is an important value within 

100 mi of the VCSNS site.

The EPA revised the 8-hour ozone standard in 2008, decreasing it from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm 

(73 FR 16436). This change will result in changes in the definition of nonattainment areas for 

ozone. On September 16, 2009, the EPA indicated that the new standards would be 

reconsidered and final designation would be made in August 2011 (EPA 2009b). Because the 

VCSNS site is within an attainment area for ozone, a conformity analysis, which is used to 

determine if a Federal action conforms to any applicable State implementation plans, is not 

required. If the attainment status of Fairfield County changes, the need for a conformity 

analysis will be revisited. Carbon dioxide concentration has been building up in the earth’s 

atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial era in the mid-1700s, primarily due to the 

burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of forests. Human activities 

have also increased the emissions of other GHGs such as methane, nitrous oxide, and 

halocarbons. These emissions are thickening the blanket of heat-trapping gases in the earth’s 

atmosphere, causing global surface temperatures to rise (Karl et al. 2009)

2.9.3 Atmospheric Dispersion

Atmospheric dispersion factors (χ/Q values) are used to evaluate the potential consequences of 

routine and accidental releases at the VCSNS site. SCE&G used meteorological data from the 

period January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2008 to develop the atmospheric dispersion 

factors.

The long- and short-term atmospheric dispersion estimates were made using the meteorological 

data that were collected onsite at the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 meteorological tower. Short-term 

estimates are made using the PAVAN model (Bander 1982). PAVAN implements the guidance 

set forth in Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.145 (NRC 1982) and uses joint frequency 

distributions of the wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability to provide relative air 

concentrations of an atmospheric contaminant. Long-term dispersion estimates are made using 

the XOQDOQ model (Sagendorf et al. 1982), which was designed for evaluating routine 

releases of radionuclides from commercial nuclear power stations in accordance with Revision 1 

of Regulatory Guide 1.111 (NRC 1977). The XOQDOQ model uses meteorological data 

collected at the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 meteorological tower and computes the annual average 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-152 April 2011

relative air concentrations at a number of receptors of interest, including the highest 

concentration at Unit 3 (when Unit 2 is operational and Unit 3 is under construction) (SCE&G 

2010a), along the dose evaluation periphery, at the nearest residence, at the nearest meat 

animal, at the nearest milk animal, and at the nearest vegetable garden. The maximum annual 

average atmospheric dispersion and deposition factors are reported in Table 2-48.

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

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

Animal, and Nearest Vegetable Garden 

Type of Location

Direction 

from Site

Distance 

(mi)

χ/Q 

(sec/m3

; 

No Decay)

χ/Q

(sec/m3; 2.26-

Day Decay)

χ/Q 

(sec/m3; 8-

Day Decay)

D/Q 

(1/m2

)

Dose evaluation 

periphery

ENE 0.50 — — — 1.6 × 10-8

SE 0.50 5.8 × 10-6 5.8 × 10-6 5.3 × 10-6 —

Residence ENE 1.30 — — — 3.3 × 10-9

SE 1.68 8.7 × 10-7 8.6 × 10-7 7.3 × 10-7 —

Meat animal WNW 1.74 4.6 × 10-7 4.5 × 10-7 3.8 × 10-7 —

NE 2.14 — — — 1.4 × 10-9

Milk animal W 4.14 1.7 × 10-7 1.7 × 10-7 1.3 × 10-7 2.7 × 10-10

Vegetable garden E 1.23 — — — 3.1 × 10-9

SE 1.68 8.7 × 10-7 8.6 × 10-7 7.3 × 10-7 —

Source: SCE&G 2009q, 2010a.

SCE&G provided the staff with meteorological data for the 2-year period from January 1, 2007 

through December 31, 2008 (SCE&G 2009q, 2010a). The staff used these data to 

independently estimate atmospheric dispersion factors for the site. The staff viewed the 

meteorological site and instrumentation, reviewed the available information on the 

meteorological measurement program, and evaluated data collected by the program. Based on 

this information, the staff concludes that the program provides data that represent the affected 

environment onsite meteorological conditions as required by 10 CFR 100.20. The data also 

provide an acceptable basis for making estimates of atmospheric dispersion for the evaluation 

of the consequences of routine and accidental releases required by 10 CFR 50.34 and 

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

2.9.4 Meteorological Monitoring

A meteorological monitoring program has existed at the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 site since 

January 2007. The initial instrumentation was installed to provide the onsite meteorological 

information required for licensing Units 2 and 3. The instrumentation is described in SCE&G’s 

ER (SCE&G 2010a). The tower location was selected to be representative of the conditions at 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-153 NUREG-1939

the proposed location for Units 2 and 3, and is located approximately 3500 ft south-southeast of 

the site of the proposed two units. Measurements made at the tower include wind speed, wind 

direction, relative humidity, and temperature at three levels (10, 30, and 60 m). The 

measurements are made in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.23 (NRC 2007a). In addition 

to the meteorological tower associated with Units 2 and 3, a separate meteorological tower has 

been operated in support of Unit 1 for the entire period of record of the Units 2 and 3 tower. 

Differences in the wind speed, wind direction, and stability measured with the two towers are 

discussed in Sections 2.9.1.1 and 2.9.1.2.

2.10 Nonradiological Environment

This section describes aspects of the environment at the VCSNS site and within the vicinity of 

the site associated with nonradiological human health impacts. It provides the basis for 

evaluation of impacts on human health from building and operation of the proposed Units 2 

and 3. Building activities have the potential to affect public and occupational health, create 

impacts from noise, and affect the health of the public and workers by transportation of 

construction materials and personnel to the VCSNS site. Operation of the proposed Units 2 and 

3 has the potential to affect the public and workers at the VCSNS site from operation of the 

cooling system, noise generated by operations, electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by 

transmission systems, and transportation of operations and outage workers to and from the 

VCSNS site.

2.10.1 Public and Occupational Health

This section describes public and occupational health at the VCSNS site and vicinity associated 

with air quality, occupational injuries, and etiological agents (i.e., disease-causing 

microorganisms)

2.10.1.1 Air Quality

Public and occupational health can be affected by changes in air quality from activities that 

contribute to fugitive dust, vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions, and automobile exhaust 

from commuter traffic (NRC 1996; 1999(a

 

(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.

)

). Air quality for Fairfield County is discussed in 

Section 2.9.2. Fugitive dust and other particulate matter (including particulate matter smaller 

than 10 μm and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 μm) can be released into the atmosphere 

during any site excavations and while grading is being conducted. Most of these activities that 

generate fugitive dust are short in duration, over a small area, and can be controlled by watering 

unpaved roads, stabilizing construction roads and spoil piles, and other BMPs described in 

Section 4.4.1.3 (SCE&G 2010a). Mitigation measures to minimize and control fugitive dust are 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-154 April 2011

required for compliance with all Federal, State, and local regulations that govern such activities 

(NRC 1996; SCE&G 2010a).

Exhaust emissions during normal plant operations associated with onsite vehicles and 

equipment as well as from commuter traffic can affect air quality and human health. 

Nonradiological supporting equipment (e.g., diesel generators, fire-prevention pump engines), 

and other nonradiological emission-generating sources (e.g., storage tanks) or activities are not 

expected to be a significant source of criteria pollutant emissions. Diesel generators and 

supporting equipment would be in place for emergency use only but would be started regularly 

to confirm that the systems are operational. Emissions from nonradiological sources of air 

pollution are permitted by SCDHEC, as described in the South Carolina Code of Laws 48, 

Chapter 1, (SC Code Ann. 48-1 2008) and any applicable Federal regulatory requirements. 

Based on estimates provided by SCE&G, the annual releases of criteria pollutants at the 

VCSNS site related to the operation of the onsite generators would be minimal based on the 

infrequent use (approximately 4 hours per month) of the four standby generators and the four 

ancillary diesel generators; the projected emissions are discussed in Section 5.7.2. These 

emission sources are not expected to significantly affect ambient air quality levels at the VCSNS 

site or in the vicinity of the site.

2.10.1.2 Occupational Injuries

In general, occupational health risks to workers and onsite personnel engaged in activities such 

as building, maintenance, testing, excavation, and modifications are expected to be dominated 

by occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electric shock, and asphyxiation) or occupational illnesses. 

Historically, actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the 

average U.S. industrial rates (BLS 2008). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides 

reports that account for occupational injuries and illnesses as total recordable cases, which 

includes cases that result in death, loss of consciousness, days away from work, restricted work 

activity or job transfer, or medical treatment beyond first aid. The State of South Carolina also 

tracks the annual incidence rates of injuries and illnesses for utility system construction. These 

records of statistics are used to estimate the likely number of occupational injuries and illnesses 

for the proposed new units. Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict 

adherence to NRC and Occupational Safety and Health Administration safety standards, 

practices, and procedures to minimize worker exposures. Appropriate State and local statures 

also must be considered when assessing the occupational hazards and health risks associated 

with the VCSNS site. SCE&G has developed and implemented a worker health and safety 

program with a goal of zero accidents. SCE&G will require all contractors and subcontractors to 

have and implement a health and safety program that, at a minimum, meets the same 

requirements as SCE&G’s health and safety program. SCE&G will require construction 

contractors and subcontractors to develop and implement safety procedures with the intent of 

preventing injuries, occupational illnesses, and deaths (SCE&G 2010a).
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-155 NUREG-1939

2.10.1.3 Etiological Agents

Public and occupational health can be compromised by activities that encourage the growth of 

disease causing microorganisms (etiological agents). Thermal discharges from Units 2 and 3 

into Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a) have the potential to increase the growth of thermophilic 

microorganisms in receiving waterbodies. The types of organisms of concern for public and 

occupational health include enteric pathogens (such as Legionella spp.), and free-living amoeba 

(such as Naegleria fowleri and Acanthamoeba spp.). These microorganisms can result in 

potentially serious human health concerns, particularly at high exposure levels.

A review of the outbreaks of human waterborne diseases in South Carolina indicates that the 

incidence of most of these diseases is not common. Available data assembled by the U.S. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the years 1996 to 2007 (CDC 1997, 

1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) report only two occurrences of 

waterborne outbreaks of disease from recreational water in the State of South Carolina. From 

1989 to 2000, the CDC surveillance system for waterborne-disease outbreaks documented 24 

fatal cases of primary amebic meningoencephalitis (a disease caused by Naegleria fowleri) in 

the United States, most occurring in southern states during the months of July and September 

(CDC 2008). Outbreaks of Legionellosis, Salmonellosis, or Shigellosis that occurred in South 

Carolina were within the range of national trends (CDC 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 

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 State of South Carolina indicate a very low risk of outbreaks 

from thermophilic microorganisms associated with recreational water (CDC 2006). Two 

SCDHEC water-quality monitoring stations along Parr Reservoir located in or near recreation 

areas monitor for species that are indicators for the presence of other pathogens that may be 

present in the water. The main recreational activities associated with Parr Reservoir are fishing 

and hunting (SCE&G 2010a). There are no public swimming beaches along Parr Reservoir. No 

reported cases of Legionellosis, Salmonellosis, or Shigellosis occurred in Fairfield County in 

2006 (CDC 2006).

Naegleria fowleri is common in freshwater ponds, lakes, and reservoirs throughout the southern 

states. While it is possible that the thermal discharge from Units 2 and 3 could have an impact 

on the abundance of this organism, the affected area of Parr Reservoir would be relatively small 

under normal operating conditions at most times of the year. In addition, because there are no 

swimming beaches on Parr Reservoir and limited public access to the outfall area, the likelihood 

for recreational exposure is expected to be minimal. Based on the historically low risk of 

diseases from etiological agents in South Carolina, the limited extent of thermal impacts in Parr 

Reservoir, and the limited opportunities for public exposure, the review team concludes that the 

impacts on human health would be minimal, and that mitigation would not be warranted.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-156 April 2011

2.10.2 Noise

Existing sources of noise at the VCSNS site are those associated with operation of Unit 1, 

including transformers and other electrical equipment, circulating-water pumps, and the public 

address system. Additional sources for background noise at the site include railroad operations 

(~1 mi to the west) and from the Parr Combustion Facility (1.4 mi to the south-southeast of the 

site) (SCE&G 2010a). The nearest residence to the site is approximately 5800 ft away 

(SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G states in its ER that it has never received a complaint about the noise 

produced by Unit 1 (SCE&G 2010a).

Activities associated with building the new units at the VCSNS site would have peak noise 

levels that may exceed 100 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) on the site. Noise levels 

would be attenuated by distance and obstacles such as buildings, vegetation, and topography. 

Noise from traffic along the access routes to the sites may intermittently exceed levels 

acceptable for residential areas. These impacts would be highly concentrated in the area 

immediately proximate to the site or the site access roads. However, sensitive noise receptors 

closest to the site are likely to experience intermittent and irritating, but temporary, noise 

pollution during the peak of construction and preconstruction activities. A decrease of 10 dBA in 

noise level is generally perceived as cutting the loudness in half. At a distance of 50 ft from the 

source these peak noise levels would generally decrease to the 8- to 95-dBA range and at 

distance of 400 ft; the peak noise levels would generally be in the 60- to 80-dBA range. For 

context, the sound intensity of a quiet office is 50 dBA, normal conversation is 60 dBA, busy 

traffic is 70 dBA, and a noisy office with machines or an average factory is 80 dBA (Tipler 1982). 

Regulations governing noise associated with the activities at the VCSNS site are generally 

limited to worker health. Federal regulations governing construction noise are found in 29 CFR 

Part 1910, Occupational Health and Safety Standards, and 40 CFR Part 204, Noise Emission 

Standards from Construction Equipment. 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.

2.10.3 Transportation

According to the ER (SCE&G 2010a) current primary road access to the VCSNS site is via 

CR-311 (Ollie Bradham Boulevard), a two-lane paved road. CR-311 intersects SC-215 

approximately 1.5 mi east of Unit 1. Parr Road and South Lake Access Road would be 

upgraded to accommodate increased traffic when the project is built, and approximately 3/4 mi 

of the South Lake Access Road would be relocated to run parallel to and east of the existing 

railroad spur into the site, terminating at the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 discharge structure. 

SC-215 has a north-south orientation and is used by employees traveling from Richland and 

Fairfield Counties.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-157 NUREG-1939

Employees traveling from Richland and Lexington Counties may use U.S. Highway 176 

(US-176) north to SC-213, which intersects SC-215 2 to 3 mi south of the VCSNS site. The site 

is also accessed by a railroad spur connected to the Norfolk Southern line. The existing railroad 

line would be rerouted through a fabrication and laydown area between the new units and the 

cooling towers, and would be supplemented with an additional railroad spur. A new spur also 

may be routed into the unloading areas at the concrete batch plant. Norfolk Southern Railway’s 

existing railroad line also may require upgrades to support the heaviest loads. Upgrades may 

include installing new ballast or rail sections on the existing railroad bed. There is no direct 

access to the site via the Broad River.

2.10.4 Electromagnetic Fields

Transmission lines generate both electric and magnetic fields, referred to collectively as EMFs. 

Public and worker health can be compromised by acute and chronic exposure to EMFs from 

power transmission systems, including switching stations (or substations) onsite and 

transmission lines connecting the plant to the regional electrical distribution grid. Transmission 

lines operate at a frequency of 60 MHz (60 cycles per second), which is considered to be 

extremely low frequency. In comparison, television transmitters have frequencies of 55 to 

890 MHz and microwaves have frequencies of 1000 MHz and greater (NRC 1996).

Electric shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in 

metallic structures is an example of an acute effect from EMFs associated with transmission 

lines (NRC 1996). Objects near transmission lines can become electrically charged by close 

proximity to the electric field of the line. An induced current can be generated in such cases, 

where the current can flow from the line through the object into the ground. Capacitive charges 

(which involve storing electric charge) can occur in objects that are in the electric field but 

isolated from the ground. A person standing on the ground can receive an electric shock from 

coming into contact with such an object because of the sudden discharge of the capacitive 

charge through the person’s body to the ground. Such acute effects are controlled and 

minimized by conformance with National Electrical Safety Code criteria that limit the induced 

current due to electrostatic effects of 5 mA (SCE&G 2010a) 

Long-term or chronic exposure to power transmission lines has been studied for a number of 

years. These health effects were evaluated in NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal for Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC 1996) for nuclear power in the 

United States, and are discussed in the ER (SCE&G 2010a). The GEIS (NRC 1996) reviewed

human health and EMFs and concluded the following:

The chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) associated with nuclear 

plants and associated transmission lines are uncertain. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs 

have not uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field 

exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-158 April 2011

chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be forced 

and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because the state of the science is 

currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible.

2.11 Radiological Environment

A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been conducted around the 

VCSNS site since 1982, when VCSNS Unit 1 began operation. This program measures 

radiation and radioactive materials from all sources, including the existing unit at the VCSNS 

site. The REMP includes the following pathways: direct radiation, atmospheric, aquatic and 

terrestrial environments; and groundwater and surface water. A pre-operational environmental 

monitoring program was conducted beginning in 1979 to establish a baseline to observe 

fluctuations of radiation levels and radioactivity in the environment after operations began. After 

routine operation of Unit 1 started in 1982, the monitoring program continued to assess the 

radiological impacts on workers, the public, and the environment. The results of this monitoring 

are documented in annual reports titled “Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report” 

(SCE&G 2006a, 2007a, 2008c, 2009k, 2010g) and “Annual Radioactive Effluent Release 

Report” (SCE&G 2006b, 2007b, 2008b, 2009l, 2010h) for the VCSNS site. These reports show 

that exposures or concentrations in air, water, and vegetation are comparable to, if not 

statistically indiscernible from, pre-operational levels, with minor exceptions. In 2009, tritium 

concentrations less than 1000 pCi/L were found in Monticello and Parr Reservoirs, at the 

Columbia Water Works, and in one groundwater well (SCE&G 2010g). These concentrations 

are well below the EPA drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L (40 CFR Part 141) and would 

result in doses well below the VCSNS effluent dose limits. In addition, cobalt-60 concentrations 

ranging from 14-31 pCi/Kg were found in sediments at two locations; these concentrations are 

right around the minimum detectable level (SCE&G 2010g). In addition, the VCSNS REMP has 

consistently observed the presence of fission product activity attributed to residual fallout from 

atmospheric weapons testing and the Chernobyl accident in environmental media, including 

sediment, fish, and grass (SCE&G 2009k). 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Lessons Learned Task Force Report (NRC 2006) 

made recommendations regarding potential unmonitored groundwater contamination at U.S. 

nuclear plants. In response to that report, SCE&G began additional groundwater sampling in 

various onsite locations that may be a source of groundwater contamination around Unit 1. The 

results of this additional groundwater sampling are summarized in the Annual Radioactive 

Effluent Release Reports (SCE&G 2008b, 2009l). Tritium concentrations in the range of 2000-

3000 pCi/L were found in an onsite well located where condensate polisher resins were 

disposed in 1994; these concentrations are well below the EPA drinking water standard of 

20,000 pCi/L (40 CFR Part 141). 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-159 NUREG-1939

2.12 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations

The NRC staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might affect the 

granting of a COL permit for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 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)). After reviewing the 

Federal activities in the region surrounding the VCSNS site, the NRC staff determined that it 

would be advantageous for the USACE to become a cooperating agency for preparation of the 

EIS. As discussed in Chapter 1, the USACE is a cooperating agency for preparation of this EIS. 

The Federal Power Commission (FPC, which became FERC) issued a license (Project Number 

1894) to SCE&G on June 30, 1974, for the Parr Hydroelectric Project, which consisted of a set 

of related actions (elevation of Parr Shoals Dam, enlargement of Parr Reservoir, construction of 

the FPSF, impoundment of Frees Creek for Monticello Reservoir). The Federal Power 

Commission prepared an EIS for this major Federal licensing action that evaluated potential 

environmental impacts, including the inundation of 9350 ac of land (eliminating farmland, timber, 

wildlife habitat, and 25 homes) and enhanced recreational opportunities provided by the public 

recreational facilities at the expanded Parr Reservoir and new Monticello Reservoir. The FPC 

concluded that the loss of 9350 ac of farmland and wildlife habitat was significant (FPC 1974), 

but that, with prudent evaluation and selection of construction methods and project operation, 

no serious cumulative adverse environmental impacts were foreseen. The FPSF began 

commercial operation in 1978, four years before VCSNS Unit 1. The FERC license for the Parr 

Hydroelectric Project, including FPSF, expires on June 30, 2020. Under current rules, SCE&G 

will be required to file a Notice of Intent with FERC by the year 2015 declaring whether or not it 

intends to renew the license for the hydroelectric project. At least 2 years before the current 

FERC license expires (i.e., before June 30, 2018), SCE&G will be required to file an application 

for a license renewal.

Federal activities within the 50-mi radius of VCSNS include the Sumter National Forest 

managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Congaree Swamp National Monument 

managed by the U.S. Department of Interior, and the United States Army’s 52,000-ac Fort 

Jackson southeast of Columbia. Fort Jackson employs 4000 civilians and is the largest and 

most active Initial Entry Training Center in the Army, training 19,000 each year. Fort Jackson 

has added several new schools and training institutions, including the Soldier Support Institute, 

the Chaplains Center and School, and the U.S. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. 

Shaw Air Force Base is located in Sumter, South Carolina, outside of the Central Midlands 

region but within the 50-mi radius of VCSNS site.

The NRC is required under NEPA Section 102(c) (NEPA 1969) to consult with and obtain the 

comments of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-160 April 2011

any environmental impact involved in the subject matter of the EIS. The NRC is consulting with 

the FWS and NMFS. Consultation correspondence is listed in Appendix F.

2.13 References

7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, "Prime and Unique 

Farmlands."

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.”

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.”

33 CFR Part 325. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

Part 325, “Processing of Department of the Army Permits.”

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 131. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 131, 

"Water Quality Standards.”

40 CFR Part 141. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 141, 

“National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.”

40 CFR Part 204. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 204, 

“Noise Emission Standards from Construction Equipment.”

50 CFR Part 17. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 17, 

“Commodity and Securities Exchange.”
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-161 NUREG-1939

59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994. “Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” 

Federal Register. Presidential Documents.

67 FR 44502. July 02, 2002. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the 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.

73 FR 16436. March 27, 2008. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.” Federal 

Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

74 FR 66496. December 15, 2009. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings 

forGreenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” Federal Register. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

75 FR 61904. October 6, 2010. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 

Listings for Two Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) in the Southeast.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). 2009. Letter from Charlene Dwin Vaughn 

(Assistant Director Federal Permitting, Licensing and Assistance Section) to Gregory P. 

Hatchett (Acting Branch Chief, Environmental Projects Branch 2, Division of Site and 

Environmental Reviews, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

February 17, 2009, “Ref: Notification and request for consultation and participation in the 

scoping process for Units 2 and 3, combined license application review for the Virgil C. Summer 

Nuclear Station near Fairfield County, South Carolina.” Accession No. ML090840377.

Ahrens, C.D. 1988. Meteorology Today. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota.

AmphibiaWeb. 2011. Information on Amphibian Biology and Conservation (Pseudobranchus 

striatus). Berkeley, California. Accessed on 2/14/2011 at http://amphibiaweb.org/cgibin/amphib_query?query_src=aw_lists_genera_&table=amphib&wheregenus=Pseudobranchus&where-species=striatus.

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast 

Regional Office. February 23, 2007. Available at 

www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/CandidateSpeciesProgram/AtlSturgeonStatusReviewReport.pdf.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-162 April 2011

Badr, A.W., A. Wachob, and J.A. Gellici. 2004. South Carolina Water Plan, Second Edition. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), Land, Water, and Conservation 

Division. Columbia, South Carolina.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 1992. 16 USC 668, et seq.

Bander T.J. 1982. PAVAN: An Atmospheric Dispersion program for Evaluating Design Basis 

Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Nuclear Power Stations. NUREG/CR-2858, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Bettinger, J., J. Crane, and J. Bulak. 2003. Broad River Aquatic Resources Inventory 

Completion Report. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South 

Carolina. Accessed September 30 2009 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/fwfi/broadriver2001-

2002.pdf. 

Bettinger, J. 2006a. Moderate Conservation Priority – Carolina Endemics. Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, 

South Carolina. Accessed August 30, 2009 at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/ModCarolinaEndemics.pdf. 

Bettinger, J. 2006b. Moderate Conservation Priority – Other Species. Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South 

Carolina. Accessed August 30, 2009 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/ModOther.pdf. 

Bettinger, J., J. Crane, and J. Bulak. 2006. Piedmont Stream Survey – Broad River Basin 

Completion Report. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South 

Carolina. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/fwfi/broadrivertributaries2003-2005.pdf. 

Bulak, J. and J. Crane. 2009. Largemouth Bass in South Carolina. South Carolina Department 

of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed September 3, 2009 at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/pdf/LargemouthBassBookletsmall.pdf. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2009. CA25N Total Full Time and Part-Time Employment 

by NAICS Industry 1/ – Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML093280960.

Butler, A., D. Wilson, C. Gorman, and R. Devlin. 2007. South Carolina Water Use Report 2006 

Annual Summary. Technical Document Number: 004-07, July 2007, South Carolina 

Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, South Carolina. 
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-163 NUREG-1939

Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2008a. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Parr Reservoir 

and Lake Monticello Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric 

and Gas Company, Fairfield County, South Carolina. June 2008. Submitted To: South 

Carolina Electric and Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, 

Lexington, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082760696.

Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2008b. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Mayo Creek 

Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, 

Fairfield County, South Carolina. July 2008. Submitted To: South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML082760695.

Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2008c. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Parr Reservoir 

and Lake Monticello Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric 

and Gas Company, Fairfield County, South Carolina. September 2008. Submitted To: South 

Carolina Electric and Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, 

Lexington, South Carolina. Accession No. ML091891011.

Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2008d. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Mayo Creek 

Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, 

Fairfield County, South Carolina. October 2008. Submitted To: South Carolina Electric and 

Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML092930127.

Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2009a. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Mayo Creek 

Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, 

Fairfield County, South Carolina. January 2009. Submitted To: South Carolina Electric and 

Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML092050188.

Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2009b. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Mayo Creek 

Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, 

Fairfield County, South Carolina. April 2009. Submitted To: South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML092230228.

Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2009c. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Parr Reservoir 

and Lake Monticello Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric 

and Gas Company, Fairfield County, South Carolina. January 2009. Submitted To: South 

Carolina Electric and Gas Company. Submitted by Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, 

Lexington, South Carolina. Accession No. ML092050186.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-164 April 2011

Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2009d. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Parr Reservoir 

and Lake Monticello Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric 

and Gas Company, Fairfield County, South Carolina. April 2009. Submitted to South Carolina 

Electric and Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, Lexington, 

South Carolina. Accession No. ML092230226.

Carr, A., A. Meylan, J. Mortimer, K. Bjorndal, and T. Carr. 1982. Surveys of Sea Turtle 

Populations and Habitats in the Western Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC91, U.S. Department of Commerce, Panama City, Florida. Available at 

http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/turtles/TM_91_Carr_etal.pdf.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1997. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

United States 1996.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 45 (53):1-88. October 31, 1997.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1998. “Surveillance for WaterborneDisease Outbreaks – United States, 1995–1996.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC 

Surveillance Summaries, 47(SS-5):1-34. December 11, 1998. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases. 

United States. 1998.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47(53):1-94. December 31, 1999. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2001. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

United States 1999.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48(53):1-16. April 6, 2001. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002. “Surveillance for WaterborneDisease Outbreaks – United States, 1999-2000.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 

51(SS-8):1-48. November 22, 2002. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2003. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases –

United States, 2001.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 50(53):1-22. May 2, 2003.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2004. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases –

United States, 2002.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51 (53):1:77. April 30, 2004.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2005. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases –

United States, 2003.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 52(54):1-85. April 22, 2005.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2006. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases –

United States, 2004.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 53(53):1-79. June 16, 2006. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases –

United States, 2005.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54(53):2-92. March 30, 2007.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-165 NUREG-1939

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2008. “Primary Amebic 

Meningoencephalitis – Arizona, Florida, and Texas, 2007.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 

Report, 57(21):573-577. May 30, 2008. 

Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1996. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

IV July 1, 1995 – June 30, 1996. Annual Progress Report F-63-1-4. South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1997. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

IV July 1, 1996 – June 30, 1997. Annual Progress Report F-63-3-4. South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1998. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

IV. Annual Progress Report F-63, July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1999. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

IV July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. Annual Progress Report F-63-4-4. South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act [FWPCA]).

Collins, M.R., D.W. Cooke, B. Post, J. Crane, J. Bulak, T.I.J. Smith, T.W. Greig, and J.M. 

Quattro. 2003. “Shortnose sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper Reservoir System, South Carolina.” 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132(6):1244–1250.

Cooney, T.W., P.A. Drewes, S.W. Ellisor, T.H. Lanier, and F. Melendez. 2006. Water 

Resources Data, South Carolina, Water Year 2005. Water-Data Report SC-05-1. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/recentpubs.jsp?reportYear=2006&reportMonth=4. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the 

President, Washington, D.C. Available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf.

Crouch, G.H. 2006. “Droughts: Less Dramatic, No Less Damaging.” Business & Economic 

Review 53(1).

Dahl, T.E. 1999. South Carolina’s Wetlands – Status and Trends 1982 – 1989. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-166 April 2011

Dames and Moore. 1974. “Report on the Baseline Biotic Survey Broad River Study Area Parr, 

South Carolina March 1971 to May 1973 for South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.” 

Appendix 2A in Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Operating License Environmental Report, 

Vol. 2. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Columbia, South Carolina.

Dames and Moore. 1985. Environmental Monitoring Report January 1983 through December 

1984 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Accession No. 

ML090630369.

Edwards, N.T. and D.L. Otis. 1999. “Avian Communities and Habitat Relationships in South 

Carolina Piedmont Beaver Ponds.” The American Midland Naturalist 141:158-171.

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 USC 1531, et seq.

Facilities Planning & Siting, PLLC (FP&S). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 

Transmission Line Siting Study SCE&G. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas 

(SCE&G). Accession Nos. ML082680276, ML082680277, ML082680279, ML082680280.

Fairfield County. 2005. Zoning Ordinance; Fairfield County. Ordinance No. 498. Fairfield 

County Council. Accession No. ML093360669.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 2006a. Crime in the United States 2005: Police 

Employees Data – Table 80. Accessed September 23, 2009 at 

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_78_sc.html. Accession No. ML093500654.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 2006b. Crime in the United States 2005: Police 

Employees Data – Table 78. Accessed September 23, 2009 at 

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_80_sc.html. Accession No. ML093500654.

Federal Power Commission (FPC). 1974. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Parr 

Hydroelectric Project, No. 1894 – South Carolina. No. PPC-PWR-1894, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML090640919.

Fuiman, L.A. 2002. “Special Considerations of Fish Eggs and Larvae.” In: L.A. Fuiman and 

R.G. Werner, Editors, Fishery Science. The Unique Contributions of Early Life Stages. 

Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom, pp. 1-32.

Godfrey, M.A. 1980. Field Guide to the Piedmont: The Natural Habitats of America’s Most 

Lived-in Region, from New York City to Montgomery, Alabama. The University of North 

Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-167 NUREG-1939

Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Shafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, 

J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Reston, Virginia.

Hayes, W.E. 1999. Parr Shoals Reservoir Fishery Management Plan. South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, Freshwater Fisheries District III.

Hayes, G. and J. Bettinger. 2006a. High Conservation Priority – Other Species: Turquoise 

Darter, Etheostoma inscriptum, Seagreen Darter, Etheostoma thalassium, Piedmont Darter 

Percinas crassa. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia S.C. Accessed 

August 30 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html#P. 

Hayes, G. and J. Bettinger. 2006b. High Conservation Priority – Piedmont Species: Greenhead 

Shiner Notropis chlorocephalus, Santee Chub, Cyprinella zanema, Carolina Darter, Etheostoma 

collis. Accessed August 30 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html#P.

Houde, E.D. 2002. “Mortality.” In: L.A. Fuiman and R.G. Werner, Editors, Fishery Science. 

The Unique Contributions of Early Life Stages. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom, pp. 

64-87.

Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States. Cambridge University Press, New York. 

Kirkman, L.K., C.L. Brown, and D.J. Leopold. 2007. Native Trees of the Southeast: An 

Identification Guide. Timber Press Inc., Portland, Oregon.

Kleinschmidt Energy and Water Resource Consultants (Kleinschmidt). 2007. South Carolina 

Electric & Gas Company, Columbia, South Carolina, Columbia Project (FERC No. 1895), Fish 

Ladder Evaluation Report, Final. Available at 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=11872962.

Koeppe, C.E. and G.C. De Long. 1958. Weather and Climate. McGraw-Hill, New York. 341 pp.

Kovacik, C.F. and J.J. Winberry. 1987. South Carolina: The Making of a Landscape. 

University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.

Lamprecht, S.D. and J. Bettinger. 2006. High Conservation Priority – Big River Species. 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed August 30, 2009 at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/BigRiver.pdf. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-168 April 2011

Local Climatological Data (LCD). 2007. Annual Summary with Comparative Data, Columbia, 

South Carolina (KCAE). National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Administration (NOAA), U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, Maryland.

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper. Prepared for Santee Cooper, 

Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082680275.

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2009. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper—Revision #1. Prepared for 

Santee Cooper, Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Accession No. ML102160577.

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2010. Summary of Federally Protected 

Species Survey V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 New Santee Cooper Transmissions 

Lines. Accession No. ML103220140. 

Maps of the World. 2009. South Carolina Airports. Accessed July 24, 2009 at 

http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/states/south-carolina/south-carolina-airports.html. 

Marcy, B.C., D.E. Fletcher, F.D. Martin, M.H. Paller, and M.J.M. Reichert. 2005. Fishes of the 

Middle Savannah River Basin with Emphasis on the Savannah River Site. University of Georgia 

Press, Athens, Georgia.

McCord, J.W. 2006. Species Description – Sturgeons. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy Species Description. Accessed March 4, 2009 at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/Sturgeon.pdf. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. 16 USC 703, et seq.

Murphy, T. 2006. Wood Stork; Mycteria americana. South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Available at www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/Woodstork.pdf. 

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2000. Climate Atlas of the Contiguous United States, 

Version 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 

Asheville, North Carolina.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004. Climatography of the United States, No. 20, 

1971-2000. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 

Asheville, North Carolina.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2009a. State of the climate Drought Annual 2008. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, North 

Carolina.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-169 NUREG-1939

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2009b. Tornado statistics for Fairfield County, South 

Carolina. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 

Asheville, North Carolina.

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). 2009. Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum). Accessed October 25, 2009 at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm#distribution. 

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. Historical Hurricane Tracks. 

Coastal Services Center, Charleston, South Carolina.

National Park Service (NPS). 2009. Congaree National Park, South Carolina. Accessed 

September 23, 2009 at http://www.nps.gov/cosw/index.htm. Accession No. ML100210503.

NatureServe. 2009a. An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Accessed September 1, 2009 at 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

NatureServe. 2009b. An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Accessed November 10, 2009 at 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

Nelson, J.B. 2006. Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Survey: V.C. Summer Nuclear 

Station. Submitted by J.B. Nelson to Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML082670675.

Nelson, J.B. 2007. Survey for Three Threatened and Endangered Plants: V.C. Summer 

Nuclear Station. October 2007. Submitted to Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML082830398.

New South Associates (NSA). 2006. General Pearson Cemetery Boundary Delineation. V.C. 

Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, Fairfield County, South Carolina. Report prepared by 

Principal Investigator N. Adams and J.H.N. Loubser, archaeologist and author. Stone Mountain, 

Georgia. (Withheld from the public domain per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act).

New South Associates (NSA). 2007a. Archaeological Survey of Planned Improvements at V.C. 

Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina. Stone Mountain, Georgia. 

(Withheld from the public domain per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-170 April 2011

New South Associates (NSA). 2007b. An Addendum to the Archaeological Survey of Planned 

Improvements at V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina. Stone 

Mountain, Georgia. (Withheld from the public domain per Section 304 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act).

New South Associates (NSA). 2007c. Summary of All National Register Listed Properties in 

Ten Counties to be Affected by Transmission Line Rights of Way Associated with Improvements 

at V.C. Summer Nuclear Station. Stone Mountain, Georgia. (Withheld from the public domain 

per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act).

New South Associates (NSA). 2008. Second Addendum to the Archaeological Survey of 

Planned Improvements at the VC Summer Nuclear Station. Stone Mountain, Georgia. 

(Withheld from the public domain per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act).

New South Associates (NSA). 2009a. Phase II Examination of 38FA360: Middle to Late 

Woodland Period Site Along Mayo Creek, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station. Stone Mountain, 

Georgia. (Withheld from the public domain per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act).

New South Associates (NSA). 2009b. Letter Report: Archaeological Survey of Proposed Road 

Improvements at South Carolina Hwy. SC 213, Jenkinsville Road and Parr Road Intersection –

V.C. Summer Nuclear Station. Stone Mountain, Georgia.

New South Associates (NSA). 2009c. Letter Report to Mr. Steve Connor: Archaeological 

Survey of Approximately 7.7 Acres in the Vicinity of the Proposed Water Treatment Plant, V.C. 

Summer Nuclear Station. Stone Mountain, Georgia.

New South Associates (NSA). 2009d. Email from Natalie Adams (NSA) to Lisa Matis 

(TetraTech) dated September 29, 2009, “Subject: 38FA38, 38FA39, and 38FA40.” Accession 

No. ML100840201. 

Nichols, M. 2003. Conservation Strategy for Robust Redhorse (Moxostoma robustum). 

Prepared by Environmental Laboratory, Georgia Power Company for Robust Redhorse 

Conservation Committee, Atlanta, Georgia. Available at 

http://www.robustredhorse.com/f/ConservStrategyMay62003.pdf.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2007. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

Surveys: Draft Final Report. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2008. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

Surveys: Summer Report Final. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-171 NUREG-1939

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2009a. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

Surveys: Winter Report Final. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML092050189.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2009b. Monticello Reservoir Icthyoplankton 

Studies, September 2008 Through August 2009. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, 

South Carolina. Accession No. ML092750409.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 1998. Broad River Basinwide Water 

Quality Management Plan. July 1998. Available at 

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Broad/broad_wq_management_plan.htm. 

North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management (NCOSBM). 2009a. Annual County 

Population Totals, 2000-2009. Accessed August 27, 2009 at 

http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimat

es/demog/countytotals_2000_2009.html. 

North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management (NCOSBM). 2009b. Projected Annual 

County Population Totals, 2010-2019. Accessed August 27, 2009 at 

http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimat

es/demog/countytotals_2010_2019.html. 

North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management (NCOSBM). 2009c. Projected Annual 

County Population Totals, 2020-2029. Accessed August 27, 2009 at 

http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimat

es/demog/countytotals_2020_2029.html. 

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United 

States. OTA-F-565, Washington, D.C.

Palis, J. G. 1997. Species Profile: Flatwoods Salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) on Military 

Installations in the Southeastern United States. Technical Report SERDP-97-6, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Available at 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/tes/pdfs/serdp97-6.pdf. 

Palmetto Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Palmetto). 2010. Summary of Federally Protected 

Species Assessments, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 Transmission Lines, Various 

Counties, South Carolina. Lexington, Kentucky. Accession No. ML103220140. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-172 April 2011

Parker, I.M., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, K. Goodell, M. Wonham, P.M. Kareiva, 

M.H. Williamson, B. Von Holle, P.B. Moyle, J.E. Byers, and L. Goldwasser. 1999. “Impact: 

Toward a Framework for Understanding the Ecological Effects of Invaders.” Biological 

Invasions 1(1):3-19.

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PDCNR). 2007. Eastern 

Floater Pyganodon cataracta. Available at 

http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/factsheets/Pyganodon%20cataracta.pdf. 

Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The Fishes of the Missouri Revised Edition. Missouri Department of 

Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Pike Energy Solutions, LLC (Pike). 2010. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 

Transmission Line Siting Study Addendum Number 1. Prepared for South Carolina Electric & 

Gas Company, Charlotte, North Carolina. Accession No. ML102980200.

Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. “Update on the Environmental and Economic 

Costs Associated with Alien-Invasive Species in the United States.” Ecological Economics

52(3):273-288.

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid 

Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. 

EPA 440-4-89-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Water Regulations 

and Standards, Washington, D.C.

Porcher, R.D. and D.A. Rayner. 2001. A Guide to the Wildflowers of South Carolina. 

University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.

Quattlebaum, M. 2008a. Fish Community Assessment of Parr Reservoir 2007-2008. SCANA 

Services Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082830397.

Quattlebaum, M. 2008b. Limited Fish Community Assessment of Mayo Creek 2007-2008. 

SCANA Services Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082830319.

Quattlebaum, M. 2008c. Limited Aquatic Plant Survey of Monticello and Parr Reservoirs. 

SCANA Services Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML091050701.

Ramsdell, Jr. J.V. and J.P. Rishel. 2007. Tornado Climatography of the Contiguous United 

States. NUREG/CR-4461, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fisher of South 

Carolina. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-173 NUREG-1939

R.S. Webb Associates (Webb). 2006. Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed SCE&G 

Meteorological Tower Site, Fairfield County, South Carolina. R.S. Webb Associates for Tower 

Engineering Professionals, Holly Springs, Georgia. (Withheld from the public domain per 

Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act).

Santee River Basin Accord (SRBA). 2008. Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish 

Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement. Final Administration and Policy Document. South 

Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission. Accession No. ML082830321.

Sagendorf, J.F., J.T. Goll, and W.F. Sandusky. 1982. XOQDOQ: Computer Program for the 

Routine Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases on Nuclear Power Stations. 

NUREG/CR-2919, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

SC Code Ann. 48-1. 2009. "Pollution Control Act." South Carolina Code Annotated.

SC Code Ann. 49-4. 2009. “Waters, Water Resources and Drainage.” South Carolina Code 

Annotated.

SC Code Ann. 49-5. 2009. “Groundwater Use and Reporting Act.” South Carolina Code 

Annotated.

Self, R.L. and J. Bettinger. 2006. Highest Conservation Priority – Big River Species. 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed August 30, 2009 at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/BigRiverSpecies.pdf. 

Sessions, F., S. Lamprecht, and J. Bettinger. 2006. Moderate Conservation Priority – Big River 

Species. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed August 30, 2009 at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/ModBigRiver.pdf. 

South Carolina Aeronautics Commission (SC Aeronautics). 2009. South Carolina Aeronautical 

Operation Counts for Towered Airports – Columbia Metropolitan Airport. Accessed September 

23, 2009 at 

http://www.scaeronautics.com/Operations.asp?cboAirport=CAE&cboOpsYr=0&btnSubmit=AddF

ilter. 

South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2007. Accommodation and Recreation 

Facilities Available at South Carolina State Parks (2007). Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter15/recreation1.php. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-174 April 2011

South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2008. Lodging Outlook Survey Calendar 

Year 2007 Compared With Calendar Year 2006. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter15/recreation5.php. 

South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009a. S.C. Population by Race and 

Hispanic Origin (July 1, 2005 Estimates). Available at 

http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter14/pop13.php. 

South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009b. Population of South Carolina 

Counties (1940-2000 Censuses). Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter14/pop4.php. 

South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009c. South Carolina Population 

Estimates (2000-2007). Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter14/pop7.php. 

South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009d. South Carolina Population and 

Population Projections (2000-2035). Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter14/pop5.php. 

South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009e. Annual Estimates of the 

Population for Incorporated Places in South Carolina (2000-2007). Accessed September 21, 

2009 at http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter14/pop10.php. 

South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009f. State Parks Visitation (Fiscal Year 

2004-05). Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

http://www.ors2.stafte.sc.us/abstract/chapter15/recreation8_06.php. 

South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009g. State Parks Visitation (Fiscal Year 

2006-07). Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

http://www.ors2.stafte.sc.us/abstract/chapter15/recreation8.php. 

South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2006a. Letter from Rebekah 

Dobrasko (State Historic Preservation Office, Review and Compliance Coordinator) to George 

Swearingen (Tower Engineering Professionals) dated September 14, 2006, “Re: Proposed 197-

Foot Guyed Lattice Tower, SCE&G V.C. Summer Nuclear Power Plant Fairfield County, South 

Carolina SCANA Nuclear Meteorological Tower.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. 

ML091480622.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-175 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Department of Archives and History (SCDAH). 2006b. Letter from Chad C. 

Long (Staff Archaeologist) to Jonathon A. Bloom (R.S. Webb Associates) dated August 16, 

2006, “REL Final Report, Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed SCE&G 

Meteorological Tower Site, Fairfield County, South Carolina.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. 

ML091480622.

South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2007a. Letter from Rebekah 

Dobrasko (State Historic Preservation Office, Review and Compliance Coordinator) to Al Paglia 

(SCE&G New Nuclear Deployment) dated April 27, 2007, “Re: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station 

Fairfield County, South Carolina.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. ML091480622.

South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2007b. Letter from Rebekah 

Dobrasko (State Historic Preservation Office, Review and Compliance Coordinator) to Al Paglia 

(SCE&G New Nuclear Deployment) dated August 16, 2007, “Re: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station 

Two New Generating Units Fairfield County, South Carolina.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. 

ML091480622.

South Carolina Department of Archives and History (SCDAH). 2009a. Letter from C. Cantley, 

(Archaeologist/GIS Coordinator) to Al Paglia (SCE&G, New Nuclear Deployment) dated January 

28, 2009, “Second Addendum to the Archaeological Survey of Planned Improvements at V.C. 

Summer Nuclear Station.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. ML091480622.

South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2009b. Letter from Caroline 

Wilson (Review and Compliance Coordinator, State Historic Preservation Office) to Tamsen 

Dozier, NRO/DSER/RAP1, (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated October 20, 2009, 

“Re: V.C. Summer Nuclear Plant Archaeological Site.” Accession No. ML093080369.

South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2009c. Letter from C. Cantley 

(Archaeologist/GIS Coordinator) to Al Paglia (SCE&G, New Nuclear Deployment) dated October 

7, 2009, “Re: Summer Nuclear Station, Proposed Road Improvements, Letter Report.” 

Accession No. ML100710307.

South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2009d. Letter from C. Cantley 

(Archaeologist/GIS Coordinator) to Al Paglia (SCE&G, New Nuclear Deployment) dated 

November 10, 2009, “Re: Summer Nuclear Station, Proposed Water Treatment Plant, Letter 

Report.” Accession No. ML100750559.

South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2010. Letter from Rebekah 

Dobrasko (State Historic Preservation Office, Review and Compliance Coordinator) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 25, 2010, “V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 

and 3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Fairfield County, South Carolina.” Accession No.

ML101540528.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-176 April 2011

South Carolina Department of Education (SCDOE). 2009. Reports. Accessed September 23, 

2009 at http://ed.sc.gov/topics/researchandstats/reports. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2004. Water 

Classification and Standards Regulation 61-68. June 25, 2004. Bureau of Water, Columbia, 

South Carolina. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2005. South 

Carolina Water Use Report 2004 Summary. Bureau of Water, Technical Document Number: 

004-05. Available at http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/docs/wtruse2004.pdf.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2006. South 

Carolina Water Use Report 2005 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007. Watershed 

Water Quality Assessment: Broad River Basin. Technical Report No.006-07, Bureau of Water,

Columbia, South Carolina.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008a. R.61-68, 

Water Classifications & Standards. Effective April 25, 2008. Available at 

http://www.dhec.sc.gov/environment/water/reg.htm. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008b. 2008 

State of South Carolina Integrated Report, Part I: Listing of Impaired Waters. Available at 

http://www.dhec.sc.gov/environment/water/tmdl/docs/tmdl_08-303d.pdf.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008c. 2008 

State of South Carolina Integrated Report, Part II: Section 305(b) Assessment and Reporting. 

Available at http://www.dhec.sc.gov/environment/water/tmdl/docs/tmdl_08-305b.pdf.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009a. 

Environmental Quality Control (EQC) – Environmental Permitting – Water. Available at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/admin/htm/permtype.htm#Water. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009b. Fish 

Consumption Advisories. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/library/ML-004042.pdf. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009c. Common 

Water Quality Indicators. Available at http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/surface.htm.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-177 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009d. State 

Primary Drinking Water Regulation: R.61-58. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.dhec.sc.gov/environment/water/regs/r61-58.pdf.

South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SCDHPT). 1984. Letter 

from Michael Trinkley (Staff Archaeologist, South Carolina Department of Highways and Public 

Transportation) to Robert B. Ferrell (Environmental Program Administrator), dated August 23, 

1984. “Re: Archaeological Survey of the S.C 213 Extension, Fairfield County, State File No. 

20.431, F.A. No. RS-1154 (71).” NND-09-0136. Accession No. ML091480622.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2002. South Carolina Boating 

Facilities Guide. Accessed November 10, 2009 at www.dnr.sc.gov/pubs/boatfacilities.pdf. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2005a. Piedmont Ecoregion 

Terrestrial Habitats. Accessed December 18, 2009 at 

www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/habitat/PiedmontHabitat.pdf. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2005b. 2005 Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed August 30, 2009 at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2006a. South Carolina Rare, 

Threatened, & Endangered Species Inventory County Selection from List. Accessed 

September 8, 2009 at https://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/county_species.select_county_map. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2006b. Species Description --

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Available at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2007. Broad River Waterfowl 

Management Area. Accessed September 10, 2009 at 

https://www.dnr.sc.gov/mlands/managedland?p_id=68. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2008. South Carolina Aquatic 

Invasive Species Management Plan. Prepared in coordination with the South Carolina Aquatic 

Invasive Species Task Force. Available at 

www.dnr.sc.gov/invasiveweeds/aisfiles/SC_SMP_Draft.pdf. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009. Freshwater Fishing 

Regulations. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/regs/pdf/fishing.pdf.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-178 April 2011

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2010a. Rare, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species Inventory for Calhoun, Chester, Colleton, Dorchester, Fairfield, Hampton, 

Lancaster, Lexington, Newberry, Orangeburg, and Richland Counties. Accessed on November 

15, 2010 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/species/index.html.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2010b. Email from Julie Holling 

(SCDNR) to Lara Aston (PNNL) dated December 16, 2010, regarding threatened and 

endangered species in transmission corridors. Accession No. ML110350208.

South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). 2009a. Average Annual Daily Traffic. 

Accessed September 23, 2009 at http://www.dot.state.sc.us/getting/aadt.shtml. 

South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). 2009b. Email from Ron Patton 

(SCDOT) to Scott Flickinger (NUS) dated December 4, 2006, “Subject: SCDOT Road Level of 

Service.” 

South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). 2009c. South Carolina Strategic 

Corridor System Plan. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.scdot.org/inside/multimodal/pdfs/StrategicCorridorPlan.pdf. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2002a. Appendix E. Applicant’s Environmental 

Report, Operating License Renewal Stage Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. South Carolina 

Electric & Gas Company, Docket 50-395, License No NPF-12. Accession No. ML090641089.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2002b. Threatened and Endangered Species Field 

Survey V. C. Summer Nuclear Station. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. 

ML030310162.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2006a. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to Dr. William D. Travers, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission Region II, dated April 28, 2006, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. NPF-12, Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report.” Accession No. ML062770462.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2006b. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

April 28, 2006, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating 

License No. NPF-12, Annual Effluent and Waste Disposal Report.” Accession No. 

ML061220346.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-179 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007a. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to Dr. William D. Travers, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission Region II, dated April 17, 2007, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. NPF-12, Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report.” Accession No. ML083020046.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007b. Annual Effluent Radioactive Release 

Report, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, for the Operating Period January 1, 2006 -

December 31, 2006. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML071100299.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007c. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual for South 

Carolina Electric and Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Revision 26. 

Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession Nos. ML081280582 and ML072910571.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007d. Letter from Al Paglia (Manager, Nuclear 

Licensing) to Elizabeth Johnson (South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office 

Representative) dated April 9, 2007, “SUBJECT: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, New 

Nuclear Deployment Project, Request for Cultural Resources Information.” NND-09-0136. 

Accession No. ML091480622.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008a. Letter from Al Paglia (Manager, Nuclear 

Licensing, South Carolina Electric and Gas) to Rebekah Dobrasko (Review and Compliance 

Coordinator, of the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office) dated December 18, 

2008, “Second Addendum to the Archaeological Survey of Planned Improvements at V.C. 

Summer Nuclear Station.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. ML091480622.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008b. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

April 24, 2008, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating 

License No. NPF-12, Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report and Offsite Dose Calculation 

Manual.” Accession No. ML081280581.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008c. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to Mr. Victor M. McCree, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission Region II, dated April 23, 2008, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. NPF-12, Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report.” Accession No. ML092960482.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-180 April 2011

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

May 18, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: G-10.” NND-09-0135. Accession No. ML091460171.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

May 5, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: ALT-1/NP-1, AQ-1, AQ-15, G-5, G-6, G-8, and NRHH-2.” NND-09-0110. 

Accession No. ML091890155.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

May 1, 2009 in response to letters from Manny Comar (NRC) dated March 1, 2009, “Subject: 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined License Application 

(COLA) – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Response to NRC Request for Additional 

Information (RAI) Letter No. 041.” NND-09-0109. Accession No. ML091270890.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009e. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

June 9, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: ACC-5 (Item 1), AQ-9, BC-1, GW-7 (Item 3) and SE-S1.” NND-09-0158. 

Accession No. ML091630212.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009f. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

July 13, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3. Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): Alt-3, AqEco-7, CR-3, 

GW-6, Met-1, SEcon-6, and SW-2.” NND-09-0184. Accession No. ML092010266.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-181 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009g. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

President, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated September 

24, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. 

Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined 

License Application – Additional Information to Support the Environmental Report Review.” 

NND-09-0276. Accession No. ML092930042.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009h. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G), 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

June 8, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: CR-6, 8, and 11.” NND-09-0153. Accession No. ML091660292. (Withheld 

from the public domain per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act)

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009j. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

May 11, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs.”: CR-2, 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 22. NND-09-0125. Accession 

No. ML091350104.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009k. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to Mr. Luis A. Reyes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission Region II, dated April 29, 2009, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. NPF-12, Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report.” Accession No. ML092860167. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009l. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

April 29, 2009, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating 

License No. NPF-12, Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report.” Accession No. 

ML091260302.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009m. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

June 15, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: BC-3. SE-3, 8, and 9.” NND-09-0164. Accession No. ML091690069.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-182 April 2011

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009n. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

May 18, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: CR-5 and CR-9.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. ML091480622.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009p. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

July 20, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): GW-1, 2, 3, and 9 and 

HP-1 and 2, Met-2, TerEco-1, and SEcon-3.” NND-09-0203. Accession No. ML100660021.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009q. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

President, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated September 

16, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. 

Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined 

License Application – Revision to ER Section 2.7 to Incorporate Two Years of Meteorological 

Data.” NND-09-0270. Accession No. ML092670578.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009r. Letter from Al Paglia (Manager, Nuclear 

Licensing) to Mr. Chuck Cantley (Review and Compliance Coordinator, South Carolina State 

Historic Preservation Office) dated March 17, 2009, “Phase II Examination of 38FA360: A 

Woodland Period Site along Mayo Creek, V.C. Summer Station.” NND-09-0054. Accession 

No. ML091480622.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009s. Letter from Al Paglia (Manager, Nuclear 

Licensing) to Mr. Chuck Cantley (Review and Compliance Coordinator, South Carolina State 

Historic Preservation Office) dated September 2, 2009, regarding “Letter Report: Archaeological 

Survey of Proposed Road Improvements at South Carolina Hwy. SC 213, Jenkinsville Road and 

Parr Road Intersection – V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Manager, Nuclear Licensing, South 

Carolina Electric and Gas.” Accession No. ML100710117.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009t. Letter from Al Paglia (Manager, Nuclear 

Licensing) to Mr. Chuck Cantley (Review and Compliance Coordinator, South Carolina State 

Historic Preservation Office) dated October 22, 2009, “Archaeological Survey of Approximately 

7.7 Acres in the Vicinity of the Proposed Water Treatment Plant – V.C. Summer Nuclear 

Station.” NND-09-0294. Accession No. ML100660022.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-183 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 2, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML101930231. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010b. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated October 6, 2010 referencing R.B. Clary letter dated 

October 2, 2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined 

License Application – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 – Voluntary Submittal for the 

Environmental Report to Update Transmission Line Information.” NND-10-0361. Accession No. 

ML102850211. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010c. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated July 27, 2010 referencing R.B. Clary letter dated July 2, 

2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3– Docket Numbers 52-027 and 

52-028 Combined License Application – Response to NRC Environmental Report (ER) 

Requests for Additional Information (RAI): Gen-2 Part 2 and Gen-3.” NND-10-0283. Accession 

No. ML102160539. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010d. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 3, Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina. Accession No. ML102440523. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010e. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated October 27, 2010 referencing R.B. Clary letter dated 

July 2, 2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 Docket Numbers 52-027 

and 52-028 – Voluntary Submittal for the Environmental Report to Update Figure 3.1-3 and 

Tables 1.2-1 through 1.2-4” NND-10-0384. Accession No. ML102780267. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010f. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 

COL Application, Part 7, Departures and Exemptions. Revision 3, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML102440542. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010g. Letter from George A. Lippard to USNRC 

Document Control Desk, dated April 26, 2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. NPF-12, Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report.” Accession No. ML101200057. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010h. Letter from George A. Lippard to USNRC 

Document Control Desk, dated April 26, 2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. NPF-12, Annual Radioactive Effluent Release 

Report.” Accession No. ML100990240. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-184 April 2011

South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC). 1994. South Carolina’s BMP: Best 

Management Practices for Forestry. Columbia, South Carolina.

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SCLED). 2009. 2007 – Crime in South Carolina 

Book – Arrests by County. Accessed December 8, 2009 at 

http://www.sled.sc.gov/Documents/CrimeReporting/SCCrimeBooks/2007/Arrests%20by%20Cou

nty%202007.pdf. 

South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics (SCORS). 2009. Economics. Accessed 

October 28, 2009 at http://www.ors.state.sc.us/economics/economics.asp. South Carolina 

Information Highway (SCIway). 2009. South Carolina State Stone – Blue Granite. Accessed 

October 28, 2009 at http://www.sciway.net/facts/sc-state-stone-blue-granite.html. 

South Carolina State Climatology Office (SCSCO). 2009. South Carolina Climate –

Precipitation. Available at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/climate/sco/ClimateData/cli_sc_climate.php#precipitation. 

Strayer, D.L., V.T. Eviner, J.M. Jeschke, and M.L. Pace. 2006. “Understanding the Long-Term 

Effects of Species Invasions.” Ecology and Evolution 21(11):645-651.

Taylor, C.A., G.A. Schuster, J.E. Cooper, R.J. DiStefano, A.G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H.H. Hobbs 

III, H.W. Robinson, C.E. Skelton and R.F. Thoma. 2007. “A Reassessment of the Conservation 

Status of Crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ Years of Increased Awareness.” 

Fisheries 32(8):372-389.

Teague, George A. 1979. An Assessment of Archaeological Resources in the Parr Project 

Area, South Carolina. Research Manuscript Series, Institute of Archeology and Anthropology. 

University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.

Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007. Mayo Creek Aquatic Survey. Prepared for South Carolina Electric 

& Gas Company by Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. Accession No. 

ML082830320.

Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2008. Summary of Small Mammal Trapping at V.C. Summer Nuclear 

Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina. Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML091050712.

Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009a. Nuclear Plant Site Selection Study Report. Prepared for South 

Carolina Electric & Gas Company, by Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. Accession 

No. ML090270990.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-185 NUREG-1939

Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009b. Mayo Creek Quarterly Fish Surveys: Winter and Spring 2009 

V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 Combined Construction/Operating License Project. Prepared for 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company by Tetra Tech NUS Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML092160245.

Tipler, P.A. 1982. Physics. Worth Publishers, New York.

TRC Companies, Inc. (TRC). 2008. Letter from Sean Norris (Program Manager, Archeology) to 

Karl Rains (MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.) dated July 28.2008, Subject: “Cultural 

Resources Literature Review for VC Summer Varnville and VC Summer Flat Creek 

Transmission Line Corridors.” (Withheld from the public domain per Section 304 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act). 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. Letter from Richard Darden (USACE 

Regulatory Division) to Mr. F. David Haddon (SCANA Corporation) dated June 29, 2009 

regarding request for wetland determination SAC 2007-1852. Accession No. ML100750573.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Letter from Richard Darden (Project Manager, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to F. David Haddon (Senior Environmental Specialist, SCE&G) 

dated December 14, 2010 in response to letter from David Haddon dated October 6, 2010, on 

behalf of SCE&G and Santee Cooper regarding request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional 

Determination for linear utility corridors. Accession No. ML110470607. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011a. Letter from Tina Hadden (Chief, Regulatory 

Division) to Ronald B. Clary (Vice President SCE&G New Nuclear Deployment) dated January 

21, 2011, transmitting signed cultural resources management plan and agreement among the 

South Carolina Department of Archives & History, State Historic Preservation Office; the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers; and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) regarding the 

VC Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 & 3 Site and Associated New 230 KV SCE&G 

Transmission Lines. Accession No. ML110310829.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011b. Letter from Tina Hadden (Chief, Regulatory 

Division) to Ken Johnson (Supervisor Transmission Design, Santee Cooper) dated January 21, 

2011, transmitting signed Cultural Resources Management Plan For Two New Transmission 

Lines Serving The Proposed New Units at the VC Summer Nuclear Station Accession No. 

ML110310858.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008. May 2006 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area 

Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Columbia, South Carolina – Construction and 

Extraction Occupations. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2006/may/oes_17900.htm. Accession No. ML093360686.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-186 April 2011

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2009a. May 2007 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan 

Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Columbia, South Carolina – Construction 

and Extraction Occupations. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oes_17900.htm. Accession No. ML093360687.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2009b. May 2008 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan 

Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Columbia, South Carolina – Construction 

and Extraction Occupations. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_17900.htm. Accession No. ML093360688.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2009c. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. 

Washington D.C. Accession No. ML093280965.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2010. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. 

Washington D.C. Available at http://www.bls.gov/lau/.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1995. North Carolina, Population by Counties by Decennial 

Census: 1900-1990. Accessed 8/28/2009 at 

http:www.census.gov/population/cencounts/nc190090.txt. Accession No. ML100290506.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001. Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin 2000. Accessed 

on February 3, 2010 at http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf. Accession No. 

ML100890583.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009a. “Total Population, North Carolina.” American Fact 

Finder. Accessed August 29, 2009 at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DownloadDatasetServlet?_lang=eng. Accession No. 

ML100290499.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009b. Fact Sheet – Fairfield County, South Carolina – 2005-

2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Accession No. ML093430523.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009c. Fact Sheet – Lexington County, South Carolina – 2005-

2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Accession No. ML093430523.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009d. Fact Sheet – Newberry County, South Carolina – 2005-

2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Accession No. ML093430523.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009e. Fact Sheet – Richland County, South Carolina – 2005-

2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Accession No. ML093430523.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009f. Fact Sheet – South Carolina – 2005-2007 American 

Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Accession No. ML093430523.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-187 NUREG-1939

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009g. Populations Estimates – Housing Unit Estimates –

Annual Estimates of Housing Units for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008. Accessed 

September 21, 2009 at http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/HU-EST2008-4.html. Accession 

No. ML093431057.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007a. National Agricultural Statistics Service – Quick 

Stats – By County for South Carolina – Migrant, on Operations with Hired Labor – Operations 

with Workers. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/B64F2429-0737-351C-9406-D1E4CAB61549. 

Accession No. ML093431019.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007b. National Agricultural Statistics Service – Quick 

Stats – South Carolina – Migrant, on Operations with Hired Labor – Operations with Workers. 

Accessed September 21, 2009 at http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/3C267470-9AC9-

3025-8D69-35ABA2785986. Accession No. ML093431019.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2010. PLANTS Profile County Distribution for Lindera 

melissifolia in the state of South Carolina. Accessed 12/9/2010 at 

http://plants.usda.gov/java/county?state_name=South%20Carolina&statefips=45&symbol=LIME

7.

U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2009. (Virgil C.) 

Summer Nuclear Station, South Carolina – Summer Nuclear Power Stations. Available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/summer.html. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2009. FY 2009 Median Family 

Income Limits Documentation. Accessed June 13, 2009 at 

http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/il09/Medians2009.pdf. Accession No. ML093500650.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006a. EPA STORET Data Warehouse, South 

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Water Quality Data for Parr Reservoir 

and Monticello Reservoir, last updated 3//9/2006. Accessed December 7, 2009 at 

http://www.epa.gov/storet/dw_home.html. Accession No. ML090630368.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Region 4: Ground Water Protection –

Sole Source Aquifers in the Southeast. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/groundwater/r4ssa.html. Accession No. ML100290526.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Ground-level Ozone – Ozone Standards. 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html#stand. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-188 April 2011

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1986. Revised Recovery Plan for the U.S. Breeding 

Population of the Wood Stork. Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed November 25, 2008 at 

http://www.fws.gov/charleston/. Accession No. ML100210568.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995. American Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) 

Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 62 pp. Available at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/950929c.pdf.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

2001. Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage Restoration Plan. Available at

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12197642. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008a. South Carolina Distribution Records of 

Endangered, Threatened, Candidate and Species of Concern. Accessed September 13, 2009 

at www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/etcountylist_3_08.pdf. Accession No. ML093270525.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008b. Three Granite Outcrop Plants; Black-spored 

quillwort (isoetes melanosspora), Mat-forming quillwort,(Isoetes tegetiformans) Little 

amphianthus (Amphianthus pusillus). Five Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Southeast 

Region, Georgia Ecological Services Field Office. Athens Georgia. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/5yearReviews/5yearreviews/3GraniteOutrcropPlants20080930.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010. South Carolina List of Endangered, Threatened, 

and Candidate Species March 2010. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/endangeredSpeciescountylist.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS). 2011. Species Profile: Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona 

decorata). Accessed January 1, 2011 at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/F02L.html. 

U.S. Fire Administration (USFA). 2008. National Fire Department Census Database. 

Emmitsburg, Maryland. Accessed December 4, 2009 at 

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/applications/census-download/main/download. Accession No. 

ML093500269.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1990. Ground Water Atlas of the United States – Alabama, 

Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina – HA 730-G. Reston, Virginia. Accessed at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_g/index.html. Accession No. ML100290484.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. South Carolina 27-Class Land Cover. [GRID raster]. 

South Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, USGS Biological Resources 

Division, Clemson, South Carolina. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/mapping.html. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. The Mineral Industry of South Carolina 2003. Available 

at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2003/scstmyb03.pdf.
Affected Environment

April 2011 2-189 NUREG-1939

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Regulatory Guide 1.111 - Methods for 

Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases 

from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Statement Related to 

the Operation of Fermi, Unit 2. NUREG-0769, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1982. Regulatory Guide 1.145 - Atmospheric 

Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. 

Revision 1, 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, Washington, D.C.

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

30 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. NUREG-1437, Addendum 1,

31 Washington, D.C

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

(ESRP) — Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. 

NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Biological Assessment Virgil C. Summer 

Nuclear Station License Renewal review Jenkinsville, South Carolina June 2003. Rockville 

Maryland. Accession No. ML031770358.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Final 

Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons 

Learned Task Force Final Report. Accessed at www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/opsexperience/tritium/lr-release-lessons-learned.pdf. Accession No. ML083220312.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007a. Regulatory Guide 1.23 - Meteorological 

Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants. Rev. 1, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML070350028.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007b. Memorandum and Order (CLI-07-27) in 

the Matter of Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC. (Early Site Permit for North Anna ESP Site), 

November 20, 2007. Docket No. 52-008-ESP. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/commission/orders/2007/2007-27cli.html. Accession No. ML082521051.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1939 2-190 April 2011

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a. Notes taken at Robust Redhorse 

Conservation Committee Meeting, September 16, 2009, Garnett, South Carolina. Accession 

No. ML100600774.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. Memorandum and Order (CLI-09-21) in 

the Matter of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Combined License Application for Williams States 

Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) and Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear 

Power Plant, Units 3 and 4), November 3, 2009. Docket Nos. 52-018-COL, 52-019-COL, 52-

014-COL, and 52-015-COL. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/commission/orders/2009/2009-21cli.pdf. Accession No. ML093070690.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Memorandum from Patricia Vokoun

(Project Manager) to Ryan Whited (Branch Chief) dated March 18, 2010, Subject: “Summary of 

the Environmental Site Audit and Alternative Site Visit Related to the Review of the Combined 

License Application for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3.” Accession No. 

ML100480082.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Staff Memorandum from Scott Flanders,

DSER Division Director, to Brent Clayton, RENV Branch Chief, dated December 10, 2010,

“Addressing Construction and Preconstruction Activities, Greenhouse Gas Issues, General

Conformity Determinations, Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative Impact

Analysis, and Cultural/Historical Resources Analysis Issues In Environmental Impact 

Statements.” Accession No. ML100760503.

Vismor & Associates, Inc. (Vismor). 1997. Comprehensive Plan Update, 1997, Fairfield 

County. Accession No. ML090630407.

Vitousek, P.M., C.M. D’Antonio, L.L. Loope, and R. Westbrooks. 1996. “Biological Invasions as 

Global Environmental Change.” American Scientist 84(5):468-478.

Wallin, J. E. 1992. “The Symbiotic Nest Association of Yellowfin Shiners, Notropis lutipinnis, 

and Bluehead Chubs, Nocomis leptocephalus.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 33(3):287–

292.

Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. “Quantifying threats to 

imperiled species in the United States.” Bioscience 48(8):607-615.
April 2011 3-1 NUREG-1939

3.0 Site Layout and Plant Description 

The site of proposed Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 (referred to as 

the proposed Units 2 and 3) is located in Fairfield County in central South Carolina. South 

Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and as an agent for Santee Cooper (the 

State-owned electric and water utility, formally called South Carolina Public Service Company),

applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for combined construction permits 

and operating licenses (COLs) for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. In addition to the COL application, 

SCE&G also applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) to conduct activities that result in alteration of waters of the United States, 

including wetlands. The proposed new units would be situated wholly within the existing 

VCSNS site and located approximately 1 mi to the south-southwest of existing Unit 1. The site 

is situated approximately 26 mi northwest of the State capital Columbia, South Carolina.

This chapter describes the key plant characteristics that are used to assess the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action. The information is drawn from SCE&G’s Environmental Report 

(ER) (SCE&G 2010a), its Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (SCE&G 2010b), and 

supplemental documentation from SCE&G (SCE&G 2009a, b, c, d, 2010c, d). 

Whereas Chapter 2 of this environmental impact statement (EIS) describes the existing 

environment of the proposed site and its vicinity, this chapter describes the physical layout of 

the proposed plant. This chapter also describes the physical activities involved in building and 

operating the plant. The environmental impacts of building and operating the plant are 

discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. This chapter is divided into four sections. 

Section 3.1 describes the external appearance and layout of the proposed plant. Section 3.2 

describes the major plant structures and distinguishes structures that routinely interface with the 

environment from those that minimally or temporarily interface with the environment. 

Section 3.3 describes the activities involved in building or installing each of the plant structures. 

Section 3.4 describes the operational activities of the plant that interface with the environment. 

References cited are listed in Section 3.5.

3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout

The VCSNS site currently contains one pressurized light water reactor and associated facilities 

(VCSNS Unit 1) and is located on the southern shore of Monticello Reservoir (NRC 2004). 

Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be located approximately 1 mi south of Unit 1 

(Figure 3-1). All systems and structures directly supporting power generation by Units 2 and 3 

would be built with new independent facilities; none would be shared with Unit 1. However, 

SCE&G noted that existing infrastructure such as administrative buildings, warehouses, and the 

training center, would be modified to accommodate Units 2 and 3 and the existing unit 

(SCE&G 2010a). 
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-2 April 2011

Figure 3-1. VCSNS Site Layout
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-3 NUREG-1939

The proposed location of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would have a design site grade of 400 ft 

North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88). SCE&G (2010a) states that the “center point 

of Unit 2 containment would be approximately 1600 ft west and 4300 ft south of the center point 

of Unit 1 containment” and the “center point of Unit 3 containment would be approximately 900 ft 

south-southwest of the center point of Unit 2.” The containment vessel, shield building, and 

auxiliary building make up the “nuclear island,” which is one of five principal structures of the 

standard Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 

(AP1000) pressurized water reactor proposed for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The other four 

principal structures of an AP1000 unit are the turbine, diesel generator, radwaste, and annex 

buildings.

The footprint area of each new unit is adjacent to, but separate from, the other. The area 

required for the proposed two power-generating units is approximately 47 ac. Each new 

VCSNS reactor unit would be supported by two mechanical draft cooling towers, each 

approximately 70 ft high and 275 ft in diameter. The total area required for four cooling towers 

and associated structures for the circulating-water system (CWS) would be approximately 38 ac 

(SCE&G 2010a). A conceptualization of proposed Units 2 and 3 superimposed on the site is 

shown in Figure 3-2.

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

(SCE&G 2009e)
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-4 April 2011

3.2 Proposed Plant Structures

This section describes each of the major plant structures: the reactor power system, structures 

that would have a significant interface with the environment during operation, and the balance of 

plant structures. All of these structures are relevant in the discussion of the impacts of building 

proposed Units 2 and 3 in Chapter 4. Only the structures that interface with the environment 

are relevant to the operational impacts discussed in Chapter 5.

3.2.1 Reactor Power Conversion System

SCE&G has proposed building and operating two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric 

generating systems at the VCSNS site. On January 27, 2006, the NRC issued the final design 

certification rule for the AP1000 in the Federal Register (71 FR 4464) based on Revision 15 of 

the AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD). Each applicant or licensee intending to construct 

and operate a plant based on the AP1000 design may do so by referencing its design 

certification rule, as set forth in Appendix D to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Part 52. 

Westinghouse is requesting to amend the AP1000 DCD. As mentioned in Section 1.1.4, the 

reactor design referenced in the application is Revision 17 of the certified design (Westinghouse 

2008). The amended application is currently undergoing review. The status of the amended 

DCD review is available at www.nrc.gov. Figure 3-3 is an illustration of the reactor powerconversion system. Each AP1000 reactor is connected to two steam generators that transfer 

heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and lowpressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. Steam that has passed through the turbines is 

condensed back to water that is heated and pumped back to the steam generators, repeating 

the cycle. The AP1000 design has a thermal power rating of 3400 MW(t), with a design grosselectrical output of approximately 1200 MW(e). The estimated station and auxiliary service load 

is 93 MW(e) for each proposed new unit at the VCSNS site, for a net electrical output of 

1107 MW(e) per unit (SCE&G 2010a).

3.2.2 Structures with a Major Environmental Interface

The review team divided the plant structures into two primary groups: those that interface with 

the environment and those that are internal to the reactor and associated facilities but without 

direct interaction with the environment. Examples of interfaces with the environment are 

withdrawal of water from the environment at the intake structures, release of water to the 

environment at the discharge structure, and release of excess heat to the atmosphere. The 

structures or locations with environmental interfaces are considered in the review team’s 

assessment of the environmental impacts of facility construction and preconstruction, and 

facility operation in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. The power-production processes that would 

occur within the plant itself and that do not affect the environment are not relevant to a National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) review and are not discussed further in 
April 2011

3-5 NUREG-1939

Figure 3-3. AP1000 Power Conversion Diagram (SCE&G 2009e)
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-6 April 2011

this EIS. However, such internal processes are considered by the NRC staff in the 

Westinghouse AP1000 design certification documentation and in NRC safety reviews of the 

SCE&G COL application. This section (3.2.2) describes the structures with significant plantenvironment interfaces. The remaining structures are discussed in Section 3.2.3, inasmuch as 

they may be relevant in the review team’s consideration of impacts discussed in Chapter 4 of 

this EIS. Figure 3-4 illustrates the VCSNS site layout with a grid overlay to reference the 

locations of various plant structures and activity areas as they are described in the following 

sections. Existing Unit 1 is located primarily in the C2 quadrant. Proposed Units 2 and 3 

structures are located primarily in the C3 and C4 quadrants.

3.2.2.1 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage

Landscaping and the stormwater-drainage system affect both the recharge to the subsurface 

and the rate and location at which precipitation drains into adjacent creeks and streams. 

Impervious areas eliminate recharge to aquifers beneath the site. Pervious areas managed to

reduce runoff and maintained free of vegetation would experience considerably higher recharge 

rates than adjacent areas with local vegetation. The stormwater-management system, including 

site grading, drainage ditches, and swales, provides a safety function to keep locally intense 

precipitation from flooding safety-related structures. 

The stormwater-retention basins in the immediate vicinity of the location of proposed Units 2 

and 3 are shown in Figure 3-5. The proposed site is on top of a hill and stormwater would drain 

away from the site in several directions and into several unnamed creeks to the west and into 

Mayo Creek to the east. Once drainage enters Mayo Creek it would flow south, then west 

around the southern base of the powerblock area. 

3.2.2.2 Cooling System

The cooling system represents the largest interface between the plant and the environment. 

Makeup water would be provided to the plant through an intake structure on Monticello 

Reservoir. A portion of the makeup water would be returned to the environment via the 

discharge structure on Parr Reservoir. The remaining portion of the water would be released to 

the atmosphere via evaporative cooling through mechanical draft cooling towers. 

These components represent interfaces between the plant and the environment. This section 

describes the components of the proposed cooling system based on the information provided by 

SCE&G in its ER (SCE&G 2010a) and FSAR (SCE&G 2010b).
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-7 NUREG-1939

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

Units 2 and 3
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-8 April 2011

Figure 3-5. Site Layout Closeup
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-9 NUREG-1939

Cooling-Water Intake Structures 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would obtain water for the cooling-water systems from Monticello 

Reservoir. Two new intake structures are proposed: one for makeup water for the CWS 

cooling towers and one for makeup water for the service-water system (SWS) cooling tower and 

for the potable, fire-protection, and demineralized water systems. The CWS intake would be the 

larger of the two and would be located on the shore of Monticello Reservoir approximately 

1250 ft west of the Unit 1 intake (Figure 3-4, grid reference C2). This intake would be 

constructed of concrete; it would be approximately 60 ft long and 75 ft wide. It would house six 

raw-water pumps (three per AP1000 unit), each in an individual pump bay with a dedicated 

trash rack for coarse-debris removal and a traveling screen for fine-debris removal. A plan view 

of the CWS intake system’s six pump bays is shown in Figure 3-6. A cross-sectional view of 

one pump bay is shown in Figure 3-7. 

The intake structure for the water-treatment plant proposed for providing SWS makeup water, 

and other miscellaneous treated-water systems (potable, fire protection, demineralized water 

systems) would be located in Monticello Reservoir approximately 5500 ft east of the Unit 1 intake 

(Figure 3-4, grid reference E2). This proposed intake structure consists of a 255-ft-long, 17-ftwide access pier extending approximately 200 ft into the reservoir, a 14-in.-diameter intake pipe 

suspended from the pier, and a cylindrical concrete wet well approximately 10 ft in diameter 

(SCE&G 2009d). The wet well is a chamber set in the reservoir to collect the water to be 

pumped to the water-treatment plant; the end of the intake pipe extends into the wet well. 

Screens in the side of the wet well allow water to pass through but exclude debris.

Discharge Structure

Water released from proposed Units 2 and 3 would flow through a pipeline to a discharge 

structure (outfall) on the eastern shore of Parr Reservoir, approximately 5000 ft west-southwest 

of Units 2 and 3. The pipeline would be routed along the rail corridor between VCSNS Units 2 

and 3 and Parr Reservoir (Figure 3-4, grid references A4, B4, C4). The proposed discharge 

structure consists of a valve box and weir chamber housed in a structure 20 ft wide, 60 ft long, 

and approximately 23 ft deep, situated mostly below grade on the shoreline (Figure 3-8). 

Effluent would exit the weir chamber through a 36-in.-diameter discharge pipe to a diffuser line 

containing multiple ports that discharge approximately 3 ft above the bottom of Parr Reservoir. 

The proposed diffuser design has 20 ports, each with an inside diameter of 7 in., spaced 3.67 ft 

apart (on center), and alternately opening upstream and downstream. The diffuser line would 

be approximately 70 ft long; the main pipe and bottom part of each diffuser port would be sunk 

into the bottom of the reservoir and stabilized with riprap (Figure 3-9) (SCE&G 2010a).
NUREG-1939

3-10 April 2011

Figure 3-6. Plan View of the Circulating-Water System Intake Structure (SCE&G 2009e)
April 2011

3-11 NUREG-1939

Figure 3-7. Cross-Section View of the Circulating-Water System Intake Structure (SCE&G 20
NUREG-1939

3-12 April 2011

Figure 3-8. Plan and Cross-Section Views of the Outfall Discharge System (SCE&G 2009e
April 2011

3-13 NUREG-1939

Figure 3-9. Plan and Cross-Section Views of the Outfall Discharge Ports (SCE&G 2009e
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-14 April 2011

Cooling Towers

Proposed Units 2 and 3 would use closed-cycle cooling towers to dissipate heat from both the

CWS and the SWS. As described in Section 3.1, each unit requires two cooling towers for the 

CWS; these are mechanical draft towers with circular concrete shells, approximately 275 ft in 

diameter at the base and 70 ft high, including the fans on top. In each tower, fans blow air 

across water sprayed through fine nozzles, removing heat from the water and rejecting that heat 

to the atmosphere. The four towers would be aligned north-south, located to the east, and 

extending slightly farther south of Units 2 and 3 (Figure 3-5). Each new unit would also have 

one cooling tower for the SWS, rectangular in shape, located adjacent to the AP1000 turbine 

building. These would also be mechanical draft cooling towers, each divided into two cells. 

3.2.2.3 Other Structures with a Permanent Environmental Interface

Roads, railroad lines, and buildings are the additional structures with a permanent 

environmental interface that would be built on the proposed site. Proposed new buildings 

associated with proposed Units 2 and 3 include the water-treatment plant, sanitary wastetreatment plant, and power transmission system.

Roads

An existing road network on the VCSNS site would provide access to and between the existing 

facilities. To support proposed Units 2 and 3, existing roads would be improved, and 

approximately 6 mi of new road would be constructed. New roadways would include an 

approximately 1.5-mi main access road from State Highway 213 (SC-213) near SCE&G’s New 

Nuclear Deployment Office to Units 2 and 3, a 0.33-mi heavy-haul road between the laydown 

and fabrication areas, a 1.5-mi access road between the Units 2 and 3 cooling towers and the 

raw-water intake structure on Monticello Reservoir, and a perimeter road around the new units. 

Parr Road and much of the existing access road between Parr Road and VCSNS Unit 1 would 

be upgraded for use as the main access for Units 2 and 3 building materials and worker traffic. 

In the vicinity of the new units, this access road would be rerouted to the east side of the rail line 

into the site (SCE&G 2010a). 

Railroad Lines

SCE&G owns a spur railroad line connecting the VCSNS site to the Norfolk Southern Railroad’s 

main line along the Broad River. The VCSNS railroad line, which terminates at Unit 1, would be 

rerouted and another spur added between the new units and their cooling towers (Figure 3-4, 

grid reference C4). SCE&G indicated that another spur might be added to serve the concrete 

batch plant, which would be located south of the site of the proposed cooling towers along the 

new main access road (Figure 3-5).
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-15 NUREG-1939

Water-Treatment Plant

A new water-treatment plant would be built near the proposed treatment plant intake on 

Monticello Reservoir approximately 1.5 mi northeast of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (Figure 3-4, grid 

reference E2) (SCE&G 2010a). Water would be pretreated as necessary at this treatment plant 

prior to supplying the plant service, potable, fire protection, and demineralized water systems.

Diesel-Generator Building

Diesel generators would be installed on the site to provide a backup source of power when the 

normal power source is disrupted. Combustion emissions would be released to the atmosphere 

from the generators only during emergency operations and periodic testing. Two diesel 

generators would be located in the AP1000 diesel-generator building; ancillary diesel generators 

would be located in the AP1000 annex building (SCE&G 2010a).

Turbine Building

The AP1000 turbine building would be a metal-sided rectangular structure rising 146 ft above 

grade, oriented with its long axis radiating from the containment structure. The turbine building 

would have a drain system that discharges to a wastewater retention basin connected to the 

blowdown sump, and a vent system for the condenser and turbine.

Radioactive Waste Facility

The AP1000 radioactive waste facility would be a steel-framed structure with a height of 

approximately 36 ft above grade. It would house the holding and processing systems for lowlevel liquid radioactive waste and solid radioactive waste. It also would house the collection and 

processing system for gaseous radioactive waste. Radioactive waste management is described 

in more detail in Section 3.4.3. Packaged solid wastes and liquid mixed wastes would be stored 

in the radioactive waste facility until shipment offsite for further processing or disposal. The 

environmental interfaces for the radioactive waste-treatment facility would be liquid effluent 

discharges to the blowdown discharge line, gaseous effluent venting, and solid waste handling 

for offsite shipment.

Sanitary Waste-Treatment Plant

SCE&G plans to build a new sanitary waste-treatment plant to support proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3. It would be sized to serve the operational workforce of both units (approximately 

800 workers) and would likely be built in the vicinity of Units 2 and 3. Effluent from the sanitary 

waste-treatment plant would be discharged to the blowdown sump where it would be mixed with 

cooling-tower blowdown before being discharged to Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a).
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-16 April 2011

Power Transmission System

In Sections 2.2.2 and 3.7 of its ER and in submittals describing selected transmission-line 

routes (SCE&G 2010a, c; MACTEC 2009; Pike 2010), SCE&G described the power 

transmission system that would connect proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to the power grid. 

A new 230-kV switchyard occupying about 28 ac would be constructed approximately 1000 ft 

northwest of Units 2 and 3 (Figure 3-4, grid reference B3). Once the switchyard is completed, it 

would be fenced off to limit access; the switchyard is considered to minimally interface with the 

environment during normal operation. Several transmission lines would be built on the VCSNS 

site to connect the new 230-kV switchyard to existing transmission lines and to the Unit 1 

switchyard (Figure 3-4, grid reference C2). Table 3-1 lists the proposed new 230-kV 

transmission lines for VCSNS Units 2 and 3.

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

Transmission Line Owner

Total 

Length 

(mi)

Length in 

Existing 

Rights-ofWay (mi)

Length Parallel 

and Adjacent to 

Existing Rightsof-Way (mi)

Length of 

New 

Rights-ofWay (mi)

VCSNS onsite connector lines SCE&G 5 0 0 5

VCSNS-Killian SCE&G 37 31 0 6

VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2 

and VCSNS-St. George 

No. 1 common corridor

SCE&G 22 22 0 0

VCSNS-St. George No. 2 

(between VCSNS site and 

common corridor with 

VCSNS-St. George No. 1)

SCE&G 18 18 0 0

VCSNS-St. George No. 1 and 

No. 2 common corridor 

(Lake Murray to St. George

substation)

SCE&G 76(a) 76(a) 0 0

VCSNS-Flat Creek Santee Cooper 72 55 17 0

VCSNS-Varnville Santee Cooper 167 144 22 0.5

Sources: FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008, 2009; SCE&G 2010a, c; SCE&G 2010c; Pike 2010

(a) VCSNS-St. George No. 1 and St. George No. 2 common corridor length obtained by difference: total line length 

for St. George No. 1 of 98 mi, less 22 mi shared with VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2, is 76 mi; total line length for 

St. George No. 2 of 94 mi, less 18 mi between VCSNS site and beginning of common corridor with St. George 

No. 1, is also 76 mi.
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-17 NUREG-1939

Transmission lines and corridors are considered to interface with the environment during 

operation because there are potential continuing impacts from electric fields, noise, and corridor 

maintenance. Each new unit would be connected to the new switchyard by two overhead lines. 

Three overhead lines would connect the new switchyard with the existing Unit 1 switchyard. 

Ten 230-kV transmission lines (eight owned by SCE&G, two owned by Santee Cooper) and one 

115-kV line presently connect the Unit 1 switchyard with the regional transmission system. 

However, the existing transmission system at VCSNS does not have the capacity to support 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

As noted in Section 2.2.2, six new 230-kV lines (three for each unit) would be required to 

connect the new units to the regional power grid. The proposed routes of the new transmission 

lines are described in Section 2.2.2 and shown in Figure 2-5. Where possible, the new lines 

occupy, expand, or parallel existing transmission-line corridors (SCE&G 2010c; MACTEC 2009;

Pike 2010). The VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2, VCSNS-St. George No. 1, and VCSNS-St. 

George No. 2 lines were routed within existing rights-of-way, and VCSNS-St. George No. 1 and 

VCSNS-St. George No. 2 lines share a common corridor for most of their length (Pike 2010). 

The longest proposed new line, VCSNS-Varnville, would be routed within existing rights-of-way

except for about 23 mi of new right-of-way, and the majority of new right-of-way is located 

parallel and adjacent to existing rights-of-way (MACTEC 2009). The VCSNS-Flat Creek line 

would require 17 mi of new right-of-way, all of which is located parallel and adjacent to existing 

rights-of-way (MACTEC 2009). The VCSNS-Killian line would be routed within existing rightsof-way except for the last 6 mi between Blythewood and Killian, which would be a new right-ofway that is not parallel or adjacent to existing rights-of-way (see Figure 2-5). 

Most of the new lines would connect to existing substations or switchyards, but one new 

substation and several substation additions and upgrades would be needed to support VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2010d). SCE&G proposes to build a new substation on approximately 

14 ac of SCE&G-owned property near St. George, South Carolina, to connect the new doublecircuit VCSNS-St. George line. The Lake Murray, Winnsboro, and Varnville substations would 

be enlarged by approximately 2.1 ac, 1.5 ac, and 4.1 ac, respectively. The Killian, Pomaria, 

Sandy Run, Richburg, and Flat Creek substations would be upgraded within existing footprints, 

so they would not require additional acreage (SCE&G 2010d). As with the onsite switchyard, 

the substations are considered to minimally interface with the environment once they are built. 

Structures associated with the transmission-line corridors are support towers and access roads. 

Where a new line would be sited alongside an existing corridor, that corridor might require 

widening and/or moving of existing structures (widths of the existing corridors vary from 50 ft to 

240 ft). While the specific structure design depends on the terrain and engineering properties of 

the soil along the route, all tower structures would be designed so that span clearances meet or 

exceed National Electrical Safety Code standards, and all structures would be properly 

grounded (SCE&G 2010a). Towers on the two Santee Cooper lines would be either H-frame or 
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-18 April 2011

single-pole design (MACTEC 2009). Single poles range from 55 ft to 80 ft tall and would usually 

be spaced 400 ft to 500 ft apart; the H-frame poles can be 75 ft to 110 ft tall and spaced 700 ft 

to 800 ft apart (MACTEC 2009). SCE&G expects to use single steel or concrete poles, which 

are standard for its 230-kV lines. These poles are typically 85 ft to 105 ft tall, and spaced 500 ft 

to 800 ft apart depending on the topography and land cover (FP&S 2008).

3.2.2.4 Other Structures with a Temporary Environmental Interface

Some temporary plant-environment interfacing structures would need to be removed before 

proposed Unit 3 operation commences. These include a concrete batch plant, a temporary 

sewage treatment plant, and dewatering systems. The impacts from the operation and 

installation of these structures are discussed in Chapter 4. 

Concrete Batch Plant

A concrete batch plant would occupy approximately 12 ac located south of the VCSNS Units 2 

and 3 cooling towers, adjacent to the new main access road and a 28-ac laydown area 

(Figure 3-4, grid references C4, C5). This area would house the equipment and facilities 

needed for delivery, materials handling and storage, and preparation of concrete. Water for the 

concrete batch plant would come from the Jenkinsville Water District until the planned watertreatment facility for Units 2 and 3 is completed and operational (SCE&G 2010a).

Temporary Sanitary Waste-Treatment Plant

A temporary sanitary waste-treatment plant would be placed near the main building-support 

area (Figure 3-4, grid reference D6). This treatment plant would serve approximately 350 

workers in the support area (onsite workers would be served by portable toilet facilities and by 

the proposed permanent sanitary waste-treatment system when that system becomes 

operational) (SCE&G 2010a). The discharge location for the temporary sanitary wastetreatment plant would be finalized as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permitting process; proposed locations are Mayo Creek, Parr Reservoir, or 

the Broad River (SCE&G 2010a).

Dewatering Systems

Dewatering is expected to be a localized activity associated with dredging or excavation 

(SCE&G 2010a). Submersible pumps would be used to dewater the shoreline areas at the 

intake and discharge structure locations; these pumps would discharge to the adjacent surface 

water. Deep excavation in the powerblock region might require temporary installation of 

dewatering sumps and pumps, which would discharge to the stormwater-management system. 
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-19 NUREG-1939

3.2.3 Structures with a Minor Environmental Interface

The structures described in the following sections would have minimal environmental interface 

during plant operation.

3.2.3.1 Nuclear Island and Annex Building

Each AP1000 nuclear island would consist of a containment building, a shield building, and an 

auxiliary building. The foundation for the nuclear island would be an integral base mat that 

supports these buildings. The steel containment structure would be completely surrounded by 

the shield building and the auxiliary building. The containment foundations would be 

approximately 40 ft below grade. The construction materials would be “architecturally similar to 

Unit 1” (SCE&G 2010a), i.e., generally concrete or steel, for a similar external appearance. The 

tallest building would be the shield building at approximately 229 ft above grade; the auxiliary 

building would be approximately 80 ft above grade. The annex building would be a concreteand-steel structure that would rise to a height of approximately 81 ft above grade and provide 

personnel access to the plant and house plant-support systems and equipment. 

3.2.3.2 Cranes and Footings

A 250-ft-tall crane on a concrete footing would be used to erect Units 2 and 3. Other cranes 

may be used for materials handling and erection. 

3.2.3.3 Pipelines

New pipelines would be constructed to convey water from the raw-water intake to the proposed 

Units 2 and 3 cooling towers, from the water-treatment plant intake to the water-treatment plant, 

from the water-treatment plant to the Units 2 and 3 SWS, from the various water systems to the 

blowdown sump, and from the blowdown sump to the discharge structure on Parr Reservoir. 

The locations of these structures and the pipeline routes are shown in Figure 3-4 and 

Figure 3-5. The blowdown discharge pipe would be 36-in. in diameter and would be buried in a 

trench parallel to the railroad line. 

3.2.3.4 Support, Laydown, and Spoils Areas

Multiple construction support and laydown areas would be established to support fabrication 

and erection activities and might be maintained as laydown areas for future maintenance and 

refurbishment of the plant. In Revision 2 of its ER, SCE&G provided an updated construction 

utilization plan that consolidated several of the laydown and spoils areas into fewer construction 

support areas (SCE&G 2010a). Two construction support areas located near the facility

entrance on either side of the new main access road, just north of the existing New Nuclear 

Deployment Office, would contain temporary offices, warehouses, and sanitary, craft, and 

training facilities (Figure 3-4). Other laydown, fabrication, parking, and support areas would 
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-20 April 2011

range in size from 14 ac to 62 ac. Earthwork and dredge spoils would be placed in a 62-ac 

spoils area located approximately 4500 ft south of Units 2 and 3, (Figure 3-4, grid reference B5). 

3.2.3.5 Parking

Parking areas would be created to support the construction workforce and some parking would 

be retained for the operating workforce once plant installation is completed. Temporary parking 

areas would be in the vicinity of the plant, support, and laydown areas identified in Figure 3-4. 

The permanent parking area for the operating workforce would be approximately 800 spaces, 

located west of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (Figure 3-4).

3.2.3.6 Miscellaneous Buildings

A variety of small miscellaneous buildings would exist throughout the site to support worker, 

fabrication, building, and operational needs (e.g., shop buildings, support offices, warehouses, 

and guard houses). Some buildings may be temporary and would be removed after the plant 

begins operation.

3.3 Construction and Preconstruction Activities

The NRC’s authority is limited to construction activities that have “a reasonable nexus to 

radiological health and safety or common defense and security” (72 FR 57416), and the NRC 

has defined “construction” within the context of its regulatory authority. Examples of 

construction (defined at 10 CFR 50.10(a)) activities for safety-related structures, systems, or 

components include driving of piles; subsurface preparation; placement of backfill, concrete, or 

permanent retaining walls within an excavation; installation of foundations; or in-place assembly, 

erection, fabrication or testing.

Other activities related to building the plant that do not require NRC approval (but may require a 

DA permit) may occur before, during, or after NRC-authorized construction activities. These 

activities are termed “preconstruction” in 10 CFR 51.45(c) and may be regulated by other local, 

State, Tribal, or Federal agencies. Preconstruction includes activities such as site preparation 

(e.g., clearing, grading, erosion control and other environmental mitigation measures); erection 

of fences; excavation; erection of support buildings or facilities; building service facilities 

(e.g., roads, parking lots, railroad lines, sanitary treatment systems, potable water system, 

transmission lines); and procurement or fabrication of components occurring somewhere other 

than the final, in-place location at the proposed site. Further information about the delineation of 

construction and preconstruction activities is presented in Chapter 4 of this EIS.

This section describes the structures and activities associated with building proposed Units 2 

and 3. Table 3-2 provides general definitions and examples of activities that would be 

performed when building the new units. This section characterizes the activities for the principal 

structures to provide the requisite background for the assessment of environmental impacts; it is 

not intended to be a complete discussion of every activity or a detailed engineering plan. 
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-21 NUREG-1939

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

and 3 

Activity Description Examples

Clearing Removing vegetation or existing structures from 

the land surface.

Cutting planted pines from an area to be 

used for construction laydown.

Grubbing Removing roots and stumps by digging. Removing stumps and roots of pines logged 

from the construction laydown area.

Grading Reforming the elevation of the land surface to 

facilitate operation of the plant and drainage of 

precipitation.

Leveling the site of the reactors and cooling 

towers.

Hauling Transport of material and workforce along 

established roadways.

Driving on new access road by construction 

workforce.

Paving Laying impervious surfaces, such as asphalt 

and concrete, to provide roadways, walkways, 

parking areas, and site drainage.

Paving the parking area.

Shallow excavation Digging a hole or trench to a depth reachable 

with a backhoe. Shallow excavation may not 

require dewatering.

Placing pipelines; setting foundations for 

small buildings.

Deep excavation Digging an open hole in the ground. Deep 

excavation requires equipment with greater 

vertical reach than a backhoe. Deep excavation 

generally requires dewatering systems to keep 

the hole from flooding.

Excavating the base mat for the reactor.

Excavation 

dewatering

Pumping water from wells or pumping water 

directly to keep excavations from flooding with 

groundwater or surface runoff.

Pumping water from reactor building deep 

excavation.

Dredging Removal of substrates and sediment in 

navigable waters, including wetlands. 

Preparing the location of the outfall diffuser 

in Parr Reservoir.

Spoils placement Placement of construction (earthwork) or 

dredged material in an upland location.

Relocating dredge spoils from Parr 

Reservoir discharge area to an upland 

dredge disposal area.

Erection Assembly of all modules into their final 

positions, including all connections between 

modules.

Using a crane to assemble reactor modules.

Fabrication Creating an engineered material from the 

assembly of a variety of standardized parts. 

Fabrication can include conforming native soils 

to some engineered specification (e.g., 

compacting soil to meet some engineered fill 

specification).

Preparing concrete for pours; laying rebar 

for base mat.

Vegetation 

management

Thinning, planting, trimming, and clearing 

vegetation.

Maintaining the switchyard free of 

vegetation.

Filling a wetland or 

waterbody

Discharge of dredge and/or fill material into 

waters of the United States, including wetlands. 

Placing fill material into wetlands to bring it 

to grade with the adjacent land surface.
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-22 April 2011

3.3.1 Major Affected Areas

SCE&G has stated (SCE&G 2010a) that building activities for proposed Units 2 and 3 would 

occur within the boundaries of SCE&G’s property (Figure 3-4), except for the new transmission 

lines described in Sections 2.2.2 and 3.2.2.3. Access roads for Units 2 and 3 would enter the 

property from the south; the railroad spur enters from the west. The blowdown discharge 

pipeline would share the railroad corridor between Units 2 and 3 and the discharge structure on 

Parr Reservoir. The intake structures would be on Monticello Reservoir at the north end of the 

property. The following sections briefly describe the construction and preconstruction activities 

associated with the structures described in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.

Landscape and Stormwater Drainage

Preparing to build and operate proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would require land to be cleared 

and graded for the main reactor buildings and support facilities and additional space for material 

and equipment laydown areas. The details of the alterations are discussed in the following 

sections. After the site is graded, a stormwater-drainage system would be created around the 

facilities to direct stormwater away from the operational areas. Drainage ditches and pipes 

would route surface water to three water-retention and/or infiltration ponds. The locations of 

these ponds (retention basins) are shown in Figure 3-5. 

Powerblock and Cooling Towers

Preparing the locations for the powerblock and cooling towers would be the largest and most 

complex activity on the site (Figure 3-5). Deep excavation and extensive fill placement and 

large-scale fabrication and erection activities would be involved in building the AP1000 units. 

The cooling towers would require extensive grading, filling (including a portion of a wetland), 

shallow excavation, and fabrication and erection activities. Building the diesel-generator facility 

would involve limited fabrication and erection. Various components would be hauled to the site 

by railroad and road. Railroads and roads would be built or upgraded on the VCSNS site, 

particularly in the immediate vicinity of Units 2 and 3 and their cooling towers.

Excavation Dewatering

Setting the reactor-shield building foundation would require excavation to about 40 ft to 50 ft 

below grade level. The water table in this area is about 27 ft to 34 ft below grade level 

(SCE&G 2010a). Dewatering systems would be installed if required. At a minimum, SCE&G 

expects to install drainage sumps at the bottom of the excavation to facilitate the removal of 

surface drainage. Water from the excavations would be pumped to the stormwatermanagement system (SCE&G 2010a). 

Shallow excavation for foundations for other buildings and trenching for pipelines are not 

expected to require dewatering.
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-23 NUREG-1939

Intake Structures 

Installing the intake structure for the CWS would require excavation or dredging below the water 

level of Monticello Reservoir. Approximately 10,000 yd3 of material would be removed from an 

approximately 25,000-ft2 area (SCE&G 2009a, b). The dredged material would be relocated to 

the onsite spoils disposal area (Figure 3-4, grid reference B5). SCE&G has proposed the 

placement of a temporary cofferdam that would enclose an area to be excavated and dewatered 

to facilitate building the proposed intake structure, which would extend out into the Monticello 

Reservoir. The cofferdam would be surrounded by a turbidity curtain, which is a floating 

geotextile material designed to deflect and contain sediment within a limited area and provide 

sufficient residence time to settle soil particles, thereby minimizing sediment transport from a 

disturbed area adjacent to or within a body of water. Water removed from within the cofferdam 

would be discharged outside the cofferdam and inside the turbidity curtain (SCE&G 2010a). 

Fabrication of the CWS intake structure would occur after excavation and dredging to reach the 

necessary elevation for the bottom of the structure. After excavation and dredging, the pump 

house would be erected and the necessary electrical systems and piping would be installed to 

create an operational intake structure. 

Similar activities would be required to prepare for and fabricate the intake structure for the 

water-treatment plant intake on Monticello Reservoir. A cofferdam would be installed to allow 

dewatering of the work area; a turbidity curtain would be used to control suspended sediment 

during dewatering. Options considered by SCE&G include a rock-filled cofferdam enclosing the 

entire access pier and wet well structure, or a localized sheet-pile cofferdam enclosing only the 

wet well (SCE&G 2009d). This intake structure would also require installation of pilings to 

support the access pier. Piling installation would be done from within or from the top of the 

rock-filled cofferdam if that option was implemented, or from a barge platform if the localized 

cofferdam option was implemented. All wet well installation activities would occur within the 

cofferdam: a concrete foundation would be poured on compacted base material and the 

precast concrete wet well sections would be attached to the base. 

Discharge Structure

Installation of the blowdown-discharge diffuser in Parr Reservoir would require the creation of 

an enclosure that can be dewatered and excavated or dredged. Sheet pile would be driven into 

the bottom of Parr Reservoir approximately 1.25 mi above Parr Shoals Dam to create the 

enclosure; it would extend 100 ft offshore to allow excavation of the reservoir bottom and 

emplacement of the diffuser pipe. Approximately 11,000 yd3 of material would be removed from 

an approximately 24,000-ft2 area (SCE&G 2009a, b). The dredged material would be relocated 

to the onsite spoils disposal area (Figure 3-4, grid reference B5).
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-24 April 2011

Roadways

Building the heavy-haul road and the site-access roads would require clearing and grading of land 

along the proposed routes shown in Figure 3-4 (SCE&G 2010a). The new main access road 

would cross Mayo Creek just north of the construction-support area near the SCE&G New 

Nuclear Deployment office and approximately 1 mi southeast of proposed Units 2 and 3.

Railroad Lines

Relocating the existing rail line and adding any new rail spurs would require clearing, grading, 

and fill placement in the locations of the new rail lines.

Water-Treatment Plant

Building the water-treatment plant would involve shallow excavation, fabrication, and erection on 

a cleared, graded area.

Sanitary Waste-Treatment Plant

Building the sanitary waste-treatment plant would involve shallow excavation and limited 

fabrication and erection. The facility would be designed in accordance with industry standards 

and in compliance with the Clean Water Act and NPDES permit requirements.

Pipelines

Laying pipelines would occur in several areas on the site. The pipelines connecting the waterintake structure to the cooling-tower basins would run south from the intake structure along 

currently existing roads. The pipelines connecting the water-treatment plant to Units 2 and 3 

would run west from the water-treatment plant along existing roads. The blowdown lines would 

run west from the cooling-tower basins along the rail corridor to Parr Reservoir and along the 

shoreline to the diffuser location approximately 1.25 mi above Parr Shoals Dam. The intake, 

treated-water, and discharge pipelines would generally be buried in trenches. Pipeline 

installation would require the clearing of land along the pipeline corridor and shallow excavation 

(trenching). 

Concrete Batch Plant

Erecting the temporary concrete batch plant would occur on a cleared, graded area.

Construction Support and Laydown Areas

Establishing and preparing laydown areas would be necessary to stage activities. Prior to and 

during construction and preconstruction, materials would be brought to the site and stored in 
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-25 NUREG-1939

laydown areas. SCE&G expects to clear and grade laydown areas in various locations on the 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 sites. Support and laydown areas would be graded relatively 

level and covered with crushed stone or gravel. Normally only limited vegetation is allowed in 

laydown areas.

Parking

Parking areas would be graded and paved.

Miscellaneous Buildings

Excavating for shallow foundations would be required prior to fabrication and erection of 

miscellaneous buildings.

Switchyard

Clearing and grading approximately 47 ac of land would be required surrounding and including

the proposed 230-kV switchyard. Electrical switching structures would be erected and the 

switchyard would be fenced (SCE&G 2010a).

Transmission Lines

Installation of transmission lines would require the removal of trees and shrubs along portions of 

the transmission-line corridor, movement of construction equipment, and shallow excavation for 

the foundations of the transmission-line towers.

Cranes and Crane Footings

Fabrication of footings and erection of cranes would be necessary to build the larger plant 

structures.

3.3.2 Summary of Resource Commitments During Construction and 

Preconstruction

Table 3-3 provides a list of the significant resource commitments of construction and 

preconstruction. The values in the table combined with the affected environment described in 

Chapter 2 provide the basis for the impacts assessed in Chapter 4. These values were stated 

in the ER and supplemental information (SCE&G 2010a, c; Pike 2010), and the review team has 

confirmed that the values are not unreasonable.
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-26 April 2011

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

Construction and Preconstruction 

Resource Areas Value Parameter Description

All resource areas 123 mo

(10.25 yr) 

Duration of construction and preconstruction 

activities for two AP1000 units

Land use, terrestrial ecology, 

historic and cultural resources 

(site and vicinity)

556 ac Disturbed area footprint:

180 ac temporarily disturbed

Land use, terrestrial ecology, 

historic and cultural resources 

(offsite, transmission lines)

12 mi

39 mi

ranging from 

50 ft to 250 ft 

Length of new transmission-line corridors: 5 mi 

onsite connector lines; 6 mi on Killian line; less 

than 1 mi on Varnville line

Length of new transmission-line right-of-way that 

would parallel or widen existing corridor: 17 mi 

on Flat Creek line, 22 mi on Varnville line

Final width of new and expanded corridors 

(assuming these would be similar to existing 

corridors)

Hydrology – groundwater 40 ft to 50 ft 

below grade

Excavation depth to which dewatering would be 

required

Hydrology – surface water, 

aquatic ecology

420 gpm 

(1 cfs)

Water supply (maximum) obtained from 

Monticello Reservoir and Jenkinsville Water 

District

17,500 gpd 

(12.1 gpm, 

0.03 cfs)

Effluent discharge to surface water, temporary 

sanitary waste-treatment plant

Transportation, air quality 2170 workers Average workforce over 10-year period: first 

quarter of year 2 through fourth quarter of year 

11; number of workers is above average for 5.5 

years from the first quarter of year 5 through the 

second quarter of year 10

Socioeconomics 3600 workers Maximum workforce: peak occurs in year 6; 

more than 3000 workers would be onsite from 

the third quarter of year 5 to the second quarter 

of year 9

Terrestrial ecology, 

nonradiological health, 

socioeconomics

108 dBA

60-80 dBA

Peak noise level

Noise level 400 ft from activity
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-27 NUREG-1939

3.4 Operational Activities

The operational activities considered in the review team’s environmental review are those 

associated with structures that interface with the environment, as described in Section 3.2.2. 

Examples of operational activities are withdrawing water for the cooling system, discharging 

blowdown water and sanitary effluent, and discharging waste heat to the atmosphere. Safety 

activities within the plant are discussed by the applicant in the FSAR portion of its application 

(SCE&G 2010b). The results of NRC’s safety review will be documented in its Safety 

Evaluation Report.

The following sections describe the operational activities, including operational modes 

(Section 3.4.1), plant-environment interfaces during operations (Section 3.4.2), and the 

radioactive and nonradioactive waste-management systems (Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4), and 

summarize the values of resource parameters likely to be experienced during operations in 

Section 3.4.5.

3.4.1 Description of Operational Modes

The operational modes for proposed Units 2 and 3 considered in the assessment of operational 

impacts on the environment (Chapter 5 of this EIS) are normal operating conditions and 

emergency shutdown conditions. These are considered the conditions under which maximum 

water withdrawal, heat dissipation, and effluent discharges occur. Cooldown, refueling, and 

accidents are alternate modes to normal plant operation during which water intake, coolingtower evaporation, water discharge, and radioactive releases may change from nominal 

conditions.

3.4.2 Plant-Environment Interfaces During Operation

This section describes the operational activities related to structures with an interface to the 

environment. 

3.4.2.1 Intake Structures

Monticello Reservoir would be the source of water involved in the operation of proposed Units 2 

and 3. Water would be pumped from Monticello Reservoir to supply cooling water to Units 2 

and 3 at the CWS intake and to supply other plant water systems at the water-treatment plant 

intake structures described in Section 3.2.2.2. Under normal operating conditions for both units, 

the CWS withdrawal rate would be approximately 36,000 gpm; the maximum combined 

pumping rate to supply both units with raw makeup water would be approximately 59,000 gpm. 

The water withdrawal rate for the water-treatment plant would be approximately 1000 gpm 

under normal conditions and 3000 gpm maximum. The normal case assumes the cooling 

towers are operating at four cycles of concentration; the maximum assumes the cooling towers 
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-28 April 2011

are operating at two cycles of concentration. The systems would be operated at four cycles of 

concentration unless high suspended solids concentrations in Monticello Reservoir occurred. 

Under elevated suspended solids conditions, two cycles of concentration would be used to 

prevent scale formation or deposition from degrading tower performance (SCE&G 2010a).

Each CWS intake pump would be protected by a debris-exclusion system consisting of a bar 

screen to trap large debris and a dual-flow traveling screen to filter out fine debris. The intakeapproach channel and pump-bay structures are designed so that the maximum through-screen 

velocity would be less than 0.5 fps at the minimum water elevation in Monticello Reservoir. At 

the water-treatment plant intake, the end of the intake pipe would be inside a concrete wet well 

(a chamber used to collect liquid) in Monticello Reservoir. Screens in the side of the wet well 

allow water to pass into the wet well while excluding debris. The maximum through-screen 

velocity at the water-treatment plant intake would also be less than 0.5 fps at the minimum 

water elevation in Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a; SCE&G 2009d).

3.4.2.2 Cooling Towers

Waste heat is a byproduct of normal power generation at a nuclear power plant. VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 would each have two closed-cycle wet-cooling towers to dissipate heat from the 

CWS to the atmosphere. Two CWS cooling towers are designed to dissipate a heat load of 

7.63 x 109 Btu/hr (1.53 x 1010 Btu/hr for both units) (SCE&G 2010a). Each unit would also have 

one SWS cooling tower, which, during normal operation, is expected to dissipate a heat load of 

1.03 x 108 Btu/hr through one of its two cells. If increased cooling capacity were needed, such 

as during plant cooldown, both cells would be used to dissipate a maximum heat load of 

3.46 x 108 Btu/hr (6.92 x 108 Btu/hr maximum for both units) (SCE&G 2010a). 

Excess heat in the cooling water would be transferred to the atmosphere by evaporative and 

conductive cooling in the cooling tower. In addition to evaporative losses, a small percentage of 

water would be lost in the form of droplets (drift) from the cooling towers, potentially causing 

visible plumes. Water lost to evaporation and drift is considered consumptive use because the 

water is not available for reuse. As with water withdrawal, the normal case assumes the cooling 

towers are operating at four cycles of operation and the maximum case assumes two cycles of 

concentration. SCE&G provided the following consumptive use rates in the ER (SCE&G 

2010a). The CWS normal and maximum evaporation rates would be 27,160 and 29,400 gpm, 

respectively. The SWS normal and maximum evaporation rates would be 480 and 1380 gpm, 

respectively. The drift rates of 13 gpm for the CWS and 1 gpm for the SWS would not change 

with the number of cycles of concentration (SCE&G 2010a). 
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-29 NUREG-1939

3.4.2.3 Discharge Structure

CWS and SWS Cooling-Tower Blowdown

The cooling water that does not evaporate or drift from the towers would be routed back to the 

cooling-tower basin at the base of each tower. The closed-cycle cooling-water loop is 

completed when cooled water is pumped from the cooling-tower basins back to the condenser

and heat exchangers. Evaporation of water from the cooling tower increases the concentration 

of dissolved solids in the cooling-water system. To limit the concentration of dissolved solids, a 

portion of the cooling water would be removed as blowdown and replaced with makeup water 

from Monticello Reservoir. Some waste heat would be removed from the cooling system with 

the blowdown water. The maximum blowdown water temperature was estimated to be 91.8°F 

(SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G estimated the normal CWS blowdown flow rate to be 9041 gpm 

(maximum 29,387 gpm) and the normal SWS blowdown flow rate to be 159 gpm (maximum 

459 gpm). 

The blowdown water from each cooling tower would collect in a basin at the base of the tower. 

Time spent in the basin allows for settling of suspended solids, and chemical treatment if 

required, prior to discharging to the blowdown sump and eventually to Parr Reservoir. SCE&G 

plans to maintain the chemical concentration factor for the CWS cooling tower between two and 

four cycles of concentration. As noted previously, the CWS would be operated at four cycles of 

concentration unless high suspended solids concentrations in Monticello Reservoir occurred. If 

suspended solids were elevated, two cycles of concentration would be used to prevent scale 

formation or deposition from degrading tower performance (SCE&G 2010a). The estimated 

mean and maximum concentrations of chemicals in blowdown from proposed VCSNS Units 2 

and 3 are tabulated below the applicable State water-quality criteria in Table 3-4. 

Other Plant Wastewater

Miscellaneous low-volume wastewater would flow from various equipment and floor drains to 

building sumps. Sumps in the turbine building and diesel fuel oil area would discharge 

wastewater to an oil separator to isolate waste oil from wastewater. The turbine building sumps 

would be monitored for radioactive material; if detected then wastewater would be routed to the 

liquid radioactive waste-processing system. The common discharge piping of the sump pumps 

would also be monitored for radioactive material. If radioactive material was detected in this 

piping, the monitor alarm would trip the sump pumps and retention-basin pumps to isolate 

radioactive wastewater. Under normal conditions, nonradioactive wastewater would be pumped 

to a wastewater retention basin and mixed with cooling-tower blowdown in the blowdown sump 

(Figure 3-10). SCE&G estimated the normal wastewater discharge rate from the wastewater 

retention basin to be 144 gpm (maximum 431 gpm) (SCE&G 2010a). 
NUREG-1939

3-30 April 2011

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

Category

Constituent Concentration (μg/L)

ArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercury NickelSelenium

ilver

S

South Carolina PQLs(a) 5 50 0.1 5 10 20 2 50 10 0.0005 10 5 5 

South Carolina CMCs for 

freshwater aquatic life(b)

340 — 0.53 — 3.8 — 14.0 — — 1.6 150 — 0

South Carolina MCLs(b) 10 2000 5 100 — — — — — 2 — 50 — 

Mean and maximum 

values calculated from 

SCDHEC and SCE&G 

monitoring(c,d)

Mean 0 18 0.1 5.0 0 241 2.0 1856 8.9 0.0005 9.2 0 5

Max 0 18 0.1 5.0 0 600 2.0 1856 21 0.0005 10 0 5

Four-cycle 

concentration in 

blowdown at point of 

discharge(d)

Mean 0 71 0.4 20 0 962 8.0 7424 36 0.002 37 0 20 

Max 0 71 0.4 20 0 2400 8.0 7424 84 0.002 40 0 20 

Diluted blowdown

effluent concentration

at Broad River's 7Q10 

flow(d)

Mean 0 19 0.1 5.5 0 264 2.2 2034 9.8 0.00055 10 0 5

Max 0 19 0.1 5.5 0 657 2.2 2034 23 0.00055 11 0 5

Diluted blowdown

effluent concentration

at Broad River's 

annual mean flow(d)

Mean 0 18 0.1 5.0 0 244 2.0 1881 9.0 0.00051 9.3 0 5

Max 0 18 0.1 5.1 0 608 2.0 1881 21 0.00051 10 0 5

Source: Adapted from SCE&G 2010a

PQL = practical quantitation limit; MCL = maximum contaminant level; CMC = criterion maximum concentration; 7Q10 = lowest flow for 7 conse

expected to occur once per decade; MDL = method detection limit

(a) South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) 2008a

(b) SCDHEC Water Classifications and Standards Regulation (R. 61-68), effective April 25, 2008 (SCDHEC 2008b)

(c) Mean and maximum concentrations from SCDHEC monitoring at station B-327 (EPA 2006) and SCE&G monitoring of Monticello Reservo

(Table 2.3-32)

(d) A single analytical result with an MDL exceeding the applicable PQL was available for silver. SCE&G used a value for the incoming water 

concentration for sliver equal to the PQL of 5 μg/L. Although this value exceeds the relevant SCDHEC CMC, SCE&G does not believe the 

data for silver supports a conclusion that the water quality in Monticello Reservoir is degraded or that the blowdown effluent would degrade 

quality in Parr Reservoir. Future NPDES permit evaluations for the blowdown discharge would confirm protection of water quality.

Blowdown flow rate (normal) is 9383 gpm

Broad River at VCSNS 7Q10 382,800 gpm

Broad River annual mean flow at VCSNS 2,828,000 gpm
April 2011

3-31 NUREG-1939

Figure 3-10. Water-Use Summary Diagram (SCE&G 2009a)
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-32 April 2011

The liquid radioactive waste-treatment system discharges to the blowdown pipeline downstream 

of the blowdown sump. SCE&G estimated the liquid radioactive waste-treatment system 

discharge flow rate to be approximately 3 gpm (maximum 200 gpm). However, the discharge 

flow rate would be adjusted to make sure radionuclide levels would be maintained below 

permitted discharge limits (SCE&G 2010a).

Sanitary Wastewater-Treatment Plant 

The expected sanitary-system effluent flow rate is 36 gpm under normal operating conditions 

and 70 gpm maximum (SCE&G 2010a). Liquid effluent from the sanitary wastewater system 

would be discharged to the blowdown sump where it would be combined with cooling-tower 

blowdown water before being discharged to Parr Reservoir (Figure 3-10).

Sludge generated from the sanitary wastewater-treatment system would be disposed of in an 

approved manner, including shipment offsite or disposal at an approved onsite location. 

Nonradioactive waste management is described further in Section 3.4.4.

Water-Treatment Plant

The water-treatment plant that would provide treated water to other plant water systems 

(service, demineralized, potable, and fire protection water systems) would return 49 gpm of 

water to Monticello Reservoir under normal operating conditions and 150 gpm maximum 

(SCE&G 2010a). This effluent would discharge into the existing Unit 1 cooling-water discharge 

canal that discharges into Monticello Reservoir (Figure 3-1).

Stormwater-Management System

The stormwater-management system for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be designed to 

direct runoff away from buildings via drainage ditches and swales to stormwater-retention 

basins. Water from the stormwater-retention basins (shown in Figure 3-5) would ultimately

discharge to Mayo Creek to the east, an unnamed creek to the south, or an unnamed creek to 

the west. The two unnamed creeks flow into Parr Reservoir; Mayo Creek flows into the Broad 

River below Parr Shoals Dam. The design and operation of the stormwater systems for the 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would comply with NPDES stormwater regulations 

administered by the SCDHEC.

3.4.2.4 Power Transmission System

As noted in Section 3.2.2.3, transmission lines and corridors are considered to interface with the 

environment during plant operation, because there are potential continuing impacts from electric 

fields, noise, and corridor maintenance. Corridor maintenance requires controlling woody 

vegetation and maintaining access roads. Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper have established 

procedures for transmission system inspection and for maintenance of transmission-line 
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-33 NUREG-1939

corridors using both chemical (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]-registered 

herbicides) and mechanical (tree trimming, mowing, hand clearing) means of vegetation control 

(SCE&G 2009c, 2010a; Sott 2006; MACTEC 2008, Appendix B). 

3.4.2.5 Emergency Diesel Generators

Proposed Units 2 and 3 would each have two 4000-kW standby generators and two 35-kW 

ancillary diesel generators. Emissions from these generators include particulates, sulfur oxides, 

carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide (SCE&G 2010a). When 

operated, the generators would produce gaseous emissions that would comply with all 

emissions standards, including EPA Tier 4 requirements governing diesel emissions being 

phased in over the 2009–2015 period. Gaseous releases would comply with levels permitted by 

the SCDHEC (SCE&G 2010a).

3.4.3 Radioactive Waste-Management System

Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste-management systems would be used to collect 

and treat the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating proposed Units 2 and 3. 

These systems would process radioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid effluents to maintain 

releases within regulatory limits and to levels as low as is 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”). The radioactive 

waste-management systems are not shared between the existing Unit 1 and proposed Units 2 

and 3. Radioactive materials in the reactor coolant would be the primary source of gaseous, 

liquid, and solid radioactive wastes in AP1000s. 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 could escape the fuel rods into the reactor coolant. 

Neutron activation of the primary coolant system would also add radionuclides to the coolant.

The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) for the VCSNS (SCE&G 2007) describes the 

methods and parameters used for calculating offsite radiological doses from liquid and gaseous 

effluents. The ODCM also describes the methodology for calculation of gaseous and liquid 

monitoring alarm/trip set points for release of effluents from VCSNS. Operational limits for 

releasing liquid and gaseous effluents are also specified in the ODCM to ensure compliance 

with NRC regulations.

The systems used to process liquid, gaseous, and solid wastes are described in the following 

sections. A more detailed description of these systems for proposed Units 2 and 3 can be found 

in Chapter 11 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2008). Solid radioactive 

wastes produced from operating proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be both dry and wet 

solids.
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-34 April 2011

3.4.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste-Management System

The liquid radioactive waste-management system functions to control, collect, segregate, 

process, handle, store, and dispose of liquids containing radioactive material such that any 

discharged liquid effluents are below concentration levels specified in 10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix B, Table 2 (Westinghouse 2008). The system uses several process trains consisting 

of tanks, pumps, ion exchangers, and filters and is designed to handle both normal and 

anticipated operational occurrences. Normal operations include processing of: (1) borated, 

reactor-grade waste water, (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.

Liquid waste is discharged in batches, with flow rates controlled during discharge to maintain 

acceptable concentrations when diluted by other nonradioactive liquid effluents, primarily 

cooling tower blowdown (SCE&G 2010a). The diluted liquid radioactive waste would be 

discharged into the blowdown discharge pipeline below the blowdown sump, and ultimately 

discharged to Parr Reservoir. The rate of discharge into the blowdown discharge pipeline is 

controlled and monitored to make sure the average annual effluent concentration limits from 

10 CFR Part 20 are not exceeded. The calculated dose to the maximally exposed individual 

(MEI) from liquid effluents is evaluated in Section 5.9.2 of this EIS.

3.4.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste-Management System

The gaseous radioactive waste-management system functions to collect, process, and 

discharge radioactive or hydrogen-bearing gaseous wastes. It is a once-through, ambient 

temperature, activated carbon delay system (Westinghouse 2008). 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 and 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 containment during operation. The gaseous 

radioactive waste-management system is typically active only when monitored gaseous 

concentrations reach a given threshold. Waste gas flows through a guard bed that removes 

iodine, oxidizing chemicals, and moisture. From the guard bed it flows through two delay beds 

containing activated carbon that dynamically adsorbs and desorbs the gases, delaying them 
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-35 NUREG-1939

long enough for significant radioactive decay to occur. The gaseous system can only delay 

noble gases, not collect them. If noble gases monitored in the coolant reach a threshold value, 

then the reactor coolant is diverted to the liquid radioactive waste-management system where 

the noble gases can be collected using the degasifier.

Radioactive gaseous effluents from the system described above are discharged through the 

plant vent, which is on the side of the containment building about 183 ft above grade level 

(Westinghouse 2008). The rate of discharge into the atmosphere is controlled and monitored to 

verify that the average annual effluent concentration limits from 10 CFR Part 20 are not 

exceeded (SCE&G 2010a). The calculated dose to the MEI from gaseous effluents is evaluated 

in Section 5.9.2 of this EIS.

3.4.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste Management System

The solid radioactive waste-management system functions to treat, temporarily store, package, 

and dispose of dry or wet solids. Solid radioactive wastes include spent ion-exchange resins, 

deep-bed filtration media, spent filter cartridges, dry active wastes, and mixed wastes. The 

system has a 60-year design objective and is designed to handle both normal and anticipated 

operational occurrences. The packaged wastes would be temporarily stored in the auxiliary and 

radwaste buildings prior to being shipped to a licensed disposal facility. The AP1000 solid 

waste-management system releases no gaseous or liquid effluent directly to the environment. 

This system discharges effluent through the liquid and gaseous waste-management systems.

The expected total annual volume of solid radioactive waste treated and shipped would be 

1964 ft3

/yr from each unit with an expected total activity of radioactive material shipped from 

each unit of 1764 Ci/yr (SCE&G 2010a). The maximum total annual volume of solid radioactive 

waste shipped from each unit is estimated at 5717 ft3/yr with a maximum total activity of

radioactive material of 33,670 Ci/yr.

The storage and transportation of used reactor fuel is discussed in Chapter 6, Fuel Cycle, 

Transportation, and Decommissioning.

3.4.4 Nonradioactive Waste-Management Systems

The following sections provide descriptions of the nonradioactive waste systems proposed for 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3, including systems for chemical (including biocide), sanitary, and other 

effluents. All discharges to surface waters would be regulated by an NPDES permit that would 

limit the volume and constituent concentrations.

3.4.4.1 Effluents Containing Chemicals or Biocides

Water withdrawn from Monticello Reservoir for use in the CWS and the SWS would be treated 

with both biocides and other chemicals. The biocides would be used to control biofouling of the 
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-36 April 2011

systems, and other chemicals would be added to control scaling, corrosion, and solids 

deposition (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G estimated the amount, frequency of use, and 

concentrations of chemicals and biocides for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (Table 3-5). While 

some variation occurs in chemical treatment to meet particular water-use needs, plant effluents 

are required to be within regulated discharge limits (i.e., 40 CFR Part 423). Natural constituents 

in Monticello Reservoir in the vicinity of the VCSNS site are provided in Table 2-11. As 

described in Section 3.4.2, naturally occurring chemicals and trace minerals in the makeup 

water would be concentrated up to four times in the blowdown prior to discharge to Parr 

Reservoir (Table 3-4). 

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

Chemical-Type / Specific Frequency of Use

Concentration in 

Waste Stream

Biocide/sodium hypochlorite 1.5 hr/d 0.05 ppm residual chlorine

Algaecide/quaternary amine Intermittent <10 ppm

pH adjustment/sulfuric acid Continuous 10 ppm

Corrosion Inhibitor/ortho-polyphosphate Continuous 14.5 ppm

Silt dispersant/polyacrylate Continuous 25 ppm 

Scale inhibitor/phosphonate Continuous 1.5 ppm

Coagulant/polyaluminum chloride Intermittent 0.000042-0.00013 lb/gal

Anti-scalant/polyacrylate Intermittent 150-450 ppm polyacrylate

Oxygen scavenging/hydrazine 2.5 hr/yr or 1.25 hr per shutdown 100 ppm hydrazine(a)

pH adjustment/ammonium hydroxide 20.7 hr/yr or 10.4 hr per 

shutdown

100 ppm ammonia(a)

Source: SCE&G 2010a

(a) If the steam generator is drained to the wastewater system.

3.4.4.2 Sanitary System Effluents

As described in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.4.2, a new sanitary wastewater-treatment plant would be 

installed to serve the operational needs of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. This plant would process 

sanitary water and waste to meet local and State regulations for effluent quality as specified in 

the NPDES permit (SCE&G 2010a). The sanitary wastewater-treatment plant would discharge 

36 gpm of treated wastewater (70 gpm maximum) to the blowdown sump and thereafter to Parr 

Reservoir. Sludge from treatment plant holding tanks would be managed according to 

SCDHEC regulation, either by disposal in a landfill or onsite at a location approved by SCDHEC 

(SCE&G 2010a; SCDHEC 2009).

3.4.4.3 Other Effluents

The plant wastewater system is designed to manage liquid effluent streams that would contain 

pollutants from system flushing wastes during startup; oil, grease, and suspended solids from 
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-37 NUREG-1939

floor drains; corrosion and wear of plant piping and equipment; and liquid waste generated 

during maintenance or inspection activities. These waste streams would be collected in sumps, 

processed (e.g., through an oil separator), and discharged to a retention basin (normal plant 

wastewater) or pond (startup flushing) for settling of solids. Liquid from the retention basin 

(144 gpm normal, 431 gpm maximum) and startup pond (intermittent) would be pumped to the 

blowdown sump for discharge to Parr Reservoir (Figure 3-10). 

The new water-treatment plant that would pretreat water for the SWS and other plant water 

systems would return 49 gpm water (150 gpm maximum) to Monticello Reservoir via the 

existing Unit 1 discharge canal (Figure 3-4, grid reference D2).

Nonradioactive solid wastes include typical solid waste (garbage, wood, paper, metal), and 

nonradioactive resins, filters, and sludge. SCE&G would recycle or recover scrap metal, 

aluminum, oil, antifreeze, batteries, cardboard, and paper. Nonradioactive resins would be 

disposed of in an industrial landfill. Oil and solids periodically collected from the wastewater 

processing system would also be shipped offsite for disposal. As noted above, sanitary 

treatment plant sludge would be applied at an SCDHEC-approved location onsite, or shipped 

offsite for disposal at a permitted facility (SCE&G 2010a).

Being classified as a large-quantity generator of hazardous waste, any such waste generated at 

the VCSNS site would be temporarily stored onsite and then disposed of offsite at a permitted 

facility (SCE&G 2010a). Hazardous wastes would be managed in compliance with Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act and South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Act 

requirements.

3.4.5 Summary of Resource Commitments During Operation

Table 3-6 provides a list of the significant resource commitments involved in operating Units 2 

and 3. The values in the table, combined with the affected environment described in Chapter 2 

of this EIS, provide a part of the basis for the operational impacts assessed in Chapter 5. These 

values were stated in the ER, and the review team has determined that the values are not 

unreasonable.
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-38 April 2011

Table 3-6. Resource Commitments Associated with Units 2 and 3 Operation

Resource(s) Value Description

Hydrology-surface water, 

aquatic ecology

37,183 gpm 

(83 cfs)

61,791 gpm 

(138 cfs)

Normal operational raw-water withdrawal from Monticello 

Reservoir, all cooling towers for both units operating at four 

cycles of concentration

Maximum operational water withdrawal from Monticello 

Reservoir, all cooling towers for both units operating at two 

cycles of concentration

Hydrology-surface water, 

meteorology-air quality

27,160 gpm

(61 cfs)

29,400 gpm

(66 cfs)

Normal CWS evaporation rate

Maximum CWS evaporation rate

Meteorology-air quality, 

terrestrial ecology

13 gpm

13 gpm

Normal CWS drift rate

Maximum CWS drift rate

Hydrology-surface water 27,751 gpm 

(62 cfs)

31,094 gpm 

(69 cfs)

Normal consumptive water use (all systems combined)

Maximum consumptive water use (all systems combined)

Hydrology-surface water 9383 gpm 

(21 cfs)

30,547 gpm 

(68 cfs)

Normal discharge flow rate to Parr Reservoir (all systems 

combined, 98 percent is blowdown)

Maximum discharge flow rate to Parr Reservoir (all systems 

combined, 98 percent is blowdown)

Hydrology-surface water, 

aquatic ecology

78.7°F

70.8°F to 86.6°F

91.8°F

Average blowdown temperature 

Range of modeled monthly blowdown temperatures

Maximum blowdown temperature 

Terrestrial ecology, 

meteorology-air quality

70 ft CWS cooling-tower height

Terrestrial ecology 229 ft above 

plant grade

Tallest building height (shield building)

Socioeconomics 800 workers

1000 workers

Normal operating workforce for two units

Additional workforce during periodic refueling outages lasting 3 

to 5 weeks

Terrestrial ecology, 

nonradiological health, 

socioeconomics

71 dBA

55 dBA

55 dBA

CWS cooling-tower sound level at 200 ft

CWS cooling-tower sound level at 1000 ft

Diesel generators sound level at 1000 ft

Uranium fuel cycle, 

transportation, need for

power

3400 MW(t)

1200 MW(e)

93 MW(e)

Thermal power rating per unit

Gross electrical output per unit (87°F circulating water cold 

water temperature)

Station load per unit

Uranium fuel cycle, 

transportation

93 percent Expected annual capacity factor
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-39 NUREG-1939

3.5 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 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

40 CFR Part 423. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 423, “Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.” 

71 FR 4464. January 27, 2006. “AP1000 Design Certification.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. “Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (Also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act [FWPCA]).

Facilities Planning & Siting, PLLC (FP&S). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 

Transmission Line Siting Study SCE&G. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas 

(SCE&G). Charlotte, North Carolina. Accession No. ML082680277. 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper. Prepared for Santee Cooper, 

Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082680275. 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2009. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper—Revision #1. Prepared for 

Santee Cooper, Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Accession No. ML102160577.

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

Pike Energy Solutions, LLC (Pike). 2010. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 

Transmission Line Siting Study Addendum Number 1. Prepared for South Carolina Electric & 

Gas Company. Charlotte, North Carolina. Accession No. ML102980200. 
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-40 April 2011

Sott, K.R. 2006. Santee Cooper – Transmission Vegetation Management Program. Accession 

No. ML090641089. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008a. NPDES 

Attachment Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs) and Approved Test Methods, updated January 

9, 2008. Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML091050731.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008b. R.61-68, 

Water Classifications & Standards. Effective April 25, 2008. Columbia, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML100200687.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009. Sludge 

Program. Accessed on September 17, 2009 at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/sludgepage.htm. Accession No. ML093280959. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual for South 

Carolina Electric and Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Revision 26. 

Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML081280582 and ML072910571. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 

and R.B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report 

Audit Information Needs: G-3, GW-4, HP-6, HP-10, HP-11, LU-4, and SE-1.” NND-09-0148. 

June 1, 2009. Accession No. ML091550479. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to letters from R.B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, 

and P.J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): Alt-3, AqEco-7, CR-3, 

GW-6, Met-1, SEcon-6, and SW-2.” NND-09-0184. July 13, 2009. Accession No. 

ML092010266. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to letters from R.B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, 

and P.J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): TLine-2 and 3.” NND09-0198. July 20, 2009. Accession No. ML092030443. 
Site Layout and Plant Description

April 2011 3-41 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to letter from R.B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, 

“Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, 

Combined License Application – Supplemental Response to NRC Environmental Report (ER) 

Information Needs NP-1, AQ-11 and AQ-13.” NND-09-0320. November 20, 2009. Accession 

No. ML093310245.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009e. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 2, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML101930231. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010b. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 3, Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina. Accession No. ML102440523. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010c. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated October 6, 2010, referencing submittal of Revision 2 to 

Part 3 (Environmental Report) of the Combined License Application for the V.C. Summer 

Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 

3 Combined License Application – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 – Voluntary Submittal 

for the Environmental Report to Update Transmission Line Information.” NND-10-0361. 

Accession No. ML102850211. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010d. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated November 15, 2010, referencing submittal of Revision 2 

to Part 3 (Environmental Report) of the Combined License Application for the V.C. Summer 

Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 

3 Combined License Application (COLA) – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 – Response to 

Clarification Request Concerning RAI-TLine-1.” NND-10-0423. Accession No. ML103220144. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. EPA STORET Data Warehouse, South 

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Water Quality Data for Parr Reservoir 

and Monticello Reservoir, last updated 3/9/2006. Accessed December 7, 2009 at 

http://www.epa.gov/storet/dw_home.html. Accession No. ML090630368. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Final 

Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, Washington, D.C. 
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1939 3-42 April 2011

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

ML083230868. 
April 2011 4-1 NUREG-1939

4.0 Construction Impacts at the VCSNS Site

This chapter examines the environmental issues associated with building the proposed nuclear 

reactor Units 2 and 3 at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site as described in the 

application for combined construction permits and operating licenses (COLs) submitted to the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) 

(SCE&G 2008). As part of its application, SCE&G submitted an Environmental Report (ER) 

(SCE&G 2009a, 2010a), which discusses the environmental impacts of building, operating, and 

decommissioning proposed Units 2 and 3 and a Final Safety Analysis Report (SCE&G 2009b, 

2010b), which addresses safety aspects of construction and operation. 

In addition, SCE&G submitted the Combined Application of South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and 

Necessity and for a Base Load Review Order for the Construction and Operation of a Nuclear 

Facility in Jenkinsville, South Carolina, to the Public Service Commission of South Carolina 

(PSCSC) on May 30, 2008. The final order provided by the PSCSC approving the combined 

application and Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and 

Necessity (CPCN) was issued to SCE&G on March 2, 2009 (PSCSC 2009). 

As discussed in Section 3.3 of this environmental impact statement (EIS), the NRC’s authority 

related to building new nuclear generating units is limited to “activities that have a reasonable 

nexus to radiological health and safety and/or common defense and security” (72 FR 57416). 

Many of the activities required to build a nuclear power plant do not fall within the NRC’s 

regulatory authority and, therefore, are not “construction” as defined by the NRC. Such activities 

are referred to as “preconstruction” activities in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 51.45(c). The NRC staff evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the 

construction activities that would be authorized with the issuance of a COL. The environmental 

effects of preconstruction activities (e.g., clearing and grading, excavation, and erection of 

support buildings) are included as part of this EIS in the evaluation of cumulative impacts.

As described in Section 1.1.3, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is working as a 

cooperating agency on this EIS consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

(USACE and NRC 2008). The NRC and USACE concluded that entering into a cooperative 

agreement on preparation of this EIS is the most effective and efficient use of Federal resources 

in the environmental review of impacts associated with building proposed Units 2 and 3 at the 

VCSNS site. The goal of this cooperative agreement is to develop one EIS that provides all of 

the environmental information and analyses needed by the NRC to make a license/permit 

decision and all of the information needed by the USACE to perform analyses, draw 

conclusions, and make a permit decision in the USACE’s Record of Decision (ROD) 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-2 April 2011

documentation. To accomplish this goal, the environmental review described in this EIS was 

conducted by a joint NRC/USACE review team. The review team was composed of NRC staff, 

its contractor’s staff, and USACE staff. 

The information needed by the USACE includes information to perform (1) analyses to 

determine that the proposed action is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative 

(LEDPA), and (2) its public interest assessment. To perform the public interest assessment, the 

USACE considers the following public interest factors: conservation, economics, aesthetics, 

general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic and cultural resources, fish and wildlife 

values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, 

recreation, water supply, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, and 

mineral needs.

Many of the impacts the USACE must address in its LEDPA analysis are the result of 

preconstruction activities. Also, most of the activities conducted by a COL applicant that would 

require a Department of the Army (DA) permit would be related to preconstruction. On March 2, 

2010, SCE&G submitted an application to the USACE for a permit to conduct the following 

activities: filling, dredging, excavating, grading, removing or destroying vegetation, and 

building structures. The permit application was revised on December 16, 2010. A Public 

Notice advertising the revised application is being issued to coincide with the public availability 

of this EIS.

While both NRC and the USACE must meet the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), both agencies also have additional requirements 

related to their permitting or licensing authorities. The NRC‘s regulatory authority is based on 

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2011, et seq.). The USACE’s regulatory 

authority related to the proposed action is based on Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 USC 403), which prohibits the obstruction or alteration of 

navigable waters of the United States without a permit from the USACE, and Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251, et seq), which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material 

into waters of the United States without a permit from the USACE. Therefore, an applicant may 

not commence preconstruction or construction activities in jurisdictional waters, including 

wetlands, without a DA permit. The permit would typically be issued after the USACE’s 

evaluation and public feedback in the form of public comments on its environmental review. 

Because the USACE is a cooperating agency under the MOU for this EIS, the USACE’s ROD of 

whether to issue a permit will not be made until after public comment on the revised USACE 

permit application has been received and considered. 

The collaborative effort of the NRC and the USACE in presenting their discussion of the 

environmental effects of building the proposed project, in this chapter and elsewhere, must 

serve the needs of both agencies. Consistent with the MOU, the staff of the NRC and the 

USACE collaborated in: (1) the review of the COL application and information provided in 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-3 NUREG-1939

response to requests for additional information (developed by the NRC and the USACE) and 

(2) the development of the EIS. NRC regulations (10 CFR 51.45(c)) require that the impacts of 

preconstruction activities be addressed by the applicant as cumulative impacts in its ER. 

Similarly, the NRC’s analysis of the environmental effects of preconstruction activities on each 

resource area would be addressed as cumulative impacts, normally presented in Chapter 7. 

However, because of the collaborative effort between the NRC and the USACE in this 

environmental review, the combined impacts of construction activities that would be authorized 

by the NRC with its issuance of a COL and the preconstruction activities are presented in this 

chapter. For each resource area, the NRC also provides an impact characterization solely for 

construction activities that meet the NRC’s definition of construction at 10 CFR 50.10(a). 

Thereafter, both the assessment of the impacts of 10 CFR 50.10(a) construction activities and 

the assessment of the combined impacts of construction and preconstruction activities are used 

in the description and assessment of cumulative impacts in Chapter 7 of this EIS. 

In addition to guidance provided in NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan 

(NRC2000), staff used guidance provided in NRC Staff Memorandum Addressing Construction 

and Preconstruction Activities, Greenhouse Gas Issues, General Conformity Determinations, 

Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative Impact Analysis, and Cultural/Historical 

Resources Analysis Issues In Environmental Impact Statements (NRC 2010) to address 

preconstruction and construction activities and impacts (NRC 2010c). For most environmental 

resource areas (e.g., aquatic ecology), the impacts are not the result of either solely 

preconstruction or solely construction activities. Rather, the impacts are attributable to a 

combination of preconstruction and construction activities. For most resource areas, the 

majority of the impacts would occur as a result of preconstruction activities.

This chapter is divided into 13 sections. In Sections 4.1 through 4.8 and Section 4.10, the 

review team evaluates the potential impacts on land use, meteorology and air quality, water use 

and quality, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics, environmental justice, historic 

and cultural resources, nonradiological health effects, and nonradioactive waste. In Section 4.9, 

the NRC staff assesses the potential radiological health impacts to construction workers. An 

impact category level – SMALL, MODERATE or LARGE – of potential adverse impacts has 

been assigned by the review team for each resource area using the definitions for these terms 

established in Chapter 1. In some resource areas, for example, in the socioeconomic area 

where the impacts of taxes are analyzed, the impacts may be considered beneficial and would 

be stated as such. The review team’s determination of the impact category 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 (discussed throughout this 

chapter), are implemented. Failure to implement these upgrades might result in a change in the 

impact category level. Possible mitigation of adverse impacts, where appropriate, is presented 

in Section 4.11. A summary of the construction impacts is presented in Section 4.12. Citations 

for the references cited in this chapter are listed in Section 4.13. The technical analyses 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-4 April 2011

provided in this chapter support the results, conclusions, and recommendations presented in 

Chapters 7, 9, and 10 of this EIS.

The review team’s evaluation of the impacts of construction of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

draws on information presented in SCE&G’s ER, supplemental documents, the USACE’s 

permitting documentation, as well as other government and independent sources. 

4.1 Land-Use Impacts

This section provides information about the land-use impacts associated with site-preparation 

activities and building of Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. Topics discussed include land-use 

impacts at the site and in the vicinity of the site and land-use impacts within transmission-line 

corridors and on offsite areas.

4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be located southwest of the existing Unit 1 on the VCSNS site. 

The VCSNS site encompasses about 3600 ac of land and water entirely owned by SCE&G. 

The review team estimates that roughly 556 ac at the site would be required for the new units, 

including all laydown areas and support functions, which would include onsite transmission-line 

improvements. Additional land disturbance would occur to install a new cooling-water makeup 

pipeline between VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and Monticello Reservoir. The location of Units 2 and 3 

and supporting facilities is not classified as prime farmland. The site is not used as agricultural 

land or for mineral extraction, but is actively managed for forestry.

Impacts on specific land cover are reflected in the terrestrial habitat loss information presented 

in Section 4.3.1. Most of these losses consist of planted pine forest, including recently 

harvested planted pine forest, naturally vegetated pine forest, mixed pine-hardwood forest, and 

hardwood forest.

Based on SCE&G’s ER and updated transmission-line information (SCE&G 2010a; Pike 2010) 

and the review team’s characterization of site development activities in Section 3.3 of this EIS, 

the review team believes the following major activities would cause land-use impacts on the 

VCSNS site and in the vicinity:

• Approximately 290 ac would be permanently altered on the site to build VCSNS Units 2 and 

3 and associated infrastructure. This would include all excavation, trenching, and dredging 

for new intake and blowdown pipelines and the new water-treatment facility. It also would 

include clearing land for the new switchyard (48 ac) and onsite transmission-line corridors to 

link the new switchyard to the Unit 1 switchyard and to provide corridors for lines exiting the 

VCSNS site (51 ac).
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-5 NUREG-1939

• Approximately 180 ac within the plant site would be altered for temporary laydown and 

spoils storage. This area would include the concrete batch plant, spoils deposition areas, 

and temporary site support areas.

• A new 1.5-mi, four-lane, paved, main access road would link Parr Road with the VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 site, requiring approximately 18 ac on the site in addition to the affected areas 

above.

• A new 1.5-mi improved access road would link the Units 2 and 3 cooling-tower area to an 

intake structure at Monticello Reservoir, affecting about 3 ac of land on the site.

• Parr Road and South Lake Access Road would be upgraded to accommodate increased 

traffic, and approximately 3/4 mi of the South Lake Access Road would be relocated to run 

parallel to and east of the existing railroad spur into the site, terminating at the VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 discharge structure. About 2 ac of land on the site would be affected to 

accommodate the upgrading.

• The existing railroad line would be rerouted through a fabrication and laydown area between 

the new units and the cooling towers, and would be supplemented with an additional railroad 

spur. A new spur also may be routed into the unloading areas at the concrete batch plant. 

Norfolk Southern Railway’s existing railroad line also may require upgrades to support the 

heaviest loads. Upgrades may include installing new ballast or rail sections on the existing 

railroad bed, both on and off of the site. The review team expects these impacts to occur 

within the footprints described above.

• Dredging in Parr Reservoir (off of the site) would be required to establish the blowdown 

discharge for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Dredge spoils would be disposed of in the onsite spoils 

disposal area about 0.5 mi east of the river (see Figure 3-4 and Figure 4-1). Acreage used 

for this spoils disposal area is counted in the acreage reported for laydown and spoils 

storage.

• Miscellaneous disturbance of as much as 60 additional acres on the site.

Approximately 0.66 ac of wetlands on the VCSNS site would be affected by developing the 

proposed new units and associated infrastructure. Wetland impacts are discussed in greater 

detail in Section 4.3.1.

Land-clearing activities would be mitigated to the extent possible. SCE&G would use best 

management practices (BMPs) during site development and would conform to all applicable laws 

and regulations. Examples of expected mitigation activities include wetland avoidance, use of 

stormwater-management systems, and implementation of spill containment controls before earthdisturbing activities begin. Site-development activities that would affect land use include clearing, 

grubbing, grading and excavating, and stockpiling soils. Re-vegetation would comply with site 

maintenance and safety requirements. Permanently disturbed locations would be stabilized and 

contoured in accordance with design specifications. Methods to stabilize areas and prevent 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-6 April 2011

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

Site
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-7 NUREG-1939

erosion or sedimentation would comply with accepted engineering, construction practices, and 

recognized environmental BMPs (SCE&G 2010a).

Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

review team recognizes that land-use changes on the VCSNS site would be substantial and 

notes several planned mitigation activities SCE&G would implement to lessen impacts. 

New land-use impacts on the site were viewed by the review team in the context of the previous 

significant impacts from building Unit 1. The site has already been significantly altered by that 

development and the associated operations (timber harvesting, etc.), and the development of 

the site is consistent with current zoning ordinances, as described in Section 2.2.1. Therefore, 

the review team concludes that land-use impacts of the proposed action on the site and vicinity 

would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

4.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors and Other Offsite Areas

In its application for the two COLs, SCE&G proposed to build and operate two units at the 

VCSNS site, each with a rated net electrical output capacity of 1107 MW(e). As discussed in 

Section 2.2.2 of this EIS, the VCSNS site is connected to the regional power grid via existing 

230-kV transmission lines (see Figure 2-4). As illustrated in Figure 2-5, six new 230-kV 

transmission lines (four single-circuit lines and one SCE&G double circuit line) are planned to 

connect VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to the grid. Two of these lines would be owned by SanteeCooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public 

Service Authority) and routed almost entirely within existing transmission-line corridors 

(MACTEC 2009). The existing corridors and transmission lines were originally built to support 

the operation of VCSNS Unit 1. The other four lines would be owned by SCE&G. The precise 

routing of the SCE&G lines has not been determined, but the review team believes the corridors 

identified in Figure 2-5 are representative of the eventual routing.

The PSCSC requires any jurisdictional utility (this applies to SCE&G but not Santee Cooper) 

proposing to build “major facilities,” including transmission lines of 125 kV or more, to apply for a 

CPCN. PSCSC’s rules are found in Title 58, Chapter 33, of the South Carolina Code of Laws 

(SC Code Ann. 58-33). An applicant for a CPCN must provide PSCSC with “a summary of any 

studies that have been made by or for applicant of the environmental impact of the facility ....” 

The PSCSC may not grant a CPCN for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a major 

utility facility unless the applicant has adequately defined “the nature of the probable 

environmental impact” (SC Code Ann. 58-33-160(1)) and has determined that the impact on the 

environment is “...justified, considering the state of available technology and the nature and 

economics of the various alternatives” under consideration. 

According to SCE&G, once the need for additional generating capacity has been demonstrated, 

and the size and location of generating units have been determined, SCE&G analyzes 

transmission system requirements (SCE&G 2010a). Once the utility determines desired grid 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-8 April 2011

termination and connection points, it initiates the siting process to develop transmission-line 

corridors. SCE&G completed an initial siting study (FP&S 2008), identifying conceptual 

transmission lines, which the review team relied upon for the draft EIS. Subsequently, they 

completed a second study (Pike 2010) of the precise routing expected to be required to connect 

Units 2 and 3 to the grid.

The review team expects that SCE&G transmission-line corridors planned to connect VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 to the grid would require State certification, but the Santee Cooper lines would not 

require certification (SCE&G 2010a). Although the review team recognizes that State 

certification would not apply to Santee Cooper’s proposed transmission system improvements, 

in siting the new transmission-line corridors, Santee Cooper would consult with the South 

Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 

and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), and apply for a required 

permit. Santee Cooper’s transmission lines have been included in the single comprehensive 

Federal permit application revised by SCE&G on December 16, 2010.

In siting new transmission lines, SCE&G has indicated a number of areas to be avoided in the 

transmission-line siting process, if possible, including buildings, mines, airports, military 

facilities, parks, and wetlands. For any wetlands that are encountered, installation of 

transmission lines would be conducted in accordance with necessary State and Federal 

regulations to protect wetland areas.

The SCE&G transmission-line siting process relied on public involvement in the early stages of 

the search for viable corridors (SCE&G 2010a). The public provided recommendations to 

SCE&G to help narrow the number candidate routes for potential corridors. A second public 

review of potential routes provided input to SCE&G to further refine the proposed corridors. The 

established siting process and State certification process help ensure that environmental factors 

are addressed in addition to engineering and cost factors. Although Santee Cooper is not 

subject to the same State regulations as SCE&G, it followed a similar process for siting new 

transmission facilities (SCE&G 2010a).

SCE&G characterized the planned routes of the six new transmission lines as follows 

(SCE&G 2010c):

1. VCSNS-Killian – This SCE&G line would be routed to the vicinity of Winnsboro, South 

Carolina, and then generally follow the Interstate 77 (I-77) corridor to connect to the 

existing Killian substation near Killian, South Carolina, southeast of the VCSNS and 

northeast of Columbia, South Carolina. Of the 37 mi length, all but the final 6 mi of this line 

would be routed within existing SCE&G corridors. New corridor is planned for the final 6 mi

of the line, between Blythewood and Killian (SCE&G 2010c). Most of the new corridor 

would be located immediately adjacent to other existing rights-of-way such as roads or 

other utilities. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-9 NUREG-1939

2. VCSNS-Flat Creek – This Santee Cooper line would connect to the existing Winnsboro 

substation near Winnsboro, South Carolina, then to the existing Richburg switching station 

near Great Falls, South Carolina, and finally to the existing Flat Creek substation west of 

Lancaster, South Carolina, running about 72 mi in length (SCE&G 2010c). About 17 mi of 

new corridor running immediately adjacent to the existing corridor would be required 

(MACTEC 2009).

3. VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2 – This SCE&G line would connect to the existing Lake Murray 

switchyard for the McMeekin and Saluda Hydro stations near the eastern boundary of Lake 

Murray. About 22 mi of new line would be built within the existing Parr Hydro-Chapin and 

Saluda Hydro-Newberry corridors, and would be co-located with the proposed St. George 2 

line (SCE&G 2010c).

4/5. VCSNS-St. George No. 1 and 2 – These SCE&G lines originate at the proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 switchyard and run generally south to a proposed new substation near 

St. George, South Carolina. The St. George No. 1 line would share the existing Parr 

Hydro-Chapin and Saluda Hydro-Newberry corridors with the new SCE&G Lake Murray 

No. 2 line to the Lake Murray substation near the eastern shore of Lake Murray. The St. 

George No. 2 line would run parallel with the existing Lake Murray No. 1 line from VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 switchyard to the Lake Murray substation. The St. George No. 1 and 2 lines 

would intersect near the Lake Murray substation and run in a common corridor through 

existing rights-of-way to a proposed substation near St. George, South Carolina (Pike 

2010). These transmission lines would require approximately 98 mi of corridor (SCE&G 

2010c). 

6. VCSNS-Varnville – This 167-mi Santee Cooper line would connect to the existing Pomaria 

substation, then to Sandy Run substation near Sandy Run, then to Orangeburg substation 

in Orangeburg, South Carolina, then to the proposed Byrds substation near St. George, 

and finally to the existing Varnville substation near Varnville, Hampton County, South 

Carolina (SCE&G 2010c). About 22 mi of new corridor running immediately adjacent to the 

existing corridor and about 0.5 mi of entirely new corridor would be required (MACTEC 

2009). 

The expected land-use impacts associated with these corridors are given in Table 4-1. For 

land-use impact analysis, the review team performed its own analysis of the affected acreage, 

based on geographic information system (GIS) data provided by the applicant (SCE&G 

2010e, h). The review team used the specific GIS-based routes to determine what acreage 

would be affected, based on land-use and land-cover data from the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS 2001). The review team’s analysis indicates that as much as 2445 ac of land may 

require vegetation clearing to develop the transmission system for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

Several factors offset this impact. All but 6.5 mi of the proposed corridors requiring some 

corridor expansion would be located immediately adjacent to an existing transmission-line 

corridor or other utility corridor. Of the expected 392 mi of new transmission-line corridors, over 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-10 April 2011

346 mi would be placed within existing transmission-line corridors and not further fragment 

forest cover or other existing land uses. Corridors crossing agricultural areas would not remove 

affected land from agricultural production, although areas in the expected corridors currently 

used as tree farms that might be affected by corridor expansion activities may be converted to 

other agricultural production. 

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

Corridor Name

Termination 

Point

Total 

Corridor 

Length

(mi)

Length 

Utilizing

Existing 

Corridor 

(mi)

Length 

Requiring 

Expansion 

of Existing 

Corridor

(mi)

Length 

Requiring 

New 

Corridor 

(mi)

Corridor 

width 

(ft)

Land-Use 

Impact

(ac)

VCSNS-Killian Killian 

Substation

37 31 0 6 120 365

VCSNS-Lake Murray 

No. 2 and VCSNS-St. 

George No. 1 

common corridor

Lake Murray 

Switchyard

22 22 0 0 100 281

VCSNS-St. George No. 

2 (between VCSNS 

site and common 

corridor with VCSNSSt. George No. 1)

Junction with St. 

George No.1 

corridor

18 18 0 0 100 238

VCSNS-St. George No. 

1 and No. 2 common 

corridor (Lake Murray 

to St. George 

substation)

St. George 

Substation 

(proposed)

76(a) 76 0 0 100 1186

VCSNS-Flat Creek Flat Creek 

Substation

72 55 17 0 50-85 161

VCSNS-Varnville Varnville 

Substation

167 144 22 0.5 50-125 214

Totals 392 346 39 6.5 2445

Sources: SCE&G 2010a, e, h; MACTEC 2009; Pike 2010. Totals are affected by rounding. Acreages are estimated, based on GIS 

data provided by SCE&G. Where no corridor-width data were available, the review team estimated uniform 100-ft corridor widths for 

consistency.

Table 4-1 indicates that land disturbance to install transmission lines would affect 2445 ac. 

Acreage impacts associated with using existing SCE&G corridors would result from re-clearing 

previously cleared corridors or portions of existing rights-of-way that were never cleared as part 

of previous transmission-line installations. Table 4-2 illustrates the expected impact of clearing 

corridors through recently expanded or entirely new segments right-of-way. Table 4-2 indicates 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-11 NUREG-1939

that of the 2445 ac of land-use impacts expected from transmission-line installation, 426 ac 

would occur in entirely new or expanded corridor segments.

Table 4-2. Detailed Land-Use Impacts of New/Expanded Corridors

Land Use/Land Cover

Killian New 

Segment

Flat Creek New 

Segment

Varnville New 

Segment

Total New/

Expanded Corridor

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Fresh water 0.27 0.52 3.30 2.05 0.51 0.24 4.07 0.96

Marsh/emergent wetland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.18 0.38 0.09

Swamp 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.94 0.91 1.97 0.46

Bottomland/floodplain forest 5.22 10.23 7.46 4.63 8.72 4.07 21.40 5.02

Wet scrub/shrub thicket 0.30 0.58 1.47 0.91 8.76 4.09 10.52 2.47

Dry scrub/shrub thicket 4.30 8.42 12.75 7.92 22.24 10.39 39.28 9.22

Open canopy/recently 

cleared forest

10.54 20.66 42.77 26.56 70.06 32.74 123.37 28.96

Closed canopy evergreen 

forest/woodland

4.64 9.09 22.25 13.82 12.57 5.87 39.46 9.26

Needle-leaved evergreen 

mixed forest/woodland

9.60 18.83 15.18 9.43 16.72 7.81 41.50 9.74

Pine woodland 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.09

Dry deciduous 

forest/woodland

4.52 8.86 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.22 4.98 1.17

Mesic deciduous 

forest/woodland

3.11 6.09 21.31 13.23 17.52 8.19 41.93 9.84

Dry mixed forest/woodland 0.19 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.28 0.07

Mesic mixed 

forest/woodland

0.00 0.00 0.26 0.16 2.17 1.01 2.43 0.57

Grassland/pasture 1.62 3.18 23.79 14.78 7.01 3.28 32.43 7.61

Cultivated land 1.89 3.70 7.12 4.42 44.86 20.96 53.86 12.64

Urban development 3.06 6.00 1.86 1.15 0.00 0.00 4.92 1.16

Urban residential 1.72 3.38 1.10 0.68 0.00 0.00 2.82 0.66

Total Acreage 51.0 100.00 161.0 100.00 214.0 100.00 426.0 100.00

Sources: SCE&G 2010a, e, h; MACTEC 2009; Pike 2010. Totals are affected by rounding. Acreages are estimated by the review 

team based on GIS data provided by SCE&G. Where no corridor-width data were available, the review team estimated uniform 

100-ft corridor widths for consistency.

The most substantial land-use impacts would occur as a result of siting over 45 mi of entirely 

new or expanded transmission-line corridors in portions of the VCSNS-Killian, VCSNS-Varnville

and VCSNS-Flat Creek corridors. The majority of these new portions would be adjacent to

currently existing corridors. Clearing these new corridors would noticeably alter existing land 

uses on about 426 ac as current uses are converted to utility corridor use. The review team 

estimates, based analysis of GIS data supplied by the applicant (SCE&G 2010e, h), that about 

204 ac of forested land, some of which is currently devoted to silviculture production, would be 

cleared and converted to utility use or compatible agricultural use. Minimal plots of land would 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-12 April 2011

be removed from agricultural production where new transmission towers would be sited. Landclearing and transmission-line installation activities in the corridors would follow BMPs and 

forest clearing in wetlands would be mitigated to the extent required by the USACE. For 

example, agricultural access would not be precluded during the growing season.

Information about roads, housing, and indirect infrastructure impacts appears in Section 4.4 of 

this EIS. No impacts on offsite land uses (outside of the transmission-line corridors) are 

expected to result from the proposed action. 

Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent review, the 

review team concludes that because installation of new transmission lines in 392 mi of corridor

would require reconstruction of existing corridors and would convert land cover on about 

2445 ac of land (1171 ac of forested land), these impacts would be locally noticeable to the 

general public. The new corridors have been sited in existing corridors or adjacent to existing 

corridors to the extent practicable. Therefore, the review team concludes the land-use impacts 

of transmission-line installation would be MODERATE, but additional mitigation beyond the 

applicant’s commitments to use BMPs would not be warranted. 

4.1.3 Summary of Land-Use Impacts During Construction and Preconstruction

The review team evaluated the construction and preconstruction activities related to building 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and the potential land-use impacts at the site and vicinity, in the 

region, and in the potential transmission-line corridors. The review team determined that, 

because of the large amount of land owned by SCE&G at the VCSNS site and consistency with 

local zoning regulations, the land-use impacts of the proposed action would be SMALL at the 

site and in the vicinity, but MODERATE for proposed transmission-line corridors, because of the 

additional land required. Based on the above analysis, and because NRC-authorized 

construction activities represent only a part of the analyzed activities and do not include

transmission-line installation activities, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of NRCauthorized construction activities would be SMALL. The NRC staff concludes that no further 

mitigation measures beyond SCE&G’s commitments and mitigation required by the USACE

would be warranted.

4.2 Water-Related Impacts

Water-related impacts involved in building a nuclear power plant are similar to impacts that 

would be associated with the development of any large industrial site, and not much different 

than those seen while building VCSNS Unit 1. Prior to initiating onsite activities, including any 

site-preparation work, SCE&G would be required to obtain the appropriate authorizations 

regulating alterations to the hydrologic environment. These authorizations would likely include 

the following:
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-13 NUREG-1939

• Permit pursuant to both Section 10 of Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 and 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act issued by the Department of the Army

• Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification by the South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SCDHEC)

• Clean Water Act Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

and Industrial Stormwater Permits issued by SCDHEC

• Water and Sewer Connection Permits typically issued by a city, county or municipal district.

Hydrologic alterations are discussed in Section 4.2.1; water-use impacts are discussed in 

Section 4.2.2; water-quality impacts are discussed in Section 4.2.3; and water monitoring is 

discussed in Section 4.2.4. This section draws from material presented in SCE&G’s ER 

(SCE&G 2010a).

4.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations

Activities associated with building the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would affect several 

bodies of surface water and the aquifers underlying the site. Affected bodies of surface water 

include Monticello Reservoir, Parr Reservoir, Mayo Creek, and the Broad River below Parr 

Shoals Dam. Building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would require dredging for the installation of the 

blowdown discharge diffuser in Parr Reservoir and excavation and/or dredging for installation of 

the new intake structures for the circulating-water system and water-treatment plant on 

Monticello Reservoir. Other activities would require alteration of the land surface in the vicinity 

of the new units. The surface would be contoured to include surface-water drainage ditches 

and three stormwater-retention ponds to handle stormwater flows and allow suspended solids to 

settle prior to discharge to a waterbody. Other hydrologic alterations include clearing and 

grading for the new and upgraded roadways and for modifications to the railroad line (widening 

existing railroad line, rerouting, and adding a railroad spur). The railroad line to be widened is 

adjacent to a seasonal stream. The new main access road would cross Mayo Creek about 1 mi 

north of the main facility entrance. These land surface modifications would alter surface-water 

runoff flow patterns and would alter the infiltration properties of the land surface.

Intake structure sites on Monticello Reservoir would be dewatered with submersible pumps 

installed inside cofferdams. A well-point dewatering system may also be used to maintain a dry 

environment to allow for fabrication of each intake structure once excavation is completed. 

SCE&G plans to return this water to the reservoir via discharge behind a turbidity curtain. 

A turbidity curtain is a floating barrier of geotextile material designed to deflect and contain 

sediment within a limited area minimizing sediment transport within a body of water. 

SCE&G also indicated that dewatering activities to support open excavation, sheet-pile 

installation, or behind cofferdams may generate water that could be routed to a settlement basin 

(SCE&G 2010a).
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-14 April 2011

Hydrologic alterations to offsite surface waterbodies could occur during installation of the 

proposed new transmission lines discussed in Section 4.1.2. No surface water or groundwater 

would be used in the installation of these lines. Although the exact routes are not yet 

determined, proposed locations indicate the lines would cross numerous waterbodies and 

wetlands. BMPs would be applied for erosion and sedimentation control (SCE&G 2010a).

Onsite groundwater would not be used during construction and preconstruction activities for the 

proposed units, but it would be affected as a result of those activities. Conditions and activities 

that could affect groundwater levels and alter groundwater flow around VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

include the following: site grading that includes in-filling to the east of the site for cooling towers, 

changes in the hydraulic properties of the site due to emplacement of fill (structural and 

common fill), changes in recharge due to impervious surfaces and stormwater basins, and 

dewatering during excavation (SCE&G 2009c). As described in Section 2.3.1.2 of this EIS, the 

site is located on a hilltop where, due to the location of the site within the Piedmont 

Physiographic Province, the water table forms a subdued reflection of the topography, resulting 

in a groundwater divide beneath the proposed Units 2 and 3 locations. Site grading, the 

decrease in groundwater infiltration and recharge through impervious surfaces, and routing of 

runoff to stormwater basins would alter the groundwater flow locally around the hilltop but would 

not affect the broader groundwater flow in the area, particularly on the other side of surrounding 

surface waterbodies. Excavation dewatering would lower the water-table elevation locally and 

reduce the hydrostatic pressures in the deeper bedrock aquifer. The impacts of excavation 

dewatering are discussed more fully in Section 4.2.2.2, but the low aquifer yields in the area and 

large distance to water-supply wells minimize the impact of this temporary groundwater 

alteration.

Offsite impacts on groundwater from activities on the hilltop around VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would 

be limited by the influence of local bodies of surface water along the project boundaries (Mayo 

Creek, Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir). Alterations from excavation 

dewatering would be temporary with the aquifers recovering after pumping has stopped. Water 

from the powerblock excavations would be pumped to the stormwater-management system 

(SCE&G 2010a). Within this system, water would be routed to settlement basins before being 

discharged through an NDPES-permitted outfall.

In summary, the hydrologic alterations associated with construction and preconstruction 

activities on and in the vicinity of the VCSNS site would be limited to dredging for the intake and 

discharge structures, altering the surface topography, changes to runoff and infiltration 

characteristics (e.g., site grading, laydown yards, stormwater-collection trenches and basins), 

and dewatering the excavations for the nuclear island, intake structures, and discharge 

structures. Offsite hydrologic alterations are associated with the proposed new or expanded 

transmission-line corridors where they cross wetlands or surface waters. The impacts of 

hydrologic alterations resulting from both onsite and offsite activities would be localized and 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-15 NUREG-1939

temporary, and the required permits, certifications, and stormwater pollution prevention plan 

(SWPPP) call for the implementation of BMPs to minimize impacts.

4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts

The impacts of building a nuclear power plant on water use are similar to impacts that would be 

associated with the development of any large industrial site. This section includes identification 

of the proposed activities associated with building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 that could affect water 

use, and analysis and evaluation of proposed practices to minimize adverse impacts on water 

use by these activities. The impacts on the use of surface water and groundwater are 

discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2, respectively. Information in this section is drawn from 

the ER and supplemental information provided by SCE&G (2009b, 2010a).

4.2.2.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Use

Monticello Reservoir would supply water for construction and preconstruction activities for 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Water needs for building activities at the site would be similar to typical 

uses of water for large industrial projects. These uses include dust abatement, concrete mixing, 

and potable water needs. Peak water needs during preconstruction and construction activities 

are estimated to be 420 gpm (approximately 1 cfs) SCE&G (2010a). Assuming complete 

consumptive use, the peak withdrawal represents less than 1 percent of the 7Q10 (lowest flow 

for 7 consecutive days expected to occur once per decade) flow of 853 cfs estimated for Broad 

River at the Alston gauging station (SCE&G 2010a). The 7Q10 flow is used to assess the 

impacts of alteration on flow during low-flow periods. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC) approval is required for the withdrawal for cooling water by additional power plants. 

Until the proposed water-treatment plant is completed, water needed during construction and 

preconstruction activities would be supplied by the Jenkinsville Water Company. The 

Jenkinsville Water Company is a public source with enough excess capacity to meet the site’s 

needs (SCE&G 2010a). In addition to groundwater wells in Fairfield County, the water company 

also purchases water from other nearby water systems including the Town of Winnsboro. The 

Town of Winnsboro has significant excess capacity from surface-water sources (more than 

1 million gpd) (SCE&G 2010a; SCDNR 2005).

The impacts on surface water would be of limited duration. Peak water demands would 

represent a small portion of the available water. Based on the information provided by SCE&G 

and the above observations from the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team 

concludes that the impacts on surface water use during construction and preconstruction 

activities for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL, and no mitigation would be 

warranted. Based on the above analysis, and because NRC-authorized construction activities 

represent only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-16 April 2011

NRC-authorized construction activities would be SMALL, and no mitigation measures would be 

warranted.

4.2.2.2 Impacts on Groundwater Use

SCE&G stated “[t]here are no plans to use local groundwater for construction or operations of 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Construction of Units 2 and 3 power blocks requires temporary 

dewatering of the power block area” (SCE&G 2009c). However, “[c]urrently the dewatering 

plans the EPC [Engineer, Procure, and Construct] contractor is developing are conceptual and 

details on rates, durations, and discharge locations are still being established” (SCE&G 2009d). 

Due to the low hydraulic conductivity of the subsurface materials at the site (as described in 

Section 2.3.1.2 of this EIS), the review team determined that the excavation dewatering would 

be temporary and localized with minimal offsite impact.

As stated in Section 2.3.2.2 of this EIS, currently the closest water-supply well to the site is at a 

private residence approximately 1 mi east of the site (SCE&G 2010a). The nearest groups of 

wells, used for residences and stores, are located 1.5 mi east of the site and 2.5 mi southeast of 

the site (SCE&G 2010a). The closest location at which a water-supply well could be installed 

near the facility is on the nearest site boundary approximately 0.75 mi to the southeast 

(SCE&G 2009c). As discussed in Sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.2.2, groundwater well yields, both 

regionally and locally, are generally less than 30 gpm.

As mentioned in the previous section, until the proposed water-treatment plant is completed, 

water needed during construction and preconstruction would also be supplied by the 

Jenkinsville Water Company which utilizes groundwater wells in Fairfield County and purchases 

water from nearby water systems using mainly surface water. The review team acknowledges 

that a portion of water supplied to VCSNS until the treatment plant is constructed could be 

provided from groundwater pumped by one or more of the regional water supply utilities. 

However, even if the entire water supply came from groundwater, the groundwater use would 

only occur until the water treatment plant was completed and would not exceed the existing 

water supply capacity of these utilities. Therefore, this groundwater use would not significantly 

alter the region’s ability to meet groundwater demands.

Factors that limit the impacts of construction and preconstruction activities on groundwater use in 

the area are (1) limited and temporary excavation dewatering, which may be required for Units 2 

and 3; (2) the low groundwater pumping rates due to the generally low permeability of the 

aquifers in this area; (3) the relatively large distances to local groundwater supply wells; and 

(4) the site location that is partially isolated hydrologically from offsite users by surface 

waterbodies (Mayo Creek, Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir). As a result, 

the review team concludes that the groundwater use impacts of construction and preconstruction 

of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL and no mitigation would be warranted. Based on the 

above analysis, and because NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-17 NUREG-1939

the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of NRC-authorized construction 

would be SMALL, and no further mitigation measures would be warranted.

4.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts

The impacts of building a nuclear power plant on water quality are similar to impacts that would 

be associated with the development of any large industrial site. This section includes 

identification of the proposed activities associated with building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 that could 

affect water quality, and analysis and evaluation of proposed practices to minimize adverse 

impacts on water quality by these activities. The impacts on surface water and groundwater are 

discussed in Section 4.2.3.1 and Section 4.2.3.2, respectively.

4.2.3.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Quality

The activities associated with building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would occur close enough to 

Monticello Reservoir, Parr Reservoir, Broad River, and Mayo Creek that the impacts from these 

activities on the quality of surface water need to be considered. These impacts are discussed in 

SCE&G’s ER (SCE&G 2010a).

Section 4.2.1 of this EIS discusses the impact of surface-water runoff and the discharge of 

water from dewatering activities. These activities are regulated by NPDES permitting, FERC 

approval, adoption of a SWPPP, use of BMPs (for example using silt fences and routing 

stormwater runoff to sediment-retention basins), and by USACE permit approval. Construction 

of the discharge structure within the FERC Project Boundary Line requires FERC approval.

Activities related to road and railroad spur improvement could potentially affect water quality in 

Mayo Creek or other small creeks on the property as land clearing and grading increase the 

potential for runoff and erosion. Other activities associated with building the proposed units 

would occur in areas that drain into Mayo Creek, its tributaries, or small unnamed creeks to the 

south and east of the proposed new facilities. SCE&G would use BMPs for soil erosion controls 

and comply with applicable regulations designed to prevent stormwater runoff from affecting the 

water quality in Mayo Creek and other small streams (SCE&G 2010a).

The temporary sewage-treatment plant in place during the building of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

would use sodium hypochlorite disinfection and process up to 17,500 gpd (12.15 gpm). The 

location of the treatment plant, the waterbody receiving its effluent, and the discharge location 

would be established as part of the NPDES permitting process (SCE&G 2010a).

New transmission lines would need to be installed. Tower and line installation activities would 

comply with State and Federal guidelines and BMPs would be used to minimize impacts on 

water quality from erosion and sedimentation.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-18 April 2011

Because the impacts of hydrologic alterations resulting from activities associated with building 

the proposed units would be localized and temporary, and because the required permits, 

certifications, and the SWPPP call for the implementation of BMPs to minimize impacts, the 

review team concludes that the impacts on surface-water quality from activities related to 

construction and preconstruction of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL, and no further 

mitigation beyond the actions stated would be warranted. Based on the above analysis, and 

because NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of the analyzed 

activities, the review team concludes that the impacts of NRC-authorized construction would be 

SMALL, and no further mitigation measures beyond the BMPs would be warranted. 

4.2.3.2 Summary of Impacts on Groundwater Quality

SCE&G committed to quickly cleaning up “minor spills of diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, or 

lubricants” which would “mitigate impacts to local groundwater because spills would be quickly 

attended to and not allowed to penetrate into the groundwater” (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G also 

developed a spill prevention plan as a part of the SWPPP, which is a condition of the 

stormwater discharge permit issued by SCDHEC. The spill prevention plan lists BMPs that are 

implemented to minimize the potential for releases of pollutants during preconstruction and 

construction that would be followed as required by SCDHEC.

Factors that limit the impacts of preconstruction and construction activities on groundwater 

quality in the area are 1) SCE&G’s BMPs for spill prevention and control as mentioned above; 

2) the relatively large distances to local groundwater supply wells; and 3) the partial isolation of 

the site from offsite users by surface waterbodies (Mayo Creek, Broad River, Parr Reservoir, 

and Monticello Reservoir). As a result, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of construction 

and preconstruction on groundwater quality would be SMALL and no further mitigation would be 

warranted. Therefore, the impacts of NRC-authorized construction would be SMALL, and no 

further mitigation would be warranted.

4.2.4 Water Monitoring

SCE&G outlines monitoring programs for hydrologic and chemical monitoring in Sections 6.3 

and 6.6 of its ER for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2010a). The SCDHEC requires 

NPDES permitting for projects that disturb more than 1 ac of land. The NPDES permit covers 

the monitoring of stormwater discharges from the areas associated with building the proposed 

units. To obtain an NPDES permit a SWPPP must be filed. The SWPPP developed by SCE&G 

would include a description of visual inspection actions to detect erosion and provide effective 

sediment control. The SWPPP also would include a description of sediment control BMPs. The 

approval of the SWPPP precedes the issuance of the NPDES permit, which would typically 

describe the monitoring locations and frequency. In addition, SCE&G indicated it would use the 

NPDES monitoring program for Unit 1 to detect any water-quality changes that might be caused 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-19 NUREG-1939

by activities associated with building the proposed units (SCE&G 2010a). The current NPDES 

monitoring program for VCSNS Unit 1 includes 11 existing outfalls.

SCE&G outlines groundwater monitoring programs for hydrologic and chemical monitoring in 

Sections 6.3 and 6.6 of its ER for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G 

installed 31 monitoring wells to characterize the groundwater flow in the vicinity of proposed 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 as part of preapplication site characterization activities. Four of the 

wells have been retained for future groundwater monitoring (SCE&G 2009e). These four 

wells are located outside the footprint of the nuclear island (see Figure GW-11-1 in SCE&G 

2009e). SCE&G indicated that it would add other groundwater monitoring wells based on 

any needs identified during discussions with the SCDHEC during final design and 

permitting (SCE&G 2009e).

4.3 Ecological Impacts 

This section describes the potential impacts on ecological resources from building the proposed 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3, including the installation of new transmission lines to connect the units to 

the grid. The section is divided into two subsections: terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts.

4.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts 

This section provides information about the construction and preconstruction activities for 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and their associated impacts on the terrestrial ecosystem. 

Topics discussed include terrestrial resource impacts on the VCSNS site and in areas 

associated with the expansion of the transmission system to include six new 230-kV 

transmission lines. SCE&G stated it would develop and follow a Construction Environmental 

Controls Plan, which would include compliance with applicable local, State, and Federal 

ordinances, laws, etc. to prevent or minimize potential impacts (SCE&G 2010a). Other 

environmental-management controls, such as meeting the requirements of existing permits and 

use of BMPs, would be implemented through existing SCE&G VCSNS procedures and modified 

as necessary. The plan would cover topics such as protection of sensitive resources, 

stormwater management, erosion and sediment control, noise and vibration, air quality (fugitive 

dust), spill prevention and response, and cleanup and restoration. In addition, all construction 

personnel would be required to take environmental awareness training covering the 

aforementioned topics prior to being allowed to work onsite (SCE&G 2010a).

4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity 

A majority of the site-preparation and project-development activities for proposed VCSNS Units 

2 and 3 would occur in areas previously disturbed during construction of Unit 1. Impacts from 

development of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and associated areas would result from the clearing and 

grading of approximately 556 ac on the VCSNS site (SCE&G 2010a; Pike 2010). A portion of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-20 April 2011

the 556 ac would be used for temporary facilities, laydown areas, and spoils-disposal areas 

(SCE&G 2010a). Approximately 120 ft of shoreline on the Parr Reservoir would be temporarily 

disturbed to install the blowdown discharge structure, and installation of the raw- (makeup-) 

water intake from Monticello Reservoir would temporarily disturb approximately 175 ft of 

shoreline (SCE&G 2010a). Approximately 51 ac of the total 556 ac would be cleared of forest 

and planted in grass, and maintained in an early successional grassland or shrub/scrub 

vegetation community to connect the proposed six new 230-kV transmission lines (Pike 2010; 

MACTEC 2009).

Impacts on Habitats

Affected habitats would include forested land and wetlands.

The review team used GIS data provided by the applicant (see Figure 4-1) to estimate the 

grading, clearing, and excavation related to the development of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, site 

structures, and roadways (SCE&G 2010d, e). These activities would disturb approximately 

258 ac of forested habitat, which would result in the permanent removal of approximately 124 ac 

of planted pines, 91 ac of naturally vegetated pines, 26 ac of pine-hardwoods, and 17 ac of 

hardwood. The remaining approximately 298 ac consists of 175 ac of recently cleared pine 

forest and 123 ac of open, nonforested areas would be disturbed during development, including 

approximately 18 ac for the access road and 10 ac for the water-treatment plant (SCE&G 

2010d, e); see 

Forest

Figure 4-1). The permanent loss of approximately 258 ac of forest is less than 

1 percent of the available approximately 51,000 ac of mixed forest in the vicinity of the VCSNS 

site (SCE&G 2010d, e). Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would occupy an area dominated by 

planted loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) with a few small stands of hardwood forest present. The 

proposed site for the cooling-tower development area contains a small stand of naturally 

vegetated loblolly pine, planted pine, and a few small hardwood stands in the more mesic sites 

along streams and ravines (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009b; SCE&G 2002; SCE&G 2010a).

Site-preparation and site-development impacts on wetlands on the VCSNS site may include 

filling, clearing of vegetation, sedimentation, erosion, and alterations to hydrology. SCE&G 

stated that it has sited the proposed facilities and infrastructure in a way that would minimize 

impacts on wetlands and wildlife habitat, and that impacts on wetlands that occur near areas of 

site preparation and development would be minimized by using established BMPs (SCE&G 

2010a). SCE&G has established 50-ft buffered streamside management zones onsite that 

would be protected in accordance with BMPs such as the use of a silt fence and spill control

techniques established by the South Carolina Forestry Commission (

Wetlands

Figure 4-2) (SCFC 1994; 

SCE&G 2010a). Site preparation for the cooling towers would fill and permanently remove
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-21 NUREG-1939

Figure 4-2. Streams and Wetlands, Including a 50-ft Buffer, on the VCSNS Site (letters in 

circles identify streams)
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-22 April 2011

approximately 0.26 ac of wetland “L” associated with a small stream that is an unnamed 

tributary to Mayo Creek (Figure 4-2) (SCE&G 2009f). Vegetation clearing needed to connect 

transmission lines onsite would affect approximately 0.4 ac of forest cover in wetland F, which 

would be cleared and maintained as nonforested wetland (SCE&G 2010d, e). 

SCE&G has conducted wetland delineations on the site and received a Jurisdictional 

Determination from the USACE on June 29, 2009. The USACE issued the Jurisdictional 

Determination based on an onsite inspection, review of soil survey information, aerial maps, and 

other relevant information sources (USACE 2009). SCE&G (2009n) states the following:

To provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable jurisdictional waters impacts 

associated with the proposed project, SCE&G would likely propose to purchase 

adequate credits from an approved mitigation bank in the service territory in 

which impacts are proposed. If such a bank does not exist, mitigation credits 

could be purchased from another bank as deemed appropriate by the regulatory 

agencies. SCE&G may also propose to provide mitigation credits by conducting 

certain activities on company-owned property in close proximity to proposed 

jurisdictional waters impacts as deemed appropriate by the regulatory agencies.

The proposed cooling-tower blowdown line and raw-water intake structures were sited in a way 

that would minimize impacts on wildlife habitat and wetlands. The blowdown line would be 

routed along an existing railroad corridor and the intake structure would be sited adjacent to the 

existing intake in an area with no wetlands (SCE&G 2010a). A sheet-pile cofferdam and 

dewatering system would be used to facilitate construction of the intake and discharge 

structures. Erosion and sediment control measures such as a turbidity curtain would be used 

and other BMPs would be used when needed (SCE&G 2010a). All excavated and dredged 

material would be transported to an onsite spoils area. Thus, impacts on terrestrial habitats 

associated with the intake and discharge installation activities would be minimal. 

Cleared and disturbed lands resulting from site-preparation and site-development activities are 

vulnerable to significant soil erosion due to wind and water forces. Appropriate measures and 

controls to limit soil erosion during these activities would be taken to stabilize these areas, 

prevent erosion and sedimentation, and reduce runoff as required by applicable laws, 

regulations, and permit requirements, and recognized BMPs would be used for all proposed 

activities (SCE&G 2010a).

Due to the existence of similar habitats onsite and the large amount of those habitats 

surrounding the VCSNS site, impacts due to from habitat in loss from the site-preparation and 

site-development footprint for Units 2 and 3 and associated areas are expected to be minimal.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-23 NUREG-1939

Impacts on Wildlife

Impacts from proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and supporting facilities on wildlife habitat would 

be unavoidable. Site-preparation and site-development activities that would affect wildlife at the 

VCSNS site include loss of habitat (temporary and permanent), presence of humans, heavy 

equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, outdoor lighting, and fugitive dust. These 

activities would likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the development areas. Larger 

and more mobile animals would likely flee the area, while less mobile animals such as reptiles, 

amphibians, and small mammals such as the beaver (Castor canadensis), would be at greater 

risk of incurring mortality. Although the surrounding forest and wetland habitat would be 

available for displaced animals, the movement of wildlife into surrounding areas would increase 

competition for available space and could result in increased predation and decreased fecundity 

for certain species. These conditions could lead to a temporary localized reduction in 

population size for particular species. When site-preparation and site-development activities are 

completed, species that can adapt to disturbed or developed areas may readily recolonize 

portions of the site where suitable habitat remains, is replanted, or restored. 

Increased traffic in the area from site-preparation and site-development activities would increase 

roadway mortality due to forced movement of wildlife into traffic areas as individuals flee 

construction areas. Mammals such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon 

(Procyon lotor), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), and eastern gray squirrel 

(Sciuris carolinensis) would likely suffer increased roadside mortality (Forman and Alexander 

1998). The review team concludes that these impacts would not be detectable beyond the local 

vicinity and would not destabilize regional wildlife populations.

Noise from site-preparation and site-development activities 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 adapt to such noise (Larkin 1996). Development activities that would 

generate noise include operation of equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and heavy 

construction vehicles. Short-term noise levels from development activities onsite could be as 

high as 108 dBA (SCE&G 2010a). However, that level would not extend far beyond the 

boundaries of the project site. The predicted noise level range from development activity is 

approximately 55 to 84 dBA at a distance of 400 ft from each activity (SCE&G 2010a). The 

threshold at which birds and small mammals are startled or frightened is 80 to 85 dBA 

(Golden et al. 1980). The review team expects that noise levels associated with creation of the 

transmission-line corridor would be similar to noise levels associated with development activities 

at the VCSNS site (which is below threshold levels for wildlife at 400 ft) but would be incurred 

for a more limited duration at any given location. Thus, impacts on wildlife from noise are 

expected to be negligible.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-24 April 2011

Avian collisions with fabricated structures such as large cranes and other construction 

equipment are a result of numerous factors related to species characteristics, such as flight 

behavior, age, habitat use, seasonal habits, and diurnal habits, as well as to environmental 

characteristics such as weather, topography, land use, and the orientation of the structures 

(Manville 2005). Most authors on the subject of avian collisions with utility structures agree that 

collisions are not a biologically significant source of mortality for thriving populations of birds 

with good reproductive potential (Brown 1993). The NRC (1996) reviewed monitoring data 

concerning avian collisions at nuclear power plants with large cooling towers and determined 

that the overall avian mortality rate is low, therefore avian collisions are not expected to 

be significant. 

Refueling stations, fuel storage, and the storage of other liquids during site-preparation and 

development activities also pose a threat to local surface waters used by wildlife on the site. 

However, SCE&G has established environmental controls to keep such liquids from escaping 

containment, thereby minimizing mortality and morbidity of wildlife (SCE&G 2010a). BMPs 

related to the management of effluent and stormwater runoff as required by the Stormwater 

Management Plan and the SCDHEC NPDES permit would also limit these impacts.

Impacts on habitats and wildlife related to site-preparation and site-development include direct 

mortality from land clearing, increased traffic, noise, and chemical spills. Displacement of 

individuals, increased competition, and lost productivity could also result from construction and 

preconstruction activities. However, the review team does not expect these activities to be 

measurable at a population level beyond the project site. The review team has determined that 

the site-preparation and site-development-related impacts of habitat loss, noise, avian collisions, 

and increased traffic may adversely affect onsite wildlife. However, these impacts would be 

temporary, minor, and mitigated. Development of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be 

done according to Federal and State regulations, permit conditions, existing procedures, and 

established BMPs. Waterways and wetlands would be avoided to the extent possible (SCE&G 

2010a). Therefore, the review team concludes that site-preparation and site-development 

impacts on wildlife habitat on the proposed VCSNS site would be localized.

4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines 

This section assesses impacts on terrestrial resources expected to occur from site-preparation 

and site-development activities within the proposed transmission system corridors. Impacts on 

habitats and wildlife from development of the new transmission lines required for VCSNS Units 

2 and 3 would vary depending on the site-preparation and site-development activities required 

for the specific lines serving each unit. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-25 NUREG-1939

Impacts on Habitats

The review team examined potentially affected habitats within the proposed SCE&G and Santee 

Cooper transmission-line corridors. As described in Sections 2.2.2 and 3.2.2.3, a total of six 

new offsite 230-kV transmission lines would be needed to distribute the power generated by the 

proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. Santee Cooper would develop and maintain two of 

the lines, and the other four would be developed and maintained by SCE&G in three corridors.

Where the proposed new transmission lines would be built entirely within existing corridors that 

are currently maintained edge to edge, habitat impacts would be limited to temporary, light 

disturbance of grassland and scrub that are already subject to routine maintenance to exclude 

tall trees (Pike 2010; MACTEC 2009). The review team estimated impacts on forested habitat 

within the proposed new transmission-line corridors by overlaying the applicant-provided GIS 

layer of the proposed corridors onto USGS land-use land-cover data from 2001 (SCE&G 2010e, 

h; USGS 2001). Much of the forest habitat requiring clearing lies within proposed new rights-ofway, although some forest cover within existing rights-of-way that is not presently managed 

edge to edge would also require clearing. In those areas the impacts on forests and wetlands 

would be minimized by implementation of BMPs (Pike 2010; MACTEC 2009). All work 

performed by SCE&G and Santee Cooper would be done in compliance with applicable 

Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and permit requirements. 

Wetland delineations were performed in all proposed corridors by SCE&G and Santee Cooper

in 2010 and 2008, respectively, and were reviewed and verified by the USACE (USACE 2010). 

The proposed VCSNS-Killian line would be 37 mi long and would require approximately 6 mi of 

new corridor to be cleared on the Killian substation end of the line (Pike 2010). This new 

corridor would not be adjacent to existing transmission line corridors. The total acreage of 

wetlands present in the VCSNS-Killian corridor is approximately 31.2 ac, of which approximately

15.5 ac would be converted from forested to nonforested wetlands (USACE 2010). The 

VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2 line has been routed entirely within existing transmission-line rightsof-way, although portions of those existing rights-of-way would have to be cleared of forest 

vegetation (Pike 2010). Because the entire VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2 line resides within 

Fairfield, Richland, and Lexington Counties (the same counties used in the site and vicinity 

analysis for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 in Section 4.3.1) the habitat types and wildlife are generally 

similar(Pike, 2010). The total acreage of wetlands present in the VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2 

corridor is approximately 7.7 ac, of which approximately 5.9 ac would be converted from 

forested to nonforested wetlands (USACE 2010). The proposed VCSNS-St. George No. 1 and 

No. 2 lines have also been routed entirely within existing rights-of-way, although portions of 

those existing rights-of-way would have to be cleared of forest vegetation. The total acreage of 

wetlands present in the VCSNS-St. George No.1 and No. 2 corridors is approximately 186.9 ac,

Wetland Impacts
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-26 April 2011

of which approximately 16 ac would be converted from forested to nonforested wetland (USACE 

2010). 

The Santee Cooper lines are routed within existing transmission-line corridors with the 

exception of approximately 39 mi that would require a new corridor (MACTEC 2009). Most of 

the new corridor would be located adjacent to existing transmission-line corridors, but

approximately 0.5 mi of the Varnville line would require new corridor not adjacent to or within 

existing corridors (MACTEC 2009). The total acreage of wetlands present in the VCSNS-Flat 

Creek corridor is 12.5 ac of which approximately 0.8 ac would be converted from forested to 

nonforested wetlands (; USACE 2010). The total acreage of wetlands present in the VCSNSVarnville corridor is 354 ac, of which approximately 5.5 ac would be converted from forested to 

nonforested wetlands (MACTEC 2009; USACE 2010).

Development of new corridors and use of existing corridors would result in approximately 

1171 ac of forest clearing (see 

Forest Impacts

Table 4-3 for additional detail) (SCE&G 2010d, e). These 

impacts result from clearing within new corridors and re-clearing previously cleared corridors or 

portions of existing rights-of-way that were never cleared as part of previous transmission line 

installations. 

Table 4-3. Summary of Forest and Wetland Impacts in Proposed Transmission-Line Corridors

Transmission Line 

Total 

Length 

(mi)

Total 

Area 

(ac)(a)

Total 

Forested 

Area (ac)(b)

Total 

Wetland 

Area (ac)(c)

Wetland 

Area in New 

Right-of-Way

(ac)(c)

Forested 

Wetland Area 

to Be Cleared, 

New and 

Existing Rightof-Way (ac)(c)

VCSNS-Killian 37 365 171 31.2 16.6 15.5

VCSNS-Lake Murray 

No. 2 and VCSNS-St. 

George No. 1 

common corridor

22 281 175 7.7 0 5.9

VCSNS-St. George No. 

2 (between VCSNS 

site and common 

corridor with VCSNSSt. George 1)

18 238 158 2.9 0 0.1

VCSNS-St. George 

No. 1 and St. George 

76 1186 495 184 0 15.9
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-27 NUREG-1939

No. 2 common 

corridor (Lake Murray 

to St. George)

VCSNS-Flat Creek 72 1094 81 12.5 0.8 0.8

VCSNS-Varnville 167 2539 91 354 5.5 5.5

Source: MACTEC 2009; SCE&G 2010a; Pike 2010; USACE 2010

(a) Source: USACE 2010.

(b) Source: Tables 2-2 and 2-3, which characterize the representative land uses in the potentially affected 

transmission-line corridors for SCE&G’s and Santee Cooper’s corridors, (length and total acreage)

(c) Wetland areas from USACE (2010)

(d) Some of the forested wetland areas subject to clearing are within proposed new right-of-way lands, and the 

remainder are within uncleared portions of existing rights-of-way lands.

SCE&G and Santee Cooper stated that all clearing would be done using BMPs and that no 

mechanized clearing or grubbing would be necessary (MACTEC 2009; Pike 2010). Sitepreparation and structure installation activities that would occur in the existing transmission-line 

corridors that may cause temporary impacts would be limited to replacement of existing 

structures and installation of new lines. SCE&G and Santee Cooper stated that it would install 

new structures on or adjacent to existing footprints whenever possible and that disturbance from 

these activities would not create impacts greater than those that already occur during ongoing 

transmission-line corridor maintenance activities (Pike 2010; MACTEC 2009). Both entities 

have stated they would take measures to minimize impacts on wetlands by following 

recommendations from the USACE to mitigate temporary impacts from site preparation and 

structure installation such as the use of mulches, hay bales, silt fences, and other erosioncontrol methods. Engineering controls and existing procedures are also in place to address 

unavoidable disturbances. All work performed by SCE&G and Santee Cooper would be done in 

compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and permit requirements. 

Based on the large amount of new corridor clearing and subsequent impacts on wetlands and 

streams, the review team concludes that the impacts on habitats from clearing the new 

transmission-line corridors and upgrading existing corridors for the proposed transmission lines 

would be noticeable.

Summary of Overall Transmission Line Impacts on Habitats

The combined length mileage of new or expanded (widened) transmission-line corridors for both 

SCE&G and Santee Cooper would be approximately 45 mi. A total of 43.7 ac of wetlands (all 

palustrine), and approximately 1171 ac of forests would be subject to clearing impacts (USACE 

2010). Potential impacts on terrestrial habitats from upgrading transmission lines in existing and 

currently maintained transmission-line corridors would be minimal, and mitigation beyond the 

use of standard BMPs would not be warranted. Potential impacts on terrestrial habitats from 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-28 April 2011

clearing in existing and new corridors would be noticeable, but mitigation beyond the wetland 

mitigation required by the USACE and the use of standard BMPs would not be warranted. 

Impacts on Wildlife

Wildlife present in the transmission-line corridors during the proposed work would be subjected 

to many of the same types of impacts described for the proposed VCSNS site. Some wildlife 

would perish or be displaced during clearing of new transmission-line corridors, and, as a 

consequence of habitat loss and fragmentation, competition for remaining resources could 

increase. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be at 

greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, which would be 

displaced to adjacent habitats. Undisturbed land adjacent to the corridors could provide habitat 

to support displaced wildlife, but increased competition for available space and resources could 

reduce population levels. Wildlife would also be subjected to impacts from construction noise 

and traffic, and birds could be injured if they collide with new transmission towers and 

conductors or the equipment used to install these components. Noise levels associated with the 

building of the transmission lines would be similar to or less than and of shorter duration than 

noise levels associated with construction at the proposed VCSNS site, and would be below 

disturbance threshold levels for wildlife at about 400 ft (SCE&G 2010a; MACTEC 2008). Thus, 

the impact on wildlife from noise is expected to be temporary and minor. The potential for 

traffic-related wildlife mortality is expected to be low because construction crews would be small 

and dispersed over very large geographic areas (MACTEC 2008; FP&S 2008). Avian mortality 

resulting from collisions with structures and equipment during transmission-line development 

would represent a small hazard for bird populations, particularly when compared to impacts 

resulting from habitat loss (Manville 2005; MACTEC 2008; FP&S 2008). The review team 

expects that noise levels associated with creation of the transmission-line corridor would be 

similar to noise levels associated with development activities at the VCSNS site and would be 

below threshold levels for wildlife at 400 ft.

The creation of new transmission-line corridors could be beneficial for some species, including 

those that inhabit early successional habitat or use edge environments, such as white-tailed 

deer, northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), and the 

gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Birds of prey, such as red-tailed hawks 

(Buteo jamaicensis) and great-horned owls (Bubo virginianus), would likely exploit newly created 

hunting grounds. Forested wetlands within the corridors would be converted to and maintained 

in a herbaceous or scrub-shrub condition that could provide foraging habitat for wading birds. 

However, fragmentation of forests could affect species that are dependent on large tracts of 

continuous forested habitat. All work in the proposed transmission-line corridors would be done 

according to Federal and State regulations, permit conditions, existing procedures, and 

established BMPs. Because SCE&G and Santee Cooper have procedures in place to minimize 

impacts on wildlife and habitats, and both plan to use existing footprints for new structures, the 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-29 NUREG-1939

potential impacts of construction in existing corridors would be minimal. Because of the 

substantial amount of new transmission-line corridors and the number of acres affected within 

all the corridors required for this proposed project, the review team concludes that the terrestrial 

resources within and adjoining the new transmission-line rights-of-way would be altered 

noticeably.

4.3.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats 

This section describes the potential impacts on the important species identified using NRC 

criteria (NRC 2000) in Section 2.4.1 resulting from development of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and 

associated transmission lines. 

Important Species – Site and Vicinity

No Federally or State-listed species are known to occur on the VCSNS site. There are no areas 

designated as critical habitat on and in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. The delisted bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is known to occur on the VCSNS site and is still protected under the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Two active bald eagle 

nests are known to occur on or in the immediate of the VCSNS site; one is located on SCE&G 

property north of existing Unit 1 on a jetty that extends into Monticello Reservoir, and the other 

is located west of Parr Reservoir less than 1 mi from the western boundary of the SCE&G 

property (see Figure 4-1). Proposed site-preparation and site-development activities would not 

encroach upon either nest because they would take place well beyond the 660-ft buffer 

recommended for commercial construction activities near active bald eagle nests (FWS 2007). 

Therefore, the potential to disturb eagles using these two nest sites would be minimal. 

Important Species – Transmission Lines

The transmission lines associated with the proposed project would not travel through any areas 

designated or proposed by the FWS as “critical habitat” for endangered or threatened species 

(Palmetto 2010; MACTEC 2010). However, several Federally and State-listed species inhabit 

counties crossed by the proposed transmission-line corridors. A complete list of Federally and 

State-listed species that are known to occur in counties crossed by transmission lines 

associated with the project is given in Table 2-17. This list was compiled from the SCDNR 

Natural Heritage Database (SCDNR 2010a) and the FWS list (FWS 2010). Targeted ground 

surveys for threatened and endangered species were conducted in September, October, and 

November 2010 (Palmetto 2010; MACTEC 2010); the surveys and findings are described in 

Section 2.4.1 of this EIS. 

The proposed transmission lines would travel through a variety of habitats that support large 

and small game as well as waterfowl species. Because most of the new transmission lines 

would be constructed within or adjacent to existing corridors for operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-30 April 2011

3, no substantial additional impacts would be expected to occur on any commercially or 

recreationally important species as a result of transmission-line building and upgrading activities 

in those corridors. 

No areas designated or proposed by the FWS as “critical habitat” for threatened or endangered 

species occur on or immediately adjacent to the proposed transmission-line corridors (MACTEC 

2009; Pike 2010). None of the proposed new transmission lines would cross State or Federal 

parks, wildlife refuges, wildlife management areas, or preserves. Because SCE&G and Santee 

Cooper have procedures in place to minimize impacts on important species and habitats, the 

potential impacts of site preparation and development in existing corridors would be minimal. 

However, as described above, a substantial length of new corridor is required to accommodate 

the proposed new transmission lines, which would noticeably but not substantially alter the 

regional landscape. The review team therefore concludes that the terrestrial resource impacts 

resulting from activities associated with the site-preparation and development work within the 

proposed transmission-line corridors would be regionally noticeable due to the total acreage of 

forests, including forested wetlands, that would be cleared.

4.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring 

SCE&G has stated that it would not conduct any monitoring of terrestrial resources during site 

preparation and development at the VCSNS site and associated transmission-line corridors 

(SCE&G 2010a). The USACE may, however, require monitoring of certain wetland mitigation 

activities.

4.3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures for Terrestrial Impacts

Mitigation measures for terrestrial impacts related to site preparation and development include 

the implementation of BMPs and performance of wetland mitigation, which are described in the 

previous sections.

4.3.1.6 Summary of Impacts on Terrestrial Resources

Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

review team has determined that the impacts from site preparation and development on 

terrestrial resources on the VCSNS site, including permanent and temporary losses of forests 

and wetlands, would be localized and would not noticeably alter the ecology of the surrounding 

landscape. The affected terrestrial habitat types are common in the surrounding landscape, and 

much of the affected habitat consists of planted pine forest and successional vegetation on soils 

previously disturbed during development of VCSNS Unit 1. SCE&G stated that it would work 

with the USACE to determine appropriate mitigation through the permitting process of Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251, et seq.), which prohibits the discharge of dredged or 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-31 NUREG-1939

fill material into waters of the United States. The impact on wildlife at the population level 

(including Federally and State-listed species), would be minimal. 

SCE&G and Santee Cooper have both identified BMPs they use on the site (SCE&G 2010a) 

and in the transmission-line corridors and which they would use throughout the development 

and maintenance of the proposed facilities. Each utility also has stated that it would adhere to 

all applicable permit requirements. Because SCE&G and Santee Cooper have established 

procedures for minimizing impacts on important species and habitats, the potential impacts of 

transmission-line development in existing corridors would be minimal. However, some new 

corridor would be developed for transmission lines. The review team concludes that the 

terrestrial resource impacts associated with the development of the new transmission line 

corridors would noticeably alter the terrestrial ecological character of the surrounding landscape, 

primarily due to clearing of forest cover within and adjacent to existing corridors and forest 

fragmentation caused by new corridors not adjacent to existing corridors.

Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

review team concludes that the impacts of construction and preconstruction activities on 

terrestrial ecology resources on the VCSNS site would be SMALL. No further mitigation beyond 

that discussed above would be warranted. Based on the above analyses, and because 

NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of the analyzed activities, the 

NRC staff concludes that the impacts of NRC-authorized construction activities on terrestrial 

ecological resources would be SMALL on the VCSNS site. The NRC staff also concludes that 

further mitigation beyond that stated above would not be warranted. 

Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

review team concludes that the offsite terrestrial ecological impacts from preconstruction 

activities related to the development of the proposed transmission lines would be MODERATE. 

The greatest potential for regionally noticeable terrestrial ecological impacts would be from 

forest clearing within and adjacent to existing corridors and fragmentation of forest cover caused 

by clearing for new transmission-line corridor. The review team also concludes that further 

mitigation beyond that stated above would not be warranted. The Limited Work Authorization 

(LWA) rule specifically indicates that transmission lines are not included in the definition of 

construction. Therefore, no noticeable offsite terrestrial ecological impacts would result from 

NRC-authorized construction activities.

4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts 

Impacts on aquatic resources stemming from site-preparation activities for VCSNS Units 2 and 

3 would include activities associated with the three main waterbodies at the site. As described 

in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, a discharge structure would be built at Parr Reservoir. A raw-water 

intake structure and a water-treatment plant intake structure would be installed at Monticello 

Reservoir. Site preparation activities for building the cooling towers would result in the filling of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-32 April 2011

a seasonal headwater tributary to Mayo Creek. The locations of these structures and 

associated activity areas are shown in Figure 3-4. Additional aquatic impacts may include 

nonpoint source pollution in the form of stormwater runoff from site-preparation areas, 

preparation of new transmission-line corridors, and widening of existing transmission-line 

corridors. All work would be conducted in accordance with Clean Water Act Section 401 and 

404 regulations (40 CFR 230).

4.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity

Parr Reservoir

Construction and preconstruction activities associated with installation of the discharge structure 

in Parr Reservoir include dredging and pile driving, which can cause noise impacts as well as 

increased sedimentation and runoff. The specifications pertaining to the discharge structure 

have not been finalized, but the proposed shoreline disturbance area is estimated to include 

120 linear ft, the structure is 20 ft wide with 50 ft of disturbance on either side (SCE&G 2010a). 

All dredge and excavated materials would be disposed of at the upland location on the VCSNS 

site shown in Figure 3-4. Installation of the discharge structure would require permanent filling 

of 0.02 ac of open water and temporary impacts on 0.10 ac of open water from dredging and 

backfilling within a temporary sheet-pile cofferdam (SCE&G 2011). The 36-in.-diameter 

blowdown discharge pipe and associated diffuser line would extend approximately 100 ft from 

the shoreline into the reservoir and would be stabilized with riprap. The diffuser line would 

contain multiple ports with the discharge points approximately 3 ft above the bottom of the 

reservoir (SCE&G 2010a). 

Activities associated with the installation of the blowdown line and discharge structure include 

pile driving and excavation of the land extending from the uplands to the water’s edge to 

facilitate an adequate slope of the blowdown line (SCE&G 2010a). Preparation and installation 

of the discharge structure at Parr Reservoir include installation of sedimentation and turbidity 

control structures such as turbidity curtains and cofferdams, excavation and dredging in the 

vicinity of the diffuser structure, and disposal of dredged materials (SCE&G 2010a). 

Monticello Reservoir

The installation of two water-intake structures on the Monticello Reservoir may affect aquatic 

biota. Dredging activities in these locations may temporarily increase turbidity, siltation, and 

noise. As described in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.1, SCE&G has proposed to install a new rawwater intake structure approximately 1250 ft west of the existing VCSNS Unit 1 intake structure 

to supply makeup cooling water for Units 2 and 3. The raw-water intake structure for VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 would be constructed of concrete and would be approximately 60 ft long and 75 ft 

wide (SCE&G 2010a). All dredged materials would be disposed of at the upland location on the 

VCSNS site shown in Figure 3-4. Installation of the new raw-water intake structure would 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-33 NUREG-1939

require 0.11 ac of permanent filling of open water and 0.07 ac of temporary impacts to open 

water from dredging and backfilling within Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2011). Proposed 

activities associated with the installation of a new raw-water intake structure include the 

installation of a sheet-pile cofferdam and the subsequent dewatering of the construction area 

(SCE&G 2009a). Plans include the installation of a turbidity curtain around the perimeter of the 

installation area prior to the installation of the cofferdam (SCE&G 2010a). Turbidity curtains are 

often used in conjunction with activities that cause increased sedimentation and turbidity and 

are a tool for implementing BMPs (Francingues and Palermo 2005). 

The water for plant operations (service water system and potable, fire protection, and 

demineralized water systems) would also be derived from Monticello Reservoir, but would be 

obtained from the water-treatment plant intake structure to be installed approximately 5500 ft 

east of the existing VCSNS Unit 1 intake structure (see Section 3.3.1 and Figure 3-4) (SCE&G 

2010a). SCE&G has proposed two options for building the water-treatment plant intake 

structure, both of which necessitate using barges as work platforms and installation of a 

cofferdam and turbidity curtain. The deployment of barges into Monticello Reservoir may 

require modifications of up to 100 ft of shoreline, which may result in the removal of rip-rap or 

other bank-stabilizing structures. Both options would also require the installation of a 

maintenance access pier approximately 17 ft wide extending approximately 200 ft from the 

shoreline into Monticello Reservoir. Installation of the new water-treatment plant intake 

structure would require temporary impacts on 0.66 ac of open water for dredging and backfilling, 

and 0.01 ac of permanent impact on open waters by filling within Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 

2011). Compliance in both installation and design would be in accordance with USACE 

requirements and FERC permitting (SCE&G 2009j). 

Onsite Streams

Site-preparation activities associated with onsite streams include permanent and temporary 

impacts on aquatic environments. The designated location of cooling towers associated with 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would require filling Stream L, a seasonal headwater stream that drains 

into Mayo Creek Figure 4-2) (SCE&G 2010a). Filling of this headwater stream would result in 

the permanent loss of 774 linear ft of stream habitat (SCE&G 2009k, f). The proposed location 

for the Units 2 and 3 switchyard would be adjacent to Stream C. The lines connecting the Units 

2 and 3 switchyard to the Unit 1 switchyard would cross Stream/Wetland C and affect 0.4 ac of 

wetland via clearing activities. Furthermore, the connector lines would affect 6.2 ac of upland 

habitat via hand-clearing activities that would occur within 100 ft of the stream/wetland boundary 

(Pike 2010).

Localized, temporary site-preparation impacts on onsite streams include the widening of an 

existing railroad spur right-of-way adjacent to a seasonal stream and the construction of a new 

bridge at Mayo Creek. SCE&G has proposed to widen an existing railroad spur right-of-way to 

make room for railroad upgrades and the new blowdown line associated with VCSNS Units 2 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-34 April 2011

and 3. Site-preparation activities associated with the expansion of the railroad line right-of-way 

are proposed to occur adjacent to a seasonal stream for approximately 0.5 mi (SCE&G 2010a). 

Impacts associated with widening the right-of-way, upgrading the railroad spur, and installing a 

new 36-in.-diameter blowdown line adjacent to the seasonal stream may result in increased 

runoff to, and sedimentation in, the stream, resulting in degradation of habitat and lower 

dissolved oxygen levels. The development of a new four-lane road connecting the sitepreparation area associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to State Highway 213 (SC-213) includes 

plans for a new bridge crossing that would span Mayo Creek (SCE&G 2010a). Although 

temporary, aquatic impacts associated with bridge installation include an increased potential for 

runoff and sedimentation. The SCDHEC regulates activities related to stormwater management 

and sediment control (SCDHEC 2008). SCE&G (20010a) has recognized the aquatic 

ecosystem implications of runoff generated from site-preparation activities at the VCSNS site 

and has acknowledged the necessity of compliance with practices and permits such as a 

SWPPP and a general NPDES permit for industrial stormwater. Impacts from runoff and inwater installation activities would be mitigated through use of temporary culverts and BMPs 

such as the use of cofferdams and turbidity (silt) curtains (SCE&G 2010a).

As described in Section 3.2.2, the proposed location of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is on the top of a 

hill, and stormwater would drain away from the site in several directions. A stormwatermanagement system would be installed (SCE&G 2010a). Installation would include site 

grading, ditches, swales, and basins. The current and proposed stormwater-retention basins in 

the immediate vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 3-5. Outflow from these basins would 

eventually drain into several unnamed creeks to the west and into Mayo Creek to the east. 

Once drainage enters Mayo Creek it would flow south, then west around the southern base of 

the powerblock area (SCE&G 2010a).

To minimize sedimentation and impacts on water quality, SCE&G intends to conduct land 

clearing activities during dry periods (SCE&G 2010a).

4.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines

The delivery of power associated with proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would require upgrading 

existing transmission-line corridors and installing new transmission lines and substations. With 

regard to the delivery of power, two entities, SCE&G and Santee Cooper, are responsible for 

identifying the proposed locations associated with new and upgraded transmission lines. In 

total, six new 230-kV lines are proposed for the transmission of electricity associated with 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2010c; Pike 2010; MACTEC 2009). 

Impacts on the waterways associated with transmission-line activities include erosion of soils, 

potential for pollutant discharge from equipment, and temporary disturbance and/or 

displacement of aquatic biota. Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper would implement BMPs to 

minimize adverse conditions for aquatic biota and habitats during transmission-line installation. 

Examples of BMPs to minimize impacts on streams and open water include establishment of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-35 NUREG-1939

sediment basins, sediment traps, and silt fences to control and divert runoff away from streams, 

and maintenance of stream buffers (Pike 2010). In addition, both Santee Cooper and SCE&G 

have acknowledged the need to acquire State and Federal permits and incorporate BMPs and 

SWPPPs into said permits (MACTEC 2008, 2009; Pike 2010). SCE&G stated that it “will 

comply with the S.C. Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Act related to water 

quality protection and will comply with the recommendations of various regulatory agencies, 

including the S.C. Department of Natural Resources, S.C. Department of Health and 

Environmental Control, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, etc.” (Pike 2010).

SCE&G Transmission Lines

Four lines occupying three corridors would be required to carry the SCE&G-owned transmission 

lines as described in Section 4.1.2. These lines would occupy an estimated 147 mi of existing 

transmission-line corridors and 6 mi of new corridor. In addition, 5 mi of onsite connector lines 

would cross 11 streams to connect the VCSNS Unit 1 switchyard with the switchyard for 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (Pike 2010). The 22-mi segment of VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2 and 

VCSNS-St. George No. 1 corridor would not include any new corridor development. However, 

the VCSNS-Killian line would require approximately 6 mi of new corridor and use 31 mi of 

existing transmission-line corridor (SCE&G 2010c). The VCSNS-St. George No. 2 line would 

occupy 18 mi of existing corridor and the VCSNS-St. George No. 1 and No. 2 lines are 

proposed to share a common corridor that extends 76 mi (Pike 2010). Activities associated with 

the SCE&G transmission system would include clearing land, building a new substation, 

installing new poles, hanging new lines, and upgrading existing lines. The SCE&G transmission 

system would include 209 stream and river crossings throughout the Piedmont and Coastal 

Plain ecoregions of South Carolina (Figure 4-3; Table 4-4). An estimated five percent of the 

total SCE&G water crossings are associated with the new 6 mi segment of the VCSNS-Killian 

transmission-line corridor (review team analysis of GIS-based routing data supplied by the 

applicant). 

SCE&G intends to clear vegetation within 100 ft of waterbodies within the new 120-ft-wide 

VCSNS-Killian transmission-line corridor as well as within SCE&G unmaintained existing 

corridors (100 ft wide) (Table 4-4). Because SCE&G has proposed to follow State and Federal 

guidelines, implementation of BMPs (e.g., leaving low-growing vegetation intact to provide 

stream buffer zones, hand clearing vegetation in forested wetlands, and leaving root zones 

intact) will further minimize impacts on waterbodies during transmission system installation 

activities (Pike 2010). No direct impacts on the waterbodies are anticipated, but indirect impacts 

(e.g., potential for reduced shading and increased sedimentation) on waterbodies would likely

occur in habitats that shift from forested to nonforested habitats. Impacts associated with

vegetation clearing are anticipated to result in minor, localized impacts in areas adjacent to 

aquatic habitats.

 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-36 April 2011

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

Crossings of Major Waterbodies
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-37 NUREG-1939

Table 4-4. Stream Crossings, Open Water, Linear Feet of Stream, and Stream Area 

Associated with the SCE&G and Santee Cooper Transmission Lines 

Transmission Line Utility

Streams 

(linear 

feet)

Open Water 

(ac)

Number of 

Stream 

Crossings

Area to Be 

Cleared 

Within 

100 ft of a 

Waterbody 

(ac)

Onsite Connector Lines SCE&G 1555(a) 0 11(a) 6.2

VCSNS-Killian SCE&G 5194 0.81 45 5.3

VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2 and 

VCSNS-St. George No. 1 

common corridor

SCE&G 5017 1.09 35 15.3

VCSNS-St. George No. 1 and 

VCSNS-St. George No. 2 

common corridor

SCE&G 20,675 9.9 99 6.9

VCSNS-St. George No. 2 SCE&G 5339 0.35 30 2.2

Sub Total 37,780 12.15 209 35.9

VCSNS-Varnville Line Santee 

Cooper

37,987 17.94 177 ND(b)

VCSNS-Flat Creek Santee 

Cooper

26,491 14.45 151 ND(b)

Sub Total 64,478 32 328 ND(b)

Grand Total 102,258 45 537 35.9

Source: USACE 2010 except for onsite connector lines, and clearing within 100 ft of a waterbody.

Sources for onsite connector lines: SCE&G 2010e; USACE 2009, 2010.

Source for area to be cleared within 100 ft of a waterbody: Pike 2010.

(a) Onsite connector lines are located in areas covered by USACE’s (2009) onsite wetland jurisdictional 

determination and offsite transmission-line determination (USACE 2010). Stream crossings and lengths for 

onsite connector lines were obtained by overlaying transmission-line and delineated wetlands GIS layers.

(b) ND = No data provided.

Santee Cooper Transmission Lines

Two transmission-lines would be installed by Santee Cooper: the VCSNS-Flat Creek and the 

VCSNS-Varnville line. The VCSNS-Flat Creek line, would extend 72 mi northeast from the 

VCSNS site to the existing Flat Creek substation, and require approximately 17 mi of new 

corridor running adjacent to existing corridor. The VCSNS-Varnville line, would extend 167 mi 

south from the VCSNS site to the existing Varnville substation, and require approximately 22 mi

of new corridor running adjacent to existing corridor, and approximately 0.5 mi of new corridor 

not adjacent to existing corridor. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-38 April 2011

In total, Santee Cooper intends to install 39.5 mi of new transmission-line corridor with 

approximately 39 mi of the corridor occurring adjacent to existing corridors. Eighty-three

percent (198 mi) of the new transmission lines would occur within existing transmission-line 

corridors. Activities associated with the installation of the Santee Cooper transmission lines 

would include clearing land, upgrading existing substations, installing new poles, replacing old 

poles, and hanging new lines on existing supports (MACTEC 2008, 2009). The proposed new 

100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor associated with the VCSNS-Varnville line crossing Parr 

Reservoir would require the installation of concrete pile foundations within the reservoir, but no 

dredging would be required (SCE&G 2009g). 

The Santee Cooper transmission lines would include 328 stream and river crossings throughout 

the Piedmont and Coastal Plain ecoregions of South Carolina (Figure 4-3; Table 4-4) (MACTEC 

2008). An estimated 11 percent of the total Santee Cooper water crossings are associated with 

new transmission-line corridor (review team analysis of GIS-based routing data supplied by the 

applicant). Four of the transmission-line crossings would include new transmission-line 

corridors and are expected to span the Fishing Creek Reservoir (Catawba River impoundment), 

Parr Reservoir (Broad River impoundment), Little River, and Cedar Creek (MACTEC 2009).

Only the Flat Creek transmission-line corridor would span a Federal navigable water and would 

require authorization under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (SCE&G 2011). Three 

additional crossings of Federal navigable waters are planned on the VCSNS-Varnville line within 

existing transmission-line corridors: the North Fork Edisto River, the Edisto River, and the 

Salkehatchie River (SCE&G 2011). The Santee Cooper transmission lines are expected to 

cross South Carolina navigable waters at 18 locations (4 new and 14 existing) (MACTEC 2009). 

The new corridor would run adjacent to the existing corridor that currently spans Parr Reservoir. 

The Fishing Creek Reservoir crossing would require a new, 85-ft-wide corridor that would be 

placed adjacent and parallel to the north of an existing Santee Cooper-maintained corridor

(MACTEC 2009). Santee Cooper would prepare a SWPPP, in accordance with SCDHEC 

guidance (SCDHEC 2002), for minimization of impacts on sediment quality during installation 

activities (MACTEC 2009). 

A combined 551 linear ft of forested stream habitat would be converted to nonforested stream 

habitat through preparation of the Varnville transmission-line corridor (MACTEC 2009).

Clearing of vegetation associated with Santee Cooper transmission lines would occur within 

new transmission-line corridors (50 to 125 ft wide) as well as existing corridors (50 to 85 ft 

wide). Because Santee Cooper has proposed to follow State and Federal guidelines, 

implementation of BMPs (e.g., setting structures on banks to divert runoff, implementing erosion

control techniques, manual clearing of vegetation in wetlands) would further minimize impacts 

on waterbodies during transmission system installation activities. No direct impacts on the 

waterbodies are anticipated, with the exception of installation of concrete footings in Parr 

Reservoir. However, indirect impacts (e.g., potential for reduced shading and increased 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-39 NUREG-1939

sedimentation) on waterbodies would likely occur in habitats that shift from forested to 

nonforested habitats. Impacts associated with vegetation clearing are anticipated to result in 

minor, localized impacts on areas adjacent to aquatic habitats. Santee Cooper transmission 

lines would cross navigable waters of the State of South Carolina at 18 locations. Permitting 

approval for these crossings would be required by the USACE through Section 10 of the Rivers 

and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 USC 403) and SCDHEC.

4.3.2.3 Important Aquatic Species and Habitats

One Federally listed endangered aquatic species, the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona 

decorata), is listed as possibly occurring in Fairfield County, but is not known to occur at the 

VCSNS site. In total, seven Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered aquatic 

species occur within counties proposed for siting of new transmission lines, including 

designated critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter. Several aquatic taxa within Fairfield and 

Newberry Counties are State species of concern. The list of taxa includes one freshwater fish, 

three freshwater mussels, and one crayfish. In addition, two species of invasive aquatic plant 

are known to occur at the VCSNS site. Impacts stemming from the various installation activities 

are dependent on the sensitivity of a species to localized disturbance, habitat associations 

typically made by a particular species, critical time periods associated with a species’ life cycle, 

and the intensity and duration of the disturbance. Numerous aquatic biota are found within the 

vicinity of the VCSNS site. The following discussion includes aquatic species that are of 

conservation concern and are known or thought to exist in the vicinity of the VCSNS site.

Recreational Species

Both Parr and Monticello reservoirs support recreational fisheries for largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), and catfish (Ictalurus spp.). Except for catfish, 

these species have life histories that indicate known use of shallow-water habitats for 

reproduction and nesting activities. The use of turbidity curtains and cofferdams can minimize 

impacts on these shallow-water habitats. However, the timing of installation activities may have 

more detrimental effects on aquatic resources if performed during critical spawning seasons in 

mid to late spring. Because no exact schedule is given for installation activities associated with 

the raw-water and water-treatment plant intakes or the blowdown line for VCSNS Units 2 and 3, 

activities in these potential shallow-water habitat areas may affect recreational species.

Invasive Species

Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) has been identified as an aquatic invasive species 

by the South Carolina Aquatic Invasive Species Task Force. Alligatorweed is a rapidly 

colonizing aquatic plant that forms dense vegetative mats that can alter flow and inhibit the 

uptake of water by other plants (SCDNR 2008). Proliferation of this aquatic nuisance species 

can occur via disturbance if plants become fragmented and subsequently re-root (SCDNR 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-40 April 2011

2006). Alligatorweed has been documented above and below the proposed discharge location 

in Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a). In addition, water primrose (Ludwigia uruguayensis) occurs 

in Monticello Reservoir, and can be an invasive, colonizing plant capable of choking shorelines 

and clogging intake structures. Shoreline installation activities that result in the disturbance of 

alligatorweed or water primrose may result in these plant species spreading to other aquatic 

habitats if vegetative fragments become uprooted and established elsewhere. 

Important Species

The three freshwater mussel species listed as State species of concern within the vicinity 

(Fairfield or Newberry Counties) of the VCSNS site include the eastern creekshell (Villosa 

delumbis), the eastern floater (Pyganodon cataracta), and the yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata). 

It is unknown whether the eastern creekshell or the yellow lance occurs within the vicinity of the 

VCSNS site. However, a single eastern floater was collected near the proposed raw-water 

intake in Monticello Reservoir (CBS 2009). A more detailed mussel sampling survey may be 

necessary to determine the extent of eastern floater presence near the intake-installation 

area prior to installation activities. Potential impacts on populations of mussels in the area of 

the proposed intake include habitat loss, reproductive losses, and mortality associated 

with dredging. 

The Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis) is listed as a State endangered species in Fairfield 

County and a State threatened species in Richland County (SCDNR 2010a). Due to the limited 

distribution of this freshwater fish, any development activities that result in an alteration of 

habitats used by the Carolina darter pose a threat to this species (Hayes and Bettinger 2006). 

The Carolina darter was not documented during the SCDNR 2000-2004 Broad River drainage 

aquatic surveys (Bettinger et al. 2003, 2006) within the vicinity of the VCSNS site (Tetra Tech 

NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a, b; Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009) and was not 

captured during the 1978-1984 survey efforts within Parr and Monticello reservoirs (Dames and 

Moore 1985). Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts expected from preparation or 

installation activities in VCSNS-associated waterbodies.

The robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) is not explicitly listed as a Federal or State species 

of concern in any of the counties traversed by transmission lines for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

However, this species has been designated as a species of highest conservation priority (Self 

and Bettinger 2006) and transmission-line routes are proposed to cross waterbodies in which 

this species has been known to occur. The Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee has 

implemented efforts to reintroduce this native species to river basins such as the Broad River by 

stocking rivers with robust redhorse fingerlings (Self and Bettinger 2006; Rohde et al. 2009). 

In 2008, SCDNR caught two robust redhorse while electrofishing for smallmouth bass 

(Micropterus dolomieu) in Monticello Reservoir (NRC 2009). Aquatic surveys in the vicinity of 

the VCSNS site resulted in the capture of two robust redhorse in the Parr Reservoir, 

representing 0.1 percent of the total catch (Quattlebaum 2008a; Normandeau 2008). The use 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-41 NUREG-1939

of turbidity curtains and cofferdams for installation activities associated with the raw-water and 

water-treatment plant intakes or the blowdown line for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 can minimize 

impacts on aquatic habitats within Parr and Monticello reservoirs.

One eel and three fish species targeted for restoration in the Broad River basin have not been 

documented in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. However, it is possible that the American eel,

American shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring (A. aestivalis), and hickory shad 

(A. mediocris) may establish spawning habitat in Parr Reservoir following restoration activities. 

A total of 47 American shad were observed during the 2007, 2008, 2009 spring monitoring 

periods at the Columbia Dam Fishway and during the same monitoring periods, only two 

blueback shad were noted during 2009 (Kleinschmidt 2007, 2008, 2009). While these species 

have been documented at the Columbia Diversion Dam, access near the vicinity of the VCSNS 

site is prohibited by the Parr Shoals Dam. The use of turbidity curtains and cofferdams would

minimize turbidity and sedimentation impacts downstream on spawning habitats. The timing of 

installation activities would occur in advance of the reestablishment of these species in Parr 

Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a; FWS 2001).

Federally Listed Species 

The Carolina heelsplitter is the only Federally protected aquatic species that may reside in 

onsite creeks and streams in the vicinity of VCSNS. Six Federally protected aquatic species 

reside within the counties affected by transmission-line installation activities: the shortnose 

sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), Carolina heelsplitter, and four species of sea turtle: 

loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), leatherback sea 

turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). The Atlantic 

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) is not currently listed either Federally or by the State of South 

Carolina, but on October 6, 2010 it was proposed for listing as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (75 FR 61904) and is therefore considered as part of the NRC 

review. As part of the NRC’s responsibilities under Section 7 of the ESA, the review team has 

prepared a biological assessment (April 2010) and a supplement (February 2011) documenting 

potential impacts on the Federally listed and proposed threatened or endangered aquatic and 

terrestrial species as a result of the construction and preconstruction activities at the VCSNS 

site. Both the biological assessment and the supplement are included in Appendix F of this EIS, 

and the findings and determinations are summarized in this section. 

The shortnose sturgeon is an amphidromous freshwater fish that spends a portion of its life 

cycle in freshwater environments and a portion in estuarine ecosystems (NOAA 1998). It is 

listed as a Federally endangered species and is reported to occur in seven counties proposed 

for transmission-line crossings: Calhoun, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, Lexington, 

Orangeburg, and Richland (Pike 2010; MACTEC 2009; FWS 2010; SCDNR 2010b). Shortnose 

sturgeon are not reported to occur in river systems that would be crossed by either the new or

existing corridor associated with the SCE&G VCSNS transmission lines (Palmetto 2010). In 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-42 April 2011

addition, shortnose sturgeon are not reported to occur in new Santee Cooper corridors, but they

occur in river systems spanned by existing Santee Cooper corridors (MACTEC 2010). For 

example, the existing Santee Cooper VCSNS-Varnville transmission-line corridor crosses the 

North Fork Edisto River in two locations: along the Lexington and Aiken County line to the 

southwest of Woodford, South Carolina and in Orangeburg County just southwest of the city of 

Orangeburg (Figure 4-3), both in the Upper Edisto River basin. Collins and Smith (1997) 

reported that shortnose sturgeon occupied the South Fork Edisto River, but there have been no 

specific reports of this species in the North Fork Edisto River. Because there are no physical 

barriers to migration from the Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto basin to the North Fork Edisto River, 

shortnose sturgeon may inhabit this reach of the basin. Furthermore, the Santee Cooper 

VCSNS-Varnville transmission-line corridor crosses the Edisto River southwest of the 

St. George substation (Figure 4-3). A historical record exists for occurrence of shortnose 

sturgeon in Orangeburg County on the North Fork of the Edisto River (SCE&G 2010c). The 

implementation of BMPs associated with updating existing Santee Cooper VCSNS-Varnville 

corridor as outlined in Section 4.3.2.2 should minimize impacts on surface waters and habitat for 

the North Fork Edisto River and Edisto River.

The Atlantic sturgeon is not currently listed either Federally or by the State of South Carolina. 

However, on October 6, 2010, the Carolina and South Atlantic distinct population segments of 

the Atlantic sturgeon were proposed for listing as endangered under the ESA (75 FR 61904). In 

light of this proposed listing, the review team is now considering effects on the Atlantic sturgeon 

associated with transmission-line preparation activities. Atlantic sturgeon have not been 

reported to occur either in the vicinity of the VCSNS site or in river systems that would be 

crossed by new corridor associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (Palmetto 2010; MACTEC 

2010). However, Atlantic sturgeon may occur in waterbodies spanned by the existing Santee 

Cooper VCSNS-Varnville transmission-line corridors (MACTEC 2010).

The VCSNS-Varnville transmission-line corridor crosses the Edisto River southwest of the 

St. George substation (Figure 4-3), which is the only waterbody known to have reported 

occurrences of Atlantic sturgeon associated with the proposed VCSNS transmission-line 

systems for Units 2 and 3 (ASSRT 2007). The transmission-line corridor at this location is 

limited to updating corridor and would not include new corridors. The implementation of BMPs 

associated with updating existing corridors as outlined in Section 4.3.2.2 should minimize 

impacts on surface waters and habitat for the Edisto River. 

The Carolina heelsplitter is a freshwater mussel that has endured significant habitat degradation 

by various development activities. Historically, the species was reported in small to large 

streams and rivers, and usually found in mud, muddy sand, or muddy gravel substrates along 

stable, well-shaded stream banks. It is listed as a Federally endangered species and is thought 

to be sensitive to sedimentation and pollutants in waterways (SCDNR 2009). Within the State 

of South Carolina, Chester and Lancaster Counties have been designated as having areas of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-43 NUREG-1939

critical habitat for the heelsplitter (Pike 2010; MACTEC 2010; FWS 2011; SCDNR 2010a). The 

Carolina heelsplitter is known to occur in three counties containing existing or proposed 

transmission-line corridors for VCSNS Units 2 and 3: Chester, Lancaster, and Richland. The 

Carolina heelsplitter is listed for Fairfield, Lexington, and Newberry Counties, which also contain 

existing and/or new transmission-line corridors for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (Table 2-20)

(67 FR 44502). 

The Santee Cooper VCSNS-Flat Creek line would require a new corridor in Lancaster County 

near drainages known to support the Carolina heelsplitter. The known Gills Creek population 

are upstream from the location of the proposed new corridor; approximately 15 mi north and 

12 mi northeast (MACTEC 2010). However, the existing VCSNS-Flat Creek corridor crosses a 

portion of Flat Creek in Lancaster County that is listed by FWS as critical habitat and supports 

the Lynches River / Flat Creek population of Carolina heelsplitter (67 FR 44502). The Carolina 

heelsplitter is also known to occur within 1 mi of the existing Santee Cooper VCSNS-Varnville 

and VCSNS-Flat Creek transmission-line corridors in Richland and Lancaster Counties, 

respectively (SCDNR 2010b). In Fairfield County, the Carolina heelsplitter was included in the 

habitat survey of 2.44 mi of the proposed new Santee Cooper corridor in Parr Reservoir. 

However, survey efforts did not identify the occurrence of Carolina heelsplitter, nor were any 

noteworthy habitat attributes that may support this species identified (MACTEC 2008, 2009). In 

addition, a portion of the SCE&G VCSNS-Killian transmission-line corridor falls within Fairfield 

County, near watersheds associated with Carolina heelsplitter habitat; however, Pike (2010) 

reported no occurrences of the heelsplitter associated with this transmission-line corridor. GISbased analysis confirms no spatial overlap in known locations of this species and SCE&G 

transmission lines (SCDNR 2010b). The use of BMPs for activities associated with preparation 

and installation of new and unmaintained existing transmission-line corridors and upgrades to 

existing corridors are expected to limit potential impacts on these species and critical habitats 

for the Carolina heelsplitter. 

The loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle 

do not occur in counties associated with the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 transmission-line 

corridors with the exception of Colleton County. Current siting plans for the Santee Cooper 

VCSNS-Varnville transmission-line corridor, as discussed in Section 2.4.2.2, do not occur near 

nesting beaches or near marine habitats used by sea turtles in Colleton County. Therefore, 

there is no potential for transmission-line preparation activities to affect these species.

4.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring During Site Preparation

SCE&G plans to perform preconstruction-related monitoring for water quality in accordance with 

Federal and State permitting requirements as specified by USACE and SCDHEC. Prior to 

building activities within transmission-line corridors, monitoring may include on-the-ground 

surveys to implement appropriate site-specific BMPs. Accidental spills during the building 

phase would be mitigated through a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-44 April 2011

(SCE&G 2010a). Monitoring associated with the SWPPP may also be implemented during the 

preconstruction and construction phases of the project (SCE&G 2010a), and SCDHEC may 

require specific monitoring activities as a part of its permitting process to assess potentially 

affected areas such as waterbodies associated with the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 site and within 

transmission-line corridors. The USACE would conduct compliance monitoring during the 

building phase of the project relative to activities within permitted areas (e.g., streams, wetlands, 

transmission-line corridors) (SCE&G 2010a).

4.3.2.5 Summary of Impacts on Aquatic Resources

The review team has reviewed the proposed site construction and preconstruction activities 

associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and the potential impacts on aquatic biota and critical 

habitat in the Broad River and Parr Reservoir, Monticello Reservoir, onsite streams, and 

waterbodies associated with transmission-line corridors. Site construction and preconstruction 

activities would ultimately be episodic, yet impacts would be greatest for nonmotile aquatic 

organisms.

Filling in of the headwaters for Stream L, which flows into Mayo Creek (Figure 4-2), would result 

in a noticeable change for that immediate area; however, water-quality impacts are likely to be 

negligible through the use of BMPs to control sedimentation. Aquatic biota residing in this 

portion of Stream L would either move downstream as filling activities commence, or be 

eliminated if prevented from moving downstream (SCE&G 2010a). The loss of habitat and 

potential loss of species are expected to be minimal when considering similar unaffected 

freshwater stream habitats in the region. 

Installation of water-intake and discharge structures would result in temporary impacts at distinct 

locations within the Parr and Monticello reservoirs, but would be largely controlled by the use of 

BMPs associated with the management of water quality. By following State and Federal BMPs 

associated with water quality, the impacts associated with installing new transmission-line 

corridors and clearing vegetation within unmaintained existing corridor on aquatic biota would 

be short-term and localized. Based on this review, the review team concludes that the impacts 

resulting from the proposed preconstruction and construction activities would be minimal.

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the above observations from the review 

team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the impacts on onsite aquatic 

biota during construction and preconstruction activities for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

would be SMALL, and no further mitigation measures would be warranted. Based on the above 

analysis, and because NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of the 

analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of NRC-authorized construction 

activities would be SMALL, and no further mitigation measures would be warranted.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-45 NUREG-1939

Based on information provided by SCE&G and the above observations from the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that impacts on offsite aquatic biota from 

preconstruction activities related to the development of the proposed associated transmission 

lines would be SMALL, and no further mitigation measures would be warranted. The LWA rule 

specifically indicates that transmission lines are not included in the definition of construction. 

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no impacts on offsite aquatic biota 

associated with NRC-authorized construction activities.

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts

Socioeconomic impacts may occur in the region surrounding the proposed site. This discussion 

emphasizes socioeconomic impacts from construction and preconstruction activities on the fourcounty area, including Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, although it 

considers the entire 50-mi region surrounding the proposed VCSNS site.(a

Along with the region and the subset of the region mentioned above, the review team 

considered an additional subset of the region called the economic impact area. This area 

includes the same four counties identified above, which the review team concludes make up the 

functional economic region for current and future impacts tied to the VCSNS site. This 

economic impact area is discussed in terms of employment, income, and output impacts. 

)

 The scope of the 

review is guided by the magnitude and nature of the expected impacts of the construction and 

preconstruction activities of the proposed project and by the site-specific community 

characteristics that can be expected to be affected by these activities. 

Very large projects, such as proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 can affect individual communities, 

the surrounding region, and minority and low-income populations. The evaluation here 

assesses the impacts of project-related activities and of the onsite workforce during the VCSNS 

construction and preconstruction activities on the communities and governmental jurisdictions 

within the vicinity of the VCSNS site; i.e., the region within 50 mi of the VCSNS site. Unless 

otherwise specified, the primary source of information for this section is the SCE&G ER 

(SCE&G 2010a). The review team’s conclusions are based upon independent verification of 

SCE&G’s information in the ER, visits to the site, vicinity, and region, and consultation with local 

officials.

 

(a) For the purposes of this EIS, the relevant region is limited to the area necessary to include social and 

economic base data for (1) the county in which the proposed plant would be located and (2) the 

specific portions of surrounding counties and urbanized areas (generally, up to 50 mi from the 

VCSNS site) from which the construction and/or operations workforce would be principally drawn, or 

that would receive stresses to community services by a change in the residence of construction

and/or operations workers.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-46 April 2011

If the two COLs are approved, construction and preconstruction activities are planned to span a 

total of 123 months, with 30 months dedicated to site clearing and preparation, and 93 months 

for building Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2010a). The building of Units 2 and 3 would be staggered by 

2 years, for a total construction and preconstruction period of 10.25 years (SCE&G 2010a). 

SCE&G estimates that the peak onsite workforce for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 during 

construction and preconstruction activities would occur during 2013 and again during 2015 

reaching a total of up to 3600 workers. The staggered construction and preconstruction periods 

would allow the peak workforce from Unit 2 to transfer to Unit 3 and then steadily decline until 

both units are ready for operation. SCE&G indicates the operations staff of 400 at each unit 

would be employed approximately 2 to 3 years before fuel loading of each unit, to allow time for 

simulator training and startup testing (SCE&G 2010a).

The VCSNS site and parts of the surrounding region have experienced significant growth over 

recent decades, and, as a result, the area has adjusted to providing services needed by inmigrating populations. The region has not been insulated from recent negative economic 

impacts from the current economic downturn.

The following sections describe the economic component of the physical impacts on the site 

(Section 4.4.1), demographic impacts on the community (Section 4.4.2), economic impacts 

(Section 4.4.3), and the impacts on infrastructure and community services (Section 4.4.4). The 

impacts on minorities and low-income populations are covered in Section 4.5 of this chapter.

4.4.1 Physical Impacts

Construction and preconstruction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts 

such as noise, odors, vehicle exhaust, light, 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 impacts that may affect people, buildings, and roads.

4.4.1.1 Impacts on Workers and the Local Public

The VCSNS site is in a rural setting, bounded on the north by Monticello Reservoir and on the 

west by the Broad River. To the west and south are forested and agricultural lands in which a 

few residences and small communities are located. The site is located entirely within Fairfield 

County. No significant industrial or commercial facilities are planned in the immediate vicinity of 

the site. SCE&G plans to use the existing transmission lines and facilities where possible, 

although six new 230-kV transmission lines would be needed to connect the new units to the 

SCE&G grid, requiring 100-ft widening of some existing transmission-line corridors or entirely 

new corridors in some cases (see Section 4.1.2).

SCE&G has indicated that, with the exception of transmission-line development, all construction 

and preconstruction activities would occur within the VCSNS site boundary and would be 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-47 NUREG-1939

performed in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) standards, BMPs, and other applicable regulatory and permit requirements.

The people most vulnerable to noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions resulting from 

construction and preconstruction activities include personnel working onsite, and people 

working or living immediately adjacent to the site. Based on the 2000 U.S. Census, an 

estimated 104 individuals lived within 1 mi of the VCSNS site (SCE&G 2010a). Given their 

proximity, the residents living directly adjacent to the VCSNS site in the town of Jenkinsville and 

unincorporated Fairfield County have the greatest potential for offsite exposure to aesthetic, 

noise, air quality, and light impacts from construction and preconstruction activities. The review 

team expects impacts from the increased and altered traffic patterns and resulting noise, 

emissions, and congestion, and from impacts caused by the presence of VCSNS project-related 

workers would extend farther from the VCSNS site, but are likely to be minimal and 

concentrated in the nearby communities and on the roadways within the vicinity of the site.

4.4.1.2 Noise Impacts

Noise is an environmental concern because it can cause adverse health effects, annoyance, 

and disruption of social interactions. Noise would result from clearing, earthmoving, foundation 

preparation, pile driving (if needed), concrete mixing and pouring, steel erection, and various 

stages of facility equipment fabrication, assembly, and installation, during which a substantial 

number of diesel- and gasoline-powered vehicles and other equipment would be used. Noise 

from the VCSNS site also would be generated by internal combustion engines, impact 

equipment (e.g., jackhammers, pile drivers), and other equipment such as grinders and saws, 

explosives, loudspeakers, alarms, and sirens. Noise levels (measured in decibels [dB])

increase logarithmically, not arithmetically, as pressure levels of separate sounds combine. 

This means that if one sound of 60 dB is added to another sound of 60 dB, the total is 63 dB, a 

3-dB increase, and not 120 dB. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise determined that 

project-related increases of 1.5 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) (if the ambient level is 

above 65 Ldn [day night average sound level]) or 3 dBA (if the ambient level is below 65 Ldn) 

are considered “substantial.” In addition to routine noises, sudden, infrequent, short-term blasts 

of noise may be disruptive of sleep or have a “startle effect” on humans and wildlife that can 

result in significant annoyance to affected populations.

During construction and preconstruction activities, noise is expected to peak above 100 dBA at 

a 50-ft distance from the equipment, with multiple pieces operating simultaneously. The 

activities that produce noises in this range would be intermittent, although at points in the 

project, activities could be scheduled for 24-hour days, 7 days a week. It is expected that noise 

levels experienced by sensitive noise receptors outside of the exclusion area boundary would 

rapidly attenuate to below 50 dBA (SCE&G 2010a). Continuous noise would be lower. 

Because the site is surrounded by forests and moderate topography, the review team concludes 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-48 April 2011

that noise emanating from the project site could be somewhat muffled to surrounding 

communities and the associated impact would be minimal.

The majority of transmission lines that would be needed for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 already have 

been constructed, although some expansions and upgrades would need to be built. Limited 

maintenance activities in transmission-line corridors and improvements to towers, lines, and 

corridors would be undertaken as part of the project and would create short-term sources of 

noise in the corridors. Consequently, the review team concludes that noise impacts on 

surrounding communities from these activities during construction and preconstruction would 

be negligible.

4.4.1.3 Impacts on Air Quality

The VCSNS site is in Fairfield County, South Carolina, which is an attainment area for all criteria 

pollutants (40 CFR 81.108 and 81.341). The baseline air quality characteristics are described in 

Section 2.9.2 of this EIS. The Clean Air Act establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQSs), which include the following criteria pollutants:

• sulfur dioxide (SO2)

• particulate matter (including PM10 and PM 2.5)

• carbon monoxide (CO)

• nitrogen dioxide (NOx)

• ozone (O3)

• lead (Pb).

Temporary and minor impacts on local ambient air quality could occur as a result of activities at 

the VCSNS site during construction and preconstruction. Fine particulate emissions (less than 

2.5 microns in size; PM2.5) and coarse particulate emissions (less than 10 microns in size; PM10)

including fugitive dust, would be generated during earthmoving and material-handling activities. 

Equipment and offsite vehicles used for hauling debris, equipment, and supplies also produce 

emissions. Given Fairfield County’s attainment status for criteria pollutants, only particulate 

matter, oxides of nitrogen (a precursor to ozone) and carbon monoxide (combustion exhaust) 

are pollutants of primary concern for construction and preconstruction impacts at the VCSNS 

site. Several variables affect emissions; these variables include the type of vehicles, the timing 

and phasing of construction and preconstruction activities, and haul routes. The emissions and 

their impacts on air quality would be minimized through mitigating actions and compliance with 

all Federal, State, and local regulations that govern construction and preconstruction activities

and emissions from construction vehicles.

SCE&G stated that it would identify specific mitigation measures to control fugitive dust (SCE&G 

2010a). Mitigation measures would include any or all of the following:
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-49 NUREG-1939

• Stabilize access roads and spoil piles. 

• Limit speeds on unpaved access roads.

• Periodically water unpaved access roads to control dust.

• Perform housekeeping (i.e., remove dirt spilled onto paved roads).

• Cover haul trucks.

• Minimize material handling (e.g., limit drop heights and double handling).

• Cease grading and excavation activities during high winds and extreme air pollution 

episodes.

• Phase grading to minimize the area of disturbed soils.

• Revegetate road medians and slopes.

• Phase construction and preconstruction activities to minimize daily emissions.

• Perform proper maintenance of construction vehicles to maximize efficiency and minimize 

emissions.

Local air quality could be affected by construction and preconstruction activities. Exhaust 

emissions from construction vehicles and equipment would generate small amounts of 

particulate matter, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds. If 

construction and preconstruction activities include the burning of debris, refuse, or residual 

building materials, SCE&G has indicated that it would secure any required permits from the 

State or county and follow any pertinent local ordinances. 

Therefore, although emissions from construction and preconstruction activities and equipment 

operation are unavoidable, the review team concludes that SCE&G’s mitigation efforts would 

limit impacts on air quality to minimal levels during construction and preconstruction activities 

and would not warrant mitigation beyond the measures discussed for inclusion in the 

mitigation plans.

BMPs and control measures would be used to limit the impacts of emissions. The concrete 

batch plant would be operated in compliance with SCDNR regulations; use of the onsite plant 

would reduce emissions from trucks that otherwise would deliver concrete to the site. Control 

measures would include development and implementation of a plan to control fugitive dust; 

grading to promote drainage and minimize mud on vehicles; stabilization of ground surfaces as 

soon as practical after clearing (e.g., reseeding); wetting of bare ground and unpaved roadways 

during dry conditions; conduct of any burning in accordance with applicable regulations and 

forest fire-safety measures; and inspecting and servicing construction equipment regularly 

(SCE&G 2010a).
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-50 April 2011

4.4.1.4 Impacts on Buildings

Only SCE&G buildings would be affected by construction and preconstruction activities at the 

immediate VCSNS site. Existing buildings at the site have been constructed to safely withstand 

any possible impact, including shock and vibration, from activities associated with additional 

development at the VCSNS site (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A). Except for the existing 

structures on the VCSNS site, no other industrial, commercial, or recreational structures would 

be directly affected by the construction of the new facility. 

The nearest residence is approximately 1.3 mi from the site and is not expected to be directly 

affected by construction and preconstruction activities (SCE&G 2010a). If blasting is necessary, 

the building(s) most vulnerable to shock and vibration would be the VCSNS-related facilities, 

which have been built to withstand forces in excess of those they would experience as a result

of activities at the VCSNS site (SCE&G 2010a). Consequently, the review team concludes that 

the impacts on buildings would be minimal and would not warrant mitigation. 

4.4.1.5 Transportation Impacts

This EIS assesses the impact of transporting workers and construction materials to and from the 

VCSNS site from three perspectives: the socioeconomic impacts, the air quality impacts of dust 

and particulate matter put into the air by vehicle traffic, and the potential health impacts caused 

by additional traffic-related accidents. The socioeconomic impacts are addressed here and in 

Section 4.4.4.1. The air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.4.1.3, and the human health 

impacts are addressed in Section 4.8.

No new construction or major modification of public roads is planned and only minor repairs and 

maintenance of existing roadways are likely in preparation for site-development activities. The 

affected roads are primarily rural or county roads and do not support large volumes of daily 

traffic. Therefore, the review team concludes that the expected physical impacts on public 

roads and highways would be minimal and limited to wear and tear on the local roads from the 

increased traffic to the site. 

The main railroad lines in central South Carolina are owned and operated by the Norfolk 

Southern Railroad. Material deliveries to support construction and preconstruction activities are 

expected to be made by railroad using the existing VCSNS railroad spur that enters the site at 

its southern boundary and extends to the central portion of the site. The Norfolk Southern line 

and the VCSNS railroad spur would experience increased use if materials are brought in by 

train. The review team expects that some upgrading of the railroad line would be required 

between the site and Peak, South Carolina. Because these modifications are expected to be 

made within the existing railroad bed and any new railroad line would be built within the VCSNS 

site only, the review team concludes that the impacts of railway upgrading would be minimal.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-51 NUREG-1939

4.4.1.6 Impacts on Aesthetics

The VCSNS site is on a plateau above the Broad River and surrounded by lowlands, forested 

hills, and agricultural lands. The site is largely concealed from view by the surrounding forests. 

The 6800-ac Monticello Reservoir hosts numerous water sports and outdoor activities 

throughout the year and is surrounded by natural woodlands and low-density residential 

communities. Jenkinsville Park, approximately 2 mi east of the site, is the closest park. Any 

plumes and some construction equipment are likely to be visible from the reservoir. However, 

because Monticello Reservoir is north of the proposed facility, direct view of the VCSNS Units 2 

and 3 site is blocked by forest from most points on the reservoir or screened by views of Unit 1.

Visual impacts are determined by assessing the consequences of actions on scenic quality, 

scenic value, and the sensitivity of the affected viewscapes (DOI 2008). Negative visual 

impacts from additional development on the VCSNS site would be lessened by topography and 

by the fact that low-profile cooling towers would be used. Visual impacts on neighboring 

residents and individuals using the reservoir caused by cranes and increased traffic would be 

temporary. As noted in Section 4.1.2, minor patches of agricultural land would be permanently 

removed from production as a result of locating new transmission towers, but the review team 

expects the siting process would result in mitigation or compensation to affected land owners. 

Therefore, the review team concludes that the impact of construction and preconstruction 

activities at the proposed VCSNS site on aesthetics and recreational opportunities would be 

minimal and would not require mitigation.

4.4.1.7 Summary of Physical Impacts

The review team has evaluated information provided by SCE&G, visited the site and its 

environs, and performed an independent review of the potential physical impacts of construction 

and preconstruction activities on the local area and region of the VCSNS site. The review team 

concludes that the expected physical impacts enumerated in the preceding sections would be 

SMALL and that mitigation beyond the strategies outlined by SCE&G in its ER would not be 

warranted. 

4.4.2 Demographic Impacts on the Community

Socioeconomic impacts are the result of project expenditures and employment that change the 

employment and population levels of a community from baseline levels. Project expenditures 

and employment drive changes in population baselines by drawing new residents into an area 

and/or by preventing the departure of existing residents from an area. Growth in population and 

employment increase spending in the area, leading to increased demand for housing, 

education, and other facilities and services. The assessment of demographic impacts of the 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 construction and preconstruction activities is based on the 

consequences to the region and local communities of employment of an estimated peak of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-52 April 2011

almost 3600 workers. An additional 800 operations workers also would be onsite for training 

purposes toward the end of construction and preconstruction activities.

All workers onsite during the project are included in the assessment of impacts of the NRCauthorized activities, whether “construction” workers or “operations” workers. The building of 

Units 2 and 3 would be staggered by 2 years for a total site construction and preconstruction 

period of 10.25 years. This schedule would allow for sustained peak employment as employees 

finishing Unit 2 are then transferred to Unit 3 as it is reaching its employment peak, followed by 

a gradual reduction in employment as both units are completed.

As discussed in Section 2.5 of this EIS, the region extends 50 mi from the site boundary. 

Although the review team considered the entire region within a 50-mi radius of the VCSNS site 

when assessing socioeconomic impacts of construction and preconstruction activities, the 

primary focus is on Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, all of which are in 

South Carolina. Based on the size of the resident workforce within commuting distance of the 

VCSNS site, commuter patterns, and the distribution of residential communities in the area, the 

review team expects minimal demographic impacts on other counties within the region.

Based on this information, the review team anticipates that the majority of the construction and 

preconstruction workforce would not migrate into the economic impact area but already would

live within a reasonable commuting distance. The review team examined the Final 

Environmental Statement (FES) issued for the Operating License for Unit 1 by NRC (NRC 

1981). The timing of the FES was such that construction of Unit 1 was nearly complete and 

provided some ready observations to the NRC staff about the extent of the socioeconomic 

impacts. Based on a survey of Unit 1 construction workers, the NRC staff concluded that 

80 percent lived within the 50-mi region, and that 50 percent lived in Lexington or Richland 

Counties (NRC 1981). While construction methods and skill sets have changed over the 

intervening years, the greater Columbia metropolitan area has also grown significantly. The 

review team would not expect significantly different settlement patterns during the Units 2 and 3 

construction and preconstruction activities.

Over the past decade, the four-county area surrounding the VCSNS site has experienced strong 

population growth, creating many employment opportunities for construction workers in the 

area. Given the presence of a significant construction industry and related workforce in the 

region, the review team expects significant in-migration would be unlikely during construction 

and preconstruction activities (see Tables 2-30 and 2-31).

As discussed in Section 2.5, the baseline (without VCSNS Units 2 and 3) population of the 

region is expected to continue to grow at a steady rate (see Table 2-23). Based on regional 

growth since the Unit 1 construction, coupled with observed migration behavior during the Unit 1 

construction, and typical outage workforce migration patterns, the review team concludes that 

50 percent of the peak workforce or 1800 workers can be assumed to migrate into the four-
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-53 NUREG-1939

county economic impact area. Potentially, it could be less than that amount, but 50 percent 

provides a reasonable assumption, given that the skills required for modern, large-scale 

construction projects have increased in complexity and finding sufficient numbers of 

appropriately skilled workers would require searching beyond the Columbia metropolitan area 

(SCE&G 2009d). Using the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimated household size of 2.6 persons, 

1800 in-migrating workers amount to 4680 in-migrating persons when families are considered. 

The specific community impacts resulting from potential demographic changes are discussed in 

Section 4.4.4. Table 4-5 highlights expected county-level demographic impacts.

Table 4-5. Expected Distribution of In-Migrating Construction Workers in the Region at Peak 

of Construction

County

Number of

Current Unit 1

Operations

Workforce

Percent of

Current Unit 1

Operations

Workforce

Number of

Units 2 and 3

In-Migrating

Construction

Workforce

Number of

In-Migrating 

People

Fairfield County 58 9.1 164 426

Lexington County 219 34.5 621 1615

Newberry County 115 18.1 326 847

Richland County 209 32.9 592 1540

Economic impact area 601 94.6 1703 4427

Other counties 34 5.4 97 253

Total 635 100.0 1800 4680

The review team anticipates that the majority of the in-migrating workers would move into 

Richland and Lexington Counties because of their relative proximity to the site, housing 

availability, and amenities. The review team estimated the baseline population of the fourcounty area would increase steadily over the 2010–2060 period (see Table 2-23). Therefore, 

based upon current and projected population levels, the expected increase in in-migrating 

workers and their families would represent a less than 1 percent increase over the region’s 

projected 2010 population.

Because of the area’s size, the review team expects that any demographic impacts from 

construction and preconstruction activities would be SMALL and temporary. Likewise, the 

review team expects that Fairfield and Newberry Counties would receive relatively few of the inmigrating workers and their families. Therefore, the review team anticipates any population 

impacts of construction and preconstruction activities in Fairfield and Newberry Counties would 

not be noticeable and the communities nearest the VCSNS site would likely experience SMALL 

and temporary demographic impacts. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-54 April 2011

4.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community

This section evaluates the changes in employment, income, and output attributable to the 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 construction and preconstruction activities in the four-county economic 

impact area. 

4.4.3.1 Economy

The impacts of construction and preconstruction activities on the local and regional economy 

depend on the region’s current and projected economy and population. Characteristics of the 

economy and workforce in the region are described in Section 2.5.2 of this EIS. At its peak, the 

construction- and preconstruction-phase workforce is estimated to require about 3600 workers. 

Construction and preconstruction activities would be staggered by 2 years between Units 2 and 

3 to avoid dramatic swings in employment. The number of in-migrating workers would be 

affected to some degree by local training programs and other measures to prepare the local 

labor force. In its ER, SCE&G estimates that the Units 2 and 3 construction and preconstruction 

activities would last 30 months for preparation and grading and 93 months for building the new 

units, for a total project duration of 10.25 years (SCE&G 2010a). 

The in-migration of approximately 1800 workers, most bringing their families, would create new 

indirect jobs in the area. Through a process called the “employment multiplier effect,” a new 

(direct) job in a given area stimulates spending for goods and services that results in the 

economic need for a fraction of a new (indirect) job, typically in service-related industries. The 

cumulative effect of a new direct job workforce being added to an economy induces the creation 

of a number of new indirect jobs. The ratio of new jobs (direct plus indirect) to the number of 

new direct jobs is called the “employment multiplier.”

In addition, spending by construction workers and contractors during building stimulates 

additional spending through a second multiplier effect, where 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 “earnings multiplier.” The U.S. Department of Commerce 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Economics and Statistics Division, provides regional 

multipliers for industry jobs and earnings and a custom set of multipliers was provided by BEA 

to SCE&G for the four-county economic impact area (SCE&G 2010a).

The Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) employment multiplier for the economic 

impact area is 2.045, meaning that for each direct job created a total of 2.045 jobs (including the 

direct job) would be supported in the economic impact area. In the case of the VCSNS 

construction and preconstruction activities this means the 1800 direct jobs at the project peak 

would generate 1881 indirect and induced jobs in the four-county economic impact area. Only 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-55 NUREG-1939

the in-migrating direct jobs are counted so that a net impact can be estimated. Other indirect 

and induced jobs are assumed to be allocated to area residents who would be leaving other 

jobs to take VCSNS-related employment. As a result, the direct employment of 3600 workers at 

the project peak would support a total of 3762 indirect jobs in the economic impact area. 

Because half of the workforce is expected to migrate to the area, only half of the direct and 

indirect employment supported by the project would count as an impact on the economic 

impact area.

Skilled workers required for construction and preconstruction activities at the proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 include electrical workers, welders, and pipe fitters. To obtain the necessary 

skilled and unskilled workers, construction companies are expected to recruit some employees 

from local technical school programs and to work with local and regional technical school 

programs and school administrators to expand offerings in the necessary technical and craft 

areas. 

During visits to the area, the review team observed that job training programs are being 

implemented in the local area specifically to train workers for the VCSNS construction jobs and 

other similar jobs beyond the VCSNS project. Given the nature of the regional economy and 

the materials needed to construct proposed Units 2 and 3, only a relatively limited quantity of 

materials and services are expected to be purchased from within the economic impact area 

during construction and preconstruction activities.

The review team estimates that the average wage in the Columbia metropolitan area for these 

workers currently is about $37,000 per year or about $18.50 per hour, based on a 2000-hour 

work year, based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 2008a). Assuming a 

benefits package that would double that annual amount to $74,000, the review team estimates 

that annual earnings at peak project employment would be about $266.4 million. That 

$266.4 million represents the direct income effect of the project to the economic impact area. 

Applying the income multiplier of 1.926 supplied to SCE&G from RIMS II, the earnings, including 

benefits, paid to the project workforce would result in generation of an additional $246.7 million 

annually in the economic impact area during peak employment years, for a total income effect of 

$513.1 million. As discussed with employment, the real impact would net out to about half 

($256.5 million) because only half of the direct and indirect employment supported by the 

project would count as an impact to the economic impact area.

Combined with the indirect jobs created by the proposed action, this would likely have a positive 

effect on unemployment in the area during the early stages of the project when onsite 

employment would be increasing and would create business opportunities for housing and 

service-related industries, especially in Lexington and Richland Counties. 

The review team concludes, based on its independent review of the likely economic effects of 

the proposed action that beneficial economic impacts of the proposed action would be 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-56 April 2011

experienced throughout the four-county economic impact area. Depending on actual worker 

relocation patterns, portions of Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties would 

expect temporary positive economic and employment impacts on the local economy during 

construction and preconstruction activities. Economic impacts elsewhere in the wider region 

would be smaller but beneficial.

4.4.3.2 Taxes

The tax structure of the region is discussed in Section 2.5 of this EIS. Several types of taxes 

would be generated during the construction and preconstruction activities, including income 

taxes on wages and salaries, sales and use taxes on corporate and employee purchases, and 

personal property taxes associated with employees.

Given that 50 percent of the peak project workforce already would live in the local area, and that 

the in-migrating workers would reside primarily in the four counties roughly in the same 

distribution as the current operations workforce for Unit 1, the review team expects no county in 

the economic impact area or the State to experience a significant change in its tax revenue 

streams during construction and preconstruction activities. To the degree that skilled workers 

from out of state are likely to relocate to the economic impact area during construction and 

preconstruction activities, the review team expects that a minimal increase in State income tax 

revenue would be generated from their salaries. However, the skilled craft jobs would account 

for a very small proportion of the overall workforce in the economic impact area, making a major 

State income tax revenue impact unlikely.

Because the number of new income tax payers in South Carolina resulting from the VCSNS 

project would not change noticeably in the context of the State’s income tax base, the review 

team determined income tax revenue attributable to the VCSNS project also would be minimal. 

The review team estimates that $12−$15 million in annual income tax revenue would be 

attributable to construction and preconstruction during peak years of activity; however the 

overwhelming majority of that revenue would have been generated by the same workers, from 

employment some place in South Carolina other than at the proposed new units at the VCSNS 

site. Similarly, the review team assessed State sales tax impacts in the same context. Such 

revenue impacts only apply to the portion of the workforce that would be new to South Carolina

and also would be minimal.

The in-migrating employees and contractors working at the VCSNS site during the project also 

would pay property taxes, State income taxes, real-estate transfer fees, and motor-vehicle 

taxes, which are collected by or on behalf of the State government and distributed to State 

agencies and minor jurisdictions, including schools. The economic impact area would 

experience an increase in sales and use taxes generated by retail expenditures 

(e.g., restaurants, hotels, merchant sales, food) by the construction and preconstruction 

workforce. SCE&G estimates that $11 million (2007 dollars) in annual sales tax revenue would 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-57 NUREG-1939

be attributable to construction and preconstruction activities (SCE&G 2010a). The State also 

would experience an increase in the sales and use taxes collected from building materials and 

supplies purchased for the project and workers spending their incomes on goods and services 

in South Carolina. These revenues would likely be generally proportional to the wages paid to 

workers at proposed Units 2 and 3, increasing through the peak of construction and 

preconstruction activities and then declining until stabilizing after completion of these activities.

Although SCE&G currently pays property taxes on the existing land and improvements at the

VCSNS site, the review team does not expect that there would be any increase in property 

taxes revenue until after construction and preconstruction activities are completed. Currently, 

taxes paid by SCE&G on the VCSNS site account for about 40 percent of Fairfield County’s 

total annual property tax revenues. For the years 1999 to 2008, based on Table 2-33 of this 

EIS, SCE&G’s share of Fairfield County’s property tax revenue has been slightly declining. 

After completion, SCE&G would pay property taxes on the new VCSNS Units 2 and 3 facilities 

under a “fee in-lieu of tax” agreement with Fairfield County (SCE&G 2009k). These impacts are 

discussed in Section 5.4.3.2. 

Based on this assessment, the review team concludes that the potential impact of taxes within 

the region because of the construction and preconstruction activities would be minimal and 

beneficial. The impact within Fairfield County, where the units would be located, also would be 

minimal and beneficial because the review team expects most tax impacts to occur during the 

operations phase.

4.4.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts on the Community

The review team has reviewed information provided by SCE&G, visited the site and its environs, 

and performed an independent review of potential economic impacts of construction and 

preconstruction activities on the local area and region of the VCSNS site. The review team 

concludes that the expected economic impacts on the affected communities, enumerated in the 

preceding sections, would be SMALL and beneficial, and no further mitigation would be 

required.

4.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts

Infrastructure and community services include transportation, recreation, housing, public 

services, and education, as described in the following sections.

4.4.4.1 Transportation Impacts

Railways, waterways, roads, and highways are the modes of transportation relevant to the 

VCSNS site.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-58 April 2011

Railways and Waterways

While the spur line from the Norfolk Southern railroad line may be used to bring in heavy 

construction materials, the review team does not anticipate its use to increase greatly. Some 

railroad upgrading may be required and new spur lines would be laid on the VCSNS site. No 

waterways would be used to transport construction materials to the site. 

Roads and Highways

This section deals with the infrastructure impacts of the traffic generated by construction and 

preconstruction activities. The air quality impacts of transportation are addressed in Section 

4.4.1.5 and the human health impacts are addressed in Section 4.8.3. 

Construction- and preconstruction-related impacts on traffic are determined by five elements:

• the number and timing of worker vehicles on the roads per shift

• the number of shift changes for the workforce per day

• the number and timing of truck deliveries to the site per day

• the projected population growth rate in Fairfield County 

• the current capacity and usage of the roads, including use by the existing operations 

workforce.

Based on South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) traffic data (see Table 2-34), 

SC-213 between the Newberry County line and SC-215 at Jenkinsville currently averages 

2400 vehicles daily under normal circumstances. That number is well under the 8600-vehicle 

capacity suggested by level of service (LOS) “C”, which is the SCDOT standard for two-lane 

rural roadways (SCDOT 2009). SCDOT also indicates that SC-215 from the Richland County 

line to the junction with SC-213 averages 1600 vehicles daily under normal circumstances, also 

well under LOS “C” standards. The review team recognizes that many options exist to allow 

flexibility in organizing site shift schedules, and believes that a two-shift work schedule would be 

a realistic assumption for the VCSNS site for traffic impact analysis during construction and 

preconstruction activities. SCE&G suggested that under a two-shift option (two 12-hour shifts), 

total peak-hour traffic on SC-213 and SC-215 would be 2118 vehicles, of which 1800 would be 

associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 activities (SCE&G 2009k). Under that assumption, the 

annual average daily traffic (AADT) for each route would rise to 6000 for SC-213 and to 5200 for 

SC-215, still well within SCDOT capacity standards. 

Under these assumptions, SCDOT daily road-capacity standards would not be exceeded, but 

would be exceeded during peak commute periods of the day such as shift changes (SCE&G 

2010a), and the increase in traffic would be noticeable to local residents in the Jenkinsville area 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-59 NUREG-1939

for the worker commuting hours during the period of peak building activity. The review team 

estimates volumes during construction and preconstruction activities would represent a 

50-percent increase in AADT on SC-213 and a 125-percent increase in AADT on SC-215. The 

review team concludes that these impacts would be noticeable, especially during periods of shift 

change. These impacts would be further exacerbated by truck traffic and site delivery traffic that 

have no other route options available. Without mitigation, acute traffic impacts would increase 

during outage periods at Unit 1, when on average 655 additional workers, spread across a 

similar shift schedule, would travel to the site.

SCE&G states that it would develop a traffic-management plan prior to starting major 

construction and preconstruction activities. Planned mitigation measures could include 

establishing centralized parking away from the site and using worker bus shuttle services, 

encouraging car pools, staggering shift schedules so that acute traffic impacts could be avoided, 

scheduling delivery services to occur at off-shift-change times, and establishing shuttle services 

from Columbia (SCE&G 2010a).

Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s own independent review, 

including visits to the site and affected communities, the review team concludes that during 

peak site employment, the traffic impacts from site-development activities for Units 2 and 3 

(including the traffic impacts of Unit 1 outage workers) would have locally noticeable impacts in 

the immediate vicinity of the VCSNS site and the community of Jenkinsville and minimal impacts 

on other roadways in the region. These impacts would be largely temporary and of short 

duration, based on the size of the workforce during any one period, and would abate as 

construction and preconstruction activities wind down. SCE&G has identified several planned 

mitigation measures to minimize the impact. Therefore, the review team concludes that traffic 

impacts in the Jenkinsville area would be noticeable, but not destabilizing, in close proximity to 

the site, including the Jenkinsville community. The rest of the region would experience little to 

no traffic-related impacts.

4.4.4.2 Impacts on Recreation

As discussed in Section 2.5.2.4, a variety of recreation areas exist in the region, including State 

parks and public and private facilities that support outdoor activities such as recreational boating 

and fishing on the Monticello Reservoir, hiking, camping, and hunting. The review team expects 

that recreationists would not be precluded from hunting, fishing, or other outdoor recreation 

activities in the vicinity of the site as a result of construction and preconstruction activities. 

The review team concludes that at least half of the construction workers and their families would 

be from within the region and therefore would have no net effect on the usage rates for local 

recreational facilities. Given the large population of the 50-mi region and the relatively small 

number of expected in-migrating workers relative to each county’s population, the review team 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-60 April 2011

expects some minimal increase in recreation site usage rates due to the in-migrating worker 

families and mitigation would not be warranted.

4.4.4.3 Housing Impacts

Regional housing characteristics and availability are described in Section 2.5.2.5 and 

Table 2-35. The proximity of a number of population centers to the VCSNS site, including the 

City of Columbia, adds flexibility to the provision of housing in the vicinity of the site. The urban 

areas of Columbia, Lexington, and West Columbia – all within reasonable commuting distance 

to the site – add to this flexibility. Given the number of new jobs that would be created by the 

construction and operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, and the availability of heavy 

construction workers within the region (see Table 2-31), the demand for housing by in-migrating 

workers would not put significant pressure on the local housing supply. 

The greater Columbia metropolitan area has sufficient housing available for rent or purchase, as 

is typical of most developing urban areas. If a significant number of workers migrate into the 

area, the region would be able to provide housing for the workers and their families. The fourcounty area surrounding the VCSNS site has demonstrated that it can meet the housing 

demands of a growing population over the past decade during which it experienced steady 

growth. Housing data for this area in 2000 indicate that there were 21,848 vacant housing units, 

or 8.8 percent of the county’s total housing stock. Renter-occupied housing accounted for 

70,549 or 31.2 percent of the area’s total occupied housing stock (see Table 2-35). Based on 

county population projections, the review team believes that population growth will remain 

steady in this area for the 2010–2060 period, necessitating continued expansion of the area’s 

housing stock (see Table 2-23).

The boom-and-bust nature of large-scale construction projects aggravates the housing impacts 

in local communities. The typical pattern begins when in-migrating workers and their families 

(along with local residents with enhanced economic resources because of project- and workerrelated jobs and expenditures) increase the demand for housing. Increased demand creates 

upward pressure on both the housing supply and prices in the local area. When construction 

ends, most in-migrating workers leave and local indirect jobs also are lost. Because a 

considerable construction workforce already lives locally, many of these impacts could be 

avoided. Additionally, the high population growth rate in the region would mitigate much of the 

economic decline after the completion of construction. Planning and zoning activities since the 

completion of Unit 1 are likely to prevent adverse impacts from haphazard housing practices like 

informal recreational vehicle camping, living out of vehicles, etc. Finally, the review team 

believes that while recent economic events have depressed the national economy, this 

economic downturn is temporary, and current long-term growth projections are still reasonable.

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and NRC’s own independent review, the review 

team concludes that the housing-related impacts of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-61 NUREG-1939

construction and preconstruction activities would be minimal and temporary for the region and 

the four-county area, with no particular concentration of impacts, and that no mitigation would 

be warranted. 

4.4.4.4 Impacts on Public Services

This section describes the available public services and discusses the impacts of construction 

and preconstruction activities at the VCSNS site on water supply and waste treatment; police, 

fire, and medical services; education; and social services in the region.

Water Supply Facilities

Like VCSNS Unit 1, water for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 construction and preconstruction activities, 

including potable water and industrial use, would likely be obtained from Monticello Reservoir. 

As described in Section 3.2.2, a new water-treatment system supplied by Monticello Reservoir 

would be developed to serve Units 2 and 3. Monticello Reservoir has a total storage capacity of 

400,000 ac-ft (130,341 million gallons) and a usable volume of 45,000 ac-ft (14,663 million 

gallons) that is maintained by pumping from the Broad River via the Fairfield Pumped Storage 

Facility. The peak withdrawal rate during construction and preconstruction activities from 

Monticello Reservoir is estimated to be 420 gpm (SCE&G 2010a). This withdrawal rate is less 

than 1 cfs, and, conservatively assuming complete consumptive use, represents about

0.1 percent reduction of Broad River flow under very low-flow conditions (1 cfs out of 853 cfs). 

Until the proposed water-treatment system for Units 2 and 3 is operational, water for 

construction and preconstruction would be obtained from the Jenkinsville Water District, a public 

source with enough excess capacity to meet this additional demand (SCE&G 2010a). 

Therefore, the review team concludes that impacts on the site potable water system would 

be minimal.

Monticello Reservoir supplies water to VCSNS Unit 1, but is not a source for any public water 

systems. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, the review team does not expect construction and 

preconstruction activities to affect groundwater or wells in the region. The review team 

concludes that there would be minimal impacts on public water systems and private wells in the 

vicinity due to water demands onsite.

The location and capacity of water and wastewater systems serving the communities in the fourcounty area are described in Section 2.5.2.6. These communities are expected to provide a 

majority of the construction and preconstruction workers, minimizing the need for additional 

water supplies. The review team expects impacts on public water systems from in-migrating 

workers and their families to be minimal, because large concentrations of workers relocating to 

any single locality within the four-county area are not likely, and most of the communities in the 

four counties have excess capacity within their water-treatment facilities (see Table 2-37).
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-62 April 2011

Wastewater-Treatment Facilities

The municipal wastewater-treatment facilities affected by the in-migration of population because 

of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 construction and preconstruction activities are described in 

Section 2.5.2.6. As indicated previously, the majority of the workforce is expected to come from 

within the region, while the majority of in-migrating workers would relocate to communities in the 

four-county area. The region surrounding the VCSNS site has experienced steady and 

significant population growth in the past decade, and as a result, water districts in the region 

have developed wastewater-treatment plants capable of absorbing the increased demands (see 

Table 2-38). SCE&G expects to construct a new sanitary waste-treatment system to service 

site-development activities for Units 2 and 3 (see Section 3.2.2). The review team expects 

minimal impacts on wastewater-treatment facilities from the Units 2 and 3 construction and 

preconstruction activities and no mitigation would be warranted.

Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

The Fairfield County Sheriff’s Department and local police departments provide lawenforcement services in Fairfield County. The Fairfield County Sheriff’s Department has 

jurisdiction in the unincorporated areas of the county and is the designated emergency 

response police enforcement provider. Current growth trends in property tax revenue, 

illustrated in Table 2-33, suggest that demands for any new services associated with 

construction and preconstruction activities would be readily absorbed by the increase in revenue 

associated with general growth in the local area. The review team concludes that the impact on 

law enforcement and firefighting services would be minimal and no mitigation would be 

warranted.

Residents in the four-county area are served by several hospitals, a number of clinics, and 

private practice doctors and dentists. Within the region surrounding the VCSNS site, Richland 

County acts as a central hub for healthcare services with several large medical centers in the 

Columbia area. The capacities for each of these medical centers can be found in Section 

2.5.2.6. For this reason, the review team concludes that there would be no significant impacts 

on medical facilities and on resident healthcare services in the region.

Social Services

The review team anticipates that demands placed on social services related to construction and 

preconstruction activities would occur in proportion to workforce residence patterns. Therefore, 

no single county would experience significant increases in demand for social services compared 

to any other. The review team believes the fact that Fairfield County is the host county of the 

VCSNS site does not imply that Fairfield County would receive any more impact on its social 

services infrastructure than any other county in the four-county area. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-63 NUREG-1939

Workforce training programs currently getting underway are expected to mitigate some 

demands on some income-based social services. The enhanced employment opportunities 

created by the multiplier effect during construction and preconstruction activities may provide 

some benefits to the disadvantaged population served by the South Carolina Department of 

Social Services. Increasing populations will most likely result in increased demand for nonincome-related health services, such as aid for children with special needs. However, such 

increases would constitute only a minor part of the overall availability of these services. As the 

project nears completion and direct and indirect jobs are lost, demands on social services may 

trend back to their original levels. The review team concludes that the impact on social services 

within any given county in the local area would be minimal.

4.4.4.5 Impacts on Education

Within the four-county area there are 168 public schools serving almost 111,000 students, with 

an average student-to-teacher ratio of 13.3 to 1, well below the State-mandated ratio maximum 

of 28:1. The total number of students in the public school systems surrounding the VCSNS site 

has grown over the past decade as the population of the region as a whole has grown. The 

largest public school districts in the area plan to construct new schools prior to the start of 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 activities. Based on information in Table 4-5, the number of in-migrating 

workers and their families will most likely be minimal and would be dispersed across the fourcounty area in roughly the proportion of the current operations workforce for Unit 1. The review 

team believes that project-related students that would enter the local school systems already 

have been factored into current growth projections. Therefore, the review team determined the 

impact of these new students on the education system in the four-county area would be minimal 

and no mitigation would be warranted.

4.4.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts 

The review team has evaluated information provided by SCE&G, visited the site and its 

environs, and performed an independent review of potential infrastructure and community 

service impacts of construction and preconstruction activities on the local area and region of the 

VCSNS site. The review team concludes that the expected infrastructure and community 

service impacts on the affected communities, enumerated in the preceding sections, would be 

SMALL, with one exception. The review team concluded that transportation impacts for a 

limited number of people living and working along the roadway network in the Jenkinsville 

community would be MODERATE. The review team also concluded that no further mitigation 

would be warranted for socioeconomic impacts, beyond SCE&G’s commitments.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-64 April 2011

4.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts During Construction and 

Preconstruction

Based on the discussion in the preceding sections, the review team concluded that the 

socioeconomic impacts of construction and preconstruction activities would be SMALL, with one 

exception. The review team concludes that transportation impacts for a limited number of 

people living and working along the roadway network in the Jenkinsville community would be 

MODERATE. The review team also concludes that no further mitigation would be warranted for 

socioeconomic impacts, beyond SCE&G’s commitments.

Based on the conclusions above, and because NRC-authorized construction activities represent 

only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of NRCauthorized construction activities would be SMALL, with one exception. The NRC concluded 

that no further mitigation would be warranted for those impacts.

The review team concludes that the transportation impacts along the roadway network in the 

Jenkinsville community would be MODERATE. To determine the portion of this impact 

attributable to NRC-authorized construction activities, the NRC staff assumes, based on 

SCE&G’s characterization of construction-related labor hours (SCE&G 2010a), 80 percent of 

traffic-related impacts over the life of the project would be associated with NRC-authorized 

construction activities. Using this allocation, the NRC staff estimates that VCSNS construction 

activities would lead to an increase of traffic on SC-213 of 40 percent above baseline conditions 

during peak project employment. The impact on SC-215 would be a 100-percent increase in 

traffic above baseline conditions. SCE&G has committed to extensive traffic-mitigation activities 

noted in Section 4.4.4.1, which would reduce the potential traffic impacts in the Jenkinsville 

area. Traffic levels associated with NRC-authorized construction activities would not exceed 

State capacity standards for two-lane highways. However, the NRC staff concludes that the 

traffic impacts in the Jenkinsville area from NRC-authorized construction activities still would be 

MODERATE, and additional mitigation measures beyond SCE&G’s commitments would not be 

warranted.

4.5 Environmental Justice Impacts

The review team evaluated whether the health or welfare of minority and low-income 

populations in the communities identified in Section 2.6 of this EIS could be affected by 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts from building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 at the 

proposed site. The review team (1) identified all potentially significant pathways for human 

health and welfare effects, (2) determined the impact of each pathway for populations, and 

(3) determined whether the characteristics of the pathway or special circumstances of the 

minority and low-income populations would result in a disproportionately high and adverse 

impact. To perform this assessment, the review team followed the methodology described in 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-65 NUREG-1939

Section 2.6.1. In the context of construction and preconstruction activities at the VCSNS site, 

the review team considered the questions outlined in Section 2.6.1. 

Research of population data indicated several census blocks within the vicinity of the VCSNS 

site and region having a minority population representing over 50 percent of the total population. 

Therefore, the review team concluded that more research into these populations and potential 

pathways was warranted. Upon further investigation, the review team determined that the 

population within the vicinity of the site, while not identified through the review criteria discussed 

in Section 2.6.1, included a high proportion of low-income people, as well. Furthermore, these 

minority and low-income communities exhibit additional unique characteristics and practices 

(subsistence fishing and hunting and personal vegetable gardening) that further identify them as 

being vulnerable to disproportionately high and adverse impacts. Therefore, the review team 

determined that the high proportion of minority and low-income people living in the vicinity of the 

VCSNS site and Jenkinsville creates a potential for a disproportionate impact. 

Environmental justice impacts are described in the following sections, including the impacts on 

health (Section 4.5.1), physical and environmental (Section 4.5.2), subsistence and special 

conditions (Section 4.5.3) and socioeconomic impacts (Section 4.5.4). Environmental justice 

impacts are summarized in Section 4.5.5.

4.5.1 Health Impacts

Section 4.9 of this EIS assesses the radiological doses to construction workers and concludes 

that the doses would be within NRC and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dose 

standards. Section 4.9 further concludes that radiological health impacts on the construction 

workers for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL. In addition, there would be no 

radioactive material on the construction site except for small sources such as those commonly 

used by radiographers; therefore, there would be no radiation exposure to members of the 

public living near the construction site. Based on this information, the review team concludes 

there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on low-income or minority 

members of the construction workforce or the local population.

Section 4.8 of this EIS assesses the nonradiological health effects for construction workers and 

the local population from fugitive dust, noise, occupational injuries, and transport of materials 

and personnel. In Section 4.8, the review team concludes nonradiological health impacts on 

construction workers and the local population would be SMALL. While the review team found 

evidence of unique characteristics and practices in the minority or low-income populations near 

the site, no practices or characteristics were found that would result in differential 

nonradiological health impacts compared to the general population. Based on this information, 

the review team concludes there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on 

low-income or minority members of the construction workforce or the local population.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-66 April 2011

4.5.2 Physical and Environmental Impacts

Except for the final phases of construction and preconstruction activities, just before the fuel is 

loaded into the reactor, construction of a nuclear power plant is very similar in environmental 

effects to the construction of any other large-scale industrial project. The three primary 

pathways in the environment for impacts to occur are via soil, water, and air. The potential 

impacts on each of these pathways, along with noise and socioeconomic impacts are 

discussed below.

4.5.2.1 Soil-Related Impacts

Construction and preconstruction activities at the VCSNS site represent the largest source of 

soil-related environmental impacts. However, while construction and preconstruction activities 

would disrupt large volumes of soil, the effects would be primarily localized and would have little 

migratory ability and would diminish to imperceptible levels beyond the site boundary. The 

planned use of BMPs at the site would mitigate these effects. Soil disruption within local 

communities attributable to any induced development activities would be limited, similar to 

normal ongoing activities, and dispersed geographically. As discussed in Section 2.6.3 of this 

EIS, while the review team found evidence of unique practices (private vegetable gardening) for 

the high proportion of low-income communities in the vicinity of the site and near Jenkinsville, 

the review team did not find any pathway that could result in different soil-related impacts 

compared to the general population. Given these factors, the review team concludes that soilrelated environmental impacts during construction and preconstruction activities would impose 

no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations.

4.5.2.2 Water-Related Impacts

Water-related environmental impacts include erosion-related degradation of surface water and 

the introduction of anthropogenic substances into surface water and groundwater. Such 

impacts attenuate rapidly with distance and would reach near background levels beyond the site 

boundary. No local minority or low-income communities were found to use the Broad River as 

the source of their water. As analyzed in Section 4.2, the review team expects SMALL impacts 

on the Broad River or Monticello Reservoir from sediments and contaminants.

Onsite groundwater would not be used as a water-supply source during construction and 

preconstruction activities, and there would be no discharges to the groundwater environment. 

Any necessary dewatering of the excavation would be localized, temporary, and limited in 

impact to areas within the site boundary. Consequently, the impacts of the proposed action on 

groundwater quality would be negligible, localized, and temporary. As discussed in Section 

2.6.3 of this EIS, the review team found evidence of some subsistence fishing in the vicinity of 

the site and near Jenkinsville, but did not identify any construction or preconstruction pathway 

that could result in different water-related impacts compared to the general population. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-67 NUREG-1939

Therefore, the review team concludes that the potential for minor negative impacts from 

surface-water or groundwater sources would not cause water-related disproportionately high

and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations.

4.5.2.3 Air Quality Impacts

Air quality impacts attenuate rapidly with distance from the source. Based on the findings in 

Section 4.4.1.3, motor-vehicle exhaust and dust from onsite construction and preconstruction 

activities would cause minor and localized air quality impacts that would not extend beyond the 

site boundaries. However, traffic-related air quality impacts would be more apparent within the 

vicinity of the site or the site access roads. While minority and low-income populations have 

been identified in the vicinity of the site and the site access roads, air quality impacts would be 

limited in duration to the peak employment period while building the proposed project and only 

to short periods of time during worker commutes.

Air quality impacts from construction and preconstruction activities at the site are at a distance 

from sensitive receptors and as a result are projected to cause minor localized adverse impacts 

on air quality at peak employment. These impacts would be highly localized and limited to the 

VCSNS site and local transportation routes leading to the site. Other than their location along 

access roads that may become congested, the review team did not identify evidence of any 

other unique characteristics or practices in the environmental justice community that may result 

in different impacts compared to the general population. Given the attenuation due to distance, 

the limited duration of construction and preconstruction activities, and the highly localized nature 

of the impacts, the review team concludes that construction and preconstruction activities would 

cause minor, but not disproportionately high adverse impacts on air quality for minority and lowincome populations.

4.5.2.4 Noise Impacts

Section 4.4.1.2 of this EIS describes the review team’s evaluation of noise impacts on 

surrounding communities from construction and preconstruction activities. These impacts were 

determined to be negligible. As stated in that analysis, noise levels from construction and 

preconstruction activities may exceed 100 dB within the site, but would be attenuated by 

distance and obstacles such as buildings, vegetation, and topography. Noise from traffic along 

the access routes to the sites may intermittently exceed levels acceptable for residential areas. 

However, these impacts would be more noticeable within the vicinity of the site or the site 

access roads. Sensitive noise receptors closest to the site are likely to experience intermittent, 

but temporary, noise pollution during the peak of construction and preconstruction activities.

Other than their location within the site vicinity, the review team did not identify evidence of 

unique characteristics or practices in the environmental justice community that may result in 

different noise-related impacts compared to the general population. Adverse noise impacts 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-68 April 2011

attenuate rapidly with distance and would not extend beyond this limited geographic area. 

Given the noise attenuation due to distance and physical obstructions, the limited duration of 

peak construction and preconstruction activities, and the highly localized nature of the activities 

(immediate proximity to the site), the review team concludes that construction and 

preconstruction activities would cause minor, but not disproportionately high and adverse noise 

impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

4.5.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions

The NRC’s environmental justice methodology includes an assessment of affected populations 

of particular interest or with unusual circumstances, such as minority communities that are 

exceptionally dependent on subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations such as 

American Indian settlements. As discussed in Section 2.6.3, the review team was also made 

aware of anecdotal evidence of private vegetable gardens and subsistence fishing among the 

low-income populations in the vicinity of the VCSNS site (NRC 2010). However, under closer 

investigation, no pathways were identified from construction and preconstruction activities that 

would modify or disrupt these subsistence uses. The review team also searched locally for 

evidence of subsistence fishing and hunting and could not identify any concentration of these 

activities that would be affected by construction and preconstruction activities at the site. Nor 

did the review team identify any unusual resource dependencies such as plants with religious or 

economic significance or any key transportation routes that might be disrupted by construction 

and preconstruction activities. Therefore, the review team concludes that there would be no 

disproportionately high adverse impacts on the subsistence activities of minority or low-income 

populations from construction and preconstruction activities for VCSNS Units 2 and 3.

4.5.4 Socioeconomics

The four-county economic impact area has sufficient housing available and has experienced 

levels of growth such that in-migrating workers would not have a noticeable impact on housing 

prices or availability in any affected county.

Other than their location along access roads that may become congested, the review team did 

not identify evidence of any other unique characteristics or practices in the environmental justice 

community that may result in different impacts compared to the general population. With 

respect to the natural or physical environment, the review team determined that traffic during 

construction and preconstruction has the potential for adverse impacts on residents in the 

vicinity of the VCSNS site and in Jenkinsville. As discussed in Section 4.4.4.1, while daily road 

capacity standards would not be exceeded by the maximum building related traffic (daily 

commute times during peak building activity), peak-hour traffic levels would exceed current 

State management standards (SCE&G 2010a), and construction worker traffic would constitute 

a 50-percent increase in average daily traffic along SC-213 and a 125-percent increase along 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-69 NUREG-1939

SC-215. The review team anticipates that because the traffic-related impacts are temporary 

and of short duration in nature, they would be noticeable but not destabilizing to the Jenkinsville 

community. Without mitigation, acute traffic impacts would increase further during outage 

periods at Unit 1, when on average 655 additional workers, spread across a similar shift 

schedule, would travel to the site.

SCE&G states that it would develop a traffic-management plan prior to starting major 

construction and preconstruction activities, including a possible centralized parking lot that 

would transport workers to and from the VCSNS site, encouraging car pools, staggering shift 

schedules and delivery services and establishing shuttle services from Columbia (SCE&G 

2009a). However, even with the proposed mitigation, given the communities in the vicinity of 

the VCSNS and Jenkinsville exhibit such high proportions of minority and low-income people, 

the review team determined that there could still be a disproportionately high and adverse 

impact on minority and low-income communities in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. 

The actions to be taken by SCE&G, together with the intermittent and limited duration 

characteristics of commuter traffic, led the review team to determine that there would be a 

noticeable but not destabilizing impact on those minority and low-income populations.

4.5.5 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts During Construction and 

Preconstruction

Given the magnitude of the impacts that would generally be attenuated due to distance, the 

limited duration of construction and preconstruction activities, and the highly localized nature of 

the impacts, the review team concludes that construction and preconstruction activities would 

cause SMALL, but not disproportionate, impacts on health, physical and environmental 

resources, subsistence and special conditions, and socioeconomics. The review team 

determined in Section 4.4.4.1 that traffic impacts related to construction and preconstruction 

activities would be noticeable in the Jenkinsville area. This area was identified in the review 

team’s analysis, described in Section 2.6, as having minority populations that meet the definition 

of environmental justice populations, and through review team site visits as having a 

significantly high proportion of low-income households, as well. Therefore, the review team 

concluded there could be traffic-related disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority 

and low-income populations found in the Jenkinsville area. However, the review team believes 

that because the traffic-related impacts would be temporary and of short duration in nature, and 

would be mitigated to some extent by SCE&G commitments, they would be noticeable but not 

destabilizing to the Jenkinsville community. Therefore, the review team concludes that the 

environmental justice impacts from construction and preconstruction activities related to traffic 

would be MODERATE. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-70 April 2011

The review team concluded that there were disproportionately high and adverse impacts from 

construction and preconstruction activities on minority and low-income populations, and that the 

impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing. The environmental justice impacts could not 

be entirely avoided by the applicant’s mitigative measures; therefore, the review team 

determined that the remaining traffic-related impacts would be MODERATE. As discussed in 

Section 4.4.5, the NRC staff assumes that 80 percent of the traffic impact is associated with 

NRC authorized construction activities. Furthermore, the portion of total construction and 

preconstruction traffic-related impacts attributable to NRC-authorized construction activities still 

would be noticeable but not destabilizing to the Jenkinsville community. Therefore, the NRC 

staff concludes that the environmental justice impacts from NRC-authorized construction 

activities related to traffic would be MODERATE.

The review team determined there are no other pathways by which the identified minority or 

low-income populations in the 50-mi region would be likely to suffer disproportionate and 

adverse environmental or health impacts as a result of the project. Therefore, the NRC staff 

concludes there are no other health, physical or environmental pathways by which the 

identified minority or low-income populations in the 50-mi region would be likely to suffer 

disproportionate and adverse environmental or health impacts as a result of the NRC-authorized 

construction activities. 

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) requires that Federal 

agencies 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 

(NHPA), also requires Federal agencies to consider impacts on those resources if they are 

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (such resources are referred to as 

“Historic Properties” in NHPA). As outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, “Coordination with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969,” the NRC is coordinating compliance with Section 106 of the 

NHPA in fulfilling its responsibilities under NEPA. 

Construction and preconstruction of new nuclear power plants can affect either known or 

undiscovered cultural resources. In accordance with the provisions of NHPA and NEPA, the 

NRC and USACE are required to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic 

properties in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and, if such properties are present, determine 

whether any significant impacts are likely to occur. Identification of historic properties is to occur 

in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), American Indian Tribes, 

interested parties, and the public. If significant impacts are possible, efforts should be made to 

describe potential mitigation. As part of the NEPA/NHPA integration, if no historic properties 

(i.e., places eligible for listing in the National Register or meeting the NEPA definition of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-71 NUREG-1939

important) are present or affected, the NRC and the USACE are still 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.

4.6.1 Onsite Cultural and Historic Resources Impacts 

For a description of the historic and cultural resource information about the VCSNS site, see 

Section 2.7 of this EIS. As explained in Section 2.7, previous cultural resource identification 

efforts resulting in the identification of a total of 39 archaeological sites within the VCSNS site 

APE, most of which have been recommended as ineligible for listing in the National Register. 

Four archaeological sites have either been recommended as National Register eligible, 

38FA330 (General Pearson Cemetery) and 38FA360; potentially eligible, 38FA366; or 

recommended for preservation, despite not being considered potentially eligible for inclusion in 

the National Register, 38FA349.

These four archaeological sites are located within the project APE but outside of the proposed 

footprint of disturbance identified by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009h). SCE&G currently has protective 

measures in place for these resources, including fencing at the Pearson Cemetery, temporary 

fencing at 38FA360, and delineation of all four sites as sensitive areas on management maps 

and plant layout and design drawings (SCE&G 2009l, m). Proposed signage would read 

“Environmentally Sensitive Area, Do Not Disturb” (SCE&G 2009m). These protective measures 

would be identified and added to SCE&G’s Environmental Management Plan for VCSNS Units 2 

and 3 (SCE&G 2009m). In addition, SCE&G would provide cultural awareness training for all 

workers including awareness of signage and inadvertent discovery procedures for Unit 1, which 

would also be applied to Units 2 and 3 and would be described in SCE&G’s Environmental 

Management Plan (SCE&G 2009l, m, n). These procedures indicate that work would stop and 

the SHPO would be contacted if inadvertent discovery of cultural resources occurs (SCE&G 

2009m, n). The South Carolina SHPO, in a letter to SCE&G, concurred with a finding of no 

adverse effect to archaeological sites 38FA330 and 38FA360 based on protective and 

avoidance measures being implemented by SCE&G, but would like to see the protective and 

avoidance measures formalized in a Programmatic Agreement (SCE&G 2009o). The SHPO 

also indicated that if archaeological site 38FA366 cannot be avoided, additional archaeological 

testing would need to occur to evaluate the site for National Register eligibility. The SHPO also 

concurred in a letter to SCE&G with a finding of no historic properties affected for the 35 

archaeological sites that are not eligible (SCE&G 2009o).

To address the SHPO’s request for a Programmatic Agreement, SCE&G has entered into a 

management agreement with the USACE and the SHPO to formalize avoidance and protective 

measures listed above as well as any updates made to the Environmental Management Plan 

regarding cultural resources awareness training and inadvertent discovery procedures 

(USACE 2011a).
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-72 April 2011

The review team analyzed the construction and preconstruction activities related to building the 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and the potential historic and cultural resources impacts. The 

review team has also considered the signed management agreement between SCE&G, the 

SHPO, and the USACE that formalizes the protection and avoidance measures being 

undertaken by SCE&G to ensure protection of the onsite cultural resources (USACE 2011a).

For the purposes of NHPA 106 consultation, based on the (1) protective measures that SCE&G 

will undertake to avoid adversely affecting sites 38FA330 and 38FA360, (2) project design and 

avoidance measures that SCE&G will undertake to avoid adverse impacts on sites 38FA366 

and 38FA349, (3) SCE&G’s reliance on inadvertent discovery procedures if ground-disturbing 

activities discover cultural or historic resources, and (4) the NRC’s and USACE’s cultural 

resources analysis and consultation, the NRC and USACE conclude a finding of no adverse 

effect to 38FA330 and 38FA360. In addition, the NRC and USACE conclude a finding of no 

effect to historic properties for 38FA366 (lithic scatter) and FA349 (tree carving), because these 

sites have not been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and the 

sites would be outside the areas to be disturbed. By correspondence dated May 25, 2010, the 

South Carolina SHPO concurred with NRC’s finding provided that the management agreement 

is in place (see Appendix F for a copy of this letter) (SCDAH 2010).

The General Pearson Cemetery and the Daughters of the American Revolution monument are 

examples of cultural resources located within the APE that would not be physically affected by 

the proposed action, but the potential visual impacts of the proposed action are sufficient to alter 

noticeably important attributes of the resources. The proposed action would alter noticeably the 

landscape and environment surrounding these cultural resources. The grading and excavation 

that would occur from preconstruction activities as well as the erection of various buildings to 

support the new reactor would modify the visual landscape that is considered to be an important 

attribute of these resources. Important attributes of these cultural resources include the 

following:

• context and landscape of the surrounding area

• relationship of the cemetery and landmark with regional history, settlement patterns, and 

use of the land

• the integrity of the site and the viewshed.

Protective measures and avoidance plans, which are described in the management agreement,

have been developed in consultation with the SHPO and the USACE so that these impacts can 

be minimized (USACE 2011a). The signed management agreement formalizes and enforces 

these protective measures.

For the purposes of the review team’s NEPA analysis, based on the (1) protective measures 

that SCE&G would undertake to avoid adversely affecting 38FA330 and 38FA360, (2) project 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-73 NUREG-1939

design and avoidance measures that SCE&G would undertake to avoid adverse impacts to 

38FA366 and FA349, (3) SCE&G’s reliance on inadvertent discovery procedures should 

ground-disturbing activities discover cultural or historic resources, and (4) the review team’s 

cultural resources analysis and consultation, the review team concludes that the historic and 

cultural resources impacts from construction and preconstruction activities would be 

MODERATE and no further mitigation beyond that described above would be warranted. 

Based on the above analysis, and because the visual impacts on the resources are primarily 

from preconstruction, and thus not part of the NRC action, the NRC staff concludes that the 

minor visual impacts from NRC-authorized construction activities on historic and cultural 

resources would be SMALL and no further mitigation would be warranted.

4.6.2 Offsite Cultural and Historic Resource Impacts

Visual impacts from transmission lines may result in significant alterations to the visual 

landscape within the geographic area of interest. Visual impacts on cultural resources could be 

unavoidable if significant cultural resources where the historic setting and character of the 

resource are important attributes associated with that resource are located within the 

geographic area of interest. Given the length of new transmission lines and the possibility of 

finding significant cultural resources along the transmission lines, some impacts on cultural 

resources may be unavoidable. The potential for visual impacts exists and in the absence of 

more detailed information, these impacts cannot be evaluated with certainty.

SCE&G and Santee Cooper have worked with the SHPO and the USACE to each write a 

management agreement that details cultural resources requirements, including completion of 

cultural resource surveys of transmission-line corridors once the routes are finalized. Two 

separate management agreements between SCE&G, the SHPO, and the USACE and 

between Santee Cooper, the SHPO, and the USACE have been completed and signed

(USACE 2011a, b). These agreements formalize how these cultural resource investigations 

and possible mitigations would be carried out in consultation with the SHPO. The review team 

has reviewed impacts related to installation of the proposed transmission lines. The review 

team has considered the management agreements between the SHPO, SCE&G, and Santee 

Cooper that formalize the cultural resources review process prior to installation of the 

transmission lines. 

For the purposes of the review team’s NEPA analysis, based on the (1) SCE&G’s and Santee 

Cooper’s management agreements with the SHPO and the USACE, as described above and 

(2) the review team’s cultural resources analysis, preconstruction activities associated with 

transmission lines have the potential to impact cultural resources. Impacts could be SMALL if 

there are no significant alterations to the cultural environment. If these activities result in 

significant alterations to the cultural environment, the impact could be greater.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-74 April 2011

According to 10 CFR 50.10 (a) (2) (vii), transmission lines are not included in the definition of 

construction and are not an NRC-authorized activity. Therefore, the NRC considers the 

transmission lines outside the NRC’s APE and not part of the NRC’s consultation.

For the purposes of NHPA 106 consultation, the USACE has considered the impacts related to 

the installation of the proposed transmission lines. On May 25, 2010, the South Carolina SHPO 

replied with its concurrence with the finding of “no adverse effect” based on the 

recommendations to fence and avoid known historic properties and to develop management 

plans to address the indirect and unknown effects of transmission-line construction (see 

Appendix F for a copy of this letter) (SCDAH 2010). 

4.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

Sections 2.9.1 and 2.9.2 describe the meteorological characteristics and air quality at the 

VCSNS site. The primary impacts of the building two new units on local meteorology and air 

quality would be from dust from land clearing and building activities, open burning, emissions 

from equipment and machinery, concrete batch-plant operations, and emissions from vehicles 

used to transport workers and materials to and from the site.

4.7.1 Construction and Preconstruction Activities

Development activities planned for the VCSNS site would result in temporary impacts on local 

air quality as a result of emissions associated with construction and preconstruction activities. 

Similar to any large-scale 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 by wind blowing over recently 

disturbed or cleared areas. In addition to the fugitive dust emissions associated with grading 

and the movement of construction vehicles, there would be fugitive dust emissions associated 

with the operation of a concrete batch plant. 

The SCDHEC regulates air quality control for the State of South Carolina as set forth in Section 

48-1-110, 1976 Codes of South Carolina and in the South Carolina Air Quality Control 

Regulation 61-62.1, Section II. A permit for dust generated by building activities may be 

required and the need for it would be determined on a case-by-case basis (SC Code 

Regulations 61–62.1). SCE&G stated in its ER (SCE&G 2010a) that it would develop a dustcontrol plan that would include specific dust-mitigation measures. The plan would include 

techniques such as imposing speed limits on unpaved construction roads, minimizing material 

handling, covering haul trucks, wetting potential source areas during dry periods, limiting 

grading and excavation activities during high winds or periods of poor air quality, and 

revegetation of road medians and slopes (SCE&G 2010a). A permit from the SDCHEC may 

also be required for operation of the batch plant.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-75 NUREG-1939

Exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment would also generate smaller 

amounts of particulate matter. These emissions would contain carbon monoxide, oxides of 

nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds. As discussed in Section 2.9.2, Fairfield County is 

considered to be in attainment for all criteria pollutants for which NAAQSs have been 

established (40 CFR 81.341). Effective May 27, 2008, the EPA changed the NAAQS for ozone 

from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The State of South Carolina has recommended that 

parts of Lexington and Richland Counties (which are in the Columbia Intrastate Air Quality 

Control Region [AQCR]) be designated as nonattainment (SCDHEC 2009). On September 16, 

2009, the EPA indicated that the new ozone standard of 0.075 ppm would be reconsidered and 

final designation would be made in August 2011 (EPA 2009a). These changes could result in 

additional restrictions of nitrogen oxide emissions within Fairfield County and the need for 

additional permits.

Preoperational activities would also result in greenhouse gas emissions, principally carbon 

dioxide (CO2). Assuming a 7-year construction period and typical construction practices, the 

review team estimates that the total construction equipment CO2 emission footprint for building 

two nuclear power plants at the VCSNS site would be of the order of 70,000 metric tons (an 

emission rate of about 10,000 metric tons annually, averaged over the period of construction), 

as compared to a total United States annual CO2 emission rate of 6,000,000,000 metric tons 

(EPA 2009b). Appendix J provides the details of the review team estimate for a reference 

1000-MW(e) nuclear power plant. Based on its assessment of the relatively small construction 

equipment carbon footprint as compared to the United States annual CO2 emissions, the 

review team concludes that the atmospheric impacts of greenhouse gases from construction 

and preconstruction activities would not be noticeable and additional mitigation would not 

be warranted.

In general, emissions from construction and preconstruction activities (including greenhouse 

gases) 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. In its ER, SCE&G lists several strategies 

that may be used to limit the impact further, including staggering the use of equipment and 

keeping equipment in good working order. A mitigation plan could also include strategies to 

reduce CO2 emissions, including keeping equipment in good working order, reducing idling time, 

using clean diesel technologies, or using alternative fuel vehicles. The review team concludes 

that the impacts from VCSNS Unit 2 and 3 construction and preconstruction activities on air 

quality would not be noticeable because appropriate mitigation measures could be adopted.

4.7.2 Transportation

This EIS assesses the three impacts of transporting workers and materials to and from the 

VCSNS site: the socioeconomic impacts, potential health impacts from additional traffic-related 

accidents, and the air quality impacts of dust and gaseous emissions released into the air by 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-76 April 2011

vehicle traffic. Only the air quality impacts are discussed in this section. The socioeconomic 

impacts are described in Section 4.4.1.3, and health effects from accidents are described in 

Section 4.8.3.

In the ER, SCE&G estimated that during the period of peak development there would be 3600 

workers split equally among four shifts, or 900 workers per shift (SCE&G 2010a). Using a 

conservative assumption of one worker per vehicle in its transportation analysis, SCE&G 

estimated that an additional 1800 vehicles (900 leaving and 900 arriving) would be added to the 

roadway system during a shift change. In addition to the construction workers, SCE&G 

estimated increased traffic from approximately 100 daily truck deliveries that would occur at the 

site (SCE&G 2010a). As described in Section 2.9, Fairfield County is currently an attainment 

area for all criteria pollutants. The impact of emissions from an additional 1800 vehicles 

(900 per shift) would be localized and temporary and have little impact on the regional air 

quality. Some communities near the construction site, such as Jenkinsville, would experience 

significant increases in traffic and associated increases in the amount of particulate and 

gaseous emissions. SCE&G has committed to developing a project-management traffic plan 

that includes a number of potential mitigation measures, including a centralized parking area 

away from the site and shuttling construction workers to the site in buses or vans, encouraging 

carpools, staggering construction shifts, and/or establishing a shuttle service from the Columbia 

area (SCE&G 2010a).

Construction workforce transportation would also result in greenhouse gas emissions, 

principally CO2. Assuming a 7-year construction period and a typical workforce, the review 

team estimates that the total construction workforce CO2 emission footprint for building two 

nuclear power plants at the VCSNS site would be of the order of 300,000 metric tons (an 

emission rate of about 43,000 metric tons annually, averaged over the period of construction); 

again, this is compared to a total United States annual CO2 emission rate of 6,000,000,000 

metric tons (EPA 2009b). Several of the strategies described in the project-management traffic 

plan, such as the use of carpools or shuttle services, would also lead to reduced CO2 emissions. 

Appendix J provides the details of the review team estimate for a reference 1000-MW(e) nuclear 

power plant. Based on its assessment of the relatively small construction workforce carbon 

footprint as compared to the United States annual CO2 emissions, the review team concludes 

that the atmospheric impacts of greenhouse gases from construction workforce transportation 

would not be noticeable and additional mitigation would not be warranted.

Based on SCE&G’s commitment to developing a construction traffic-management plan and the 

potential mitigation measures listed in the ER, the review team concludes that the impact on the 

local air quality (including the effects of greenhouse gas emissions) from the increase in 

vehicular traffic related to construction and preconstruction activities would be temporary and 

minimal because appropriate mitigation measures would be adopted.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-77 NUREG-1939

4.7.3 Summary of Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

The review team evaluated potential impacts on air quality associated with criteria pollutants 

and greenhouse gas emissions during VCSNS site-development activities and determined that 

the impacts would be minimal. On this basis, the review team concludes that the impacts of 

VCSNS site development on air quality from emissions of criteria pollutants and CO2 emissions 

are SMALL and that no further mitigation is warranted. Because NRC-authorized construction 

activities represent only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the air 

quality impacts of NRC-authorized construction activities would also be SMALL; the NRC staff 

also concludes that no further mitigation, beyond the applicant’s commitments, would be 

warranted.

4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

SCE&G indicated that the physical impacts of construction and preconstruction, including public 

health, occupational health, and noise, would be minimal and discussed them qualitatively in 

Sections 4.4.1 and 4.7 of its ER (SCE&G 2010a). This section focuses primarily on the area 

near the VCSNS site; however, preconstruction activities would also occur in the transmissionline corridors.

The nonradiological impacts on health are described in the following sections, including impacts 

on public and occupational health (Section 4.8.1), the impacts of noise (Section 4.8.2), and the 

impacts of transporting construction materials and personnel to and from the proposed site 

(Section 4.8.3). Nonradiological health impacts are summarized in Section 4.8.4.

4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health 

This section includes a discussion of the impacts of construction and preconstruction activities 

on public health and on VCSNS site worker health. Section 2.10 provides background 

information on the affected environment and nonradiological health at and within the vicinity of 

the VCSNS site.

4.8.1.1 Public Health

The principal source of potential physical impacts on the public from construction and 

preconstruction activities at the VCSNS site (including associated transmission-line corridors) 

would include dust and vehicle exhaust (including exhaust from haul vehicles) as sources of air 

pollution during site preparation (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G would impose operational controls to 

mitigate dust emissions, using methods such as watering unpaved roads and exposed soils 

(when surface is dry), stabilizing construction roads and spoil piles, and phasing grading 

activities and ceasing them during high winds and/or during extreme air pollution episodes 

(SCE&G 2010a).
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-78 April 2011

Engine exhaust would be minimized by maintaining fuel-burning equipment in good mechanical 

order and by phasing activities to minimize daily emissions. SCE&G (SCE&G 2010a) would 

follow applicable Federal, State, and local emission requirements as they relate to open burning 

or the operation of fuel-burning equipment. SCE&G would obtain appropriate Federal, State, 

and local permits and operating certificates as required. VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be located 

in Fairfield County, South Carolina, which is part of the Columbia Intrastate AQCR (40 CFR 

81.108 and 81.341). Fairfield County is classified as an attainment area under the NAAQSs 

established by the Clean Air Act (SCE&G 2010a).

The public would not be allowed close to the proposed plant site. The nearest publicly 

accessible area is approximately 0.5 mi from the work site (other than transmission lines), and 

the nearest residence is approximately 1 mi from the proposed Units 2 and 3 site (SCE&G 

2010a). Given the fugitive dust suppression and vehicle exhaust emission mitigation measures 

discussed above and the general public’s distance away from the VCSNS site, the review 

team concludes that the impacts on nonradiological public health from construction and 

preconstruction activities would be negligible. No further mitigation beyond that discussed above 

would be warranted. 

4.8.1.2 Construction Worker Health

Human health risks to construction workers and other personnel working onsite are attributable 

mostly to occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electrocution, asphyxiation, and burns). SCE&G has 

an industrial safety program and a Safety Services Department that uses procedures and 

provides training to all employees and contractors to make sure that all workers onsite are 

trained in all appropriate safety requirements (SCE&G 2010a).

In addition to proposed onsite construction and preconstruction activities, SCE&G and Santee 

Cooper have planned six new transmission lines. Most of them would be built within existing 

transmission-line corridors, but certain segments of some lines would be built in new corridors

adjacent to existing corridors. In addition, two new switchyards, one onsite and one offsite, 

would be built. The transmission lines and associated switchyards would be built in accordance 

with the National Electrical Safety Code and applicable construction standards and codes 

(SCE&G 2010a).

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the construction industry continues to 

have the greatest number of fatalities of industries in the private sector. In 2008, most fatalities 

in South Carolina were due to falls, exposure to harmful substances or environments, and 

transportation incidents (BLS 2008c). Nonfatal injury and illness rates from 2007 for 

construction workers, including specialty trade contractors, averaged 5.4 percent (BLS 2008b). 

The maximum construction workforce for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and related facilities 

would be 3600 during an expected period from 2008 through completion of the project in 2019 

(SCE&G 2010a). 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-79 NUREG-1939

Based on the mitigation measures identified by SCE&G in its ER, the permits and authorizations 

required by State and local agencies, the safety training that would be conducted by SCE&G 

and its contractors, and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes 

that the potential nonradiological impacts of construction and preconstruction activities on 

construction worker health would be minimal. No further mitigation beyond those discussed 

above would be warranted. 

4.8.2 Noise Impacts 

Development of a nuclear power plant project is similar to other large industrial projects, and it 

involves many noise-generating activities. Regulations governing noise from construction and 

preconstruction activities are generally limited to worker health. Federal regulations governing 

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 construction equipment including compressors. 

Neither Fairfield County nor the State of South Carolina has regulations or guidelines for noise 

(SCE&G 2010a).

Activities associated with building of two new units at the VCSNS site would have peak noise 

levels as high as 108 dBA up close and 82 dBA at 100 ft away (SCE&G 2010a). A 10-dBA 

decrease in noise level is generally perceived as cutting the loudness in half. At a distance of 

50 ft from the source, these noise levels would generally decrease to the 73- to 102-dBA range, 

and at a distance of 400 ft, the noise levels would generally be in the 55- to 73-dBA range 

(SCE&G 2010a). 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 10 ft) is listed as 110 dBA, and the pain 

threshold is 120 dBA.

The exclusion area boundary of the VCSNS site would be greater than 0.5 mi in all directions 

from the center of construction and preconstruction activities for Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2010a). 

A 100-dBA noise level at 50 ft from an activity would be expected to decrease to less than 

55 dBA at the exclusion area boundary (SCE&G 2010a). 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 55 dBA at the nearest residence, which is approximately 1 mi 

from the development area (SCE&G 2010a). These estimates do not account for the noise 

attenuation offered by vegetation and topography.

Construction and preconstruction activities would be expected to take place 24 hours per day, 

7 days per week during peak activity periods. However, the ER (SCE&G 2010a) lists a number 

of measures that could be taken to mitigate the potential adverse effects of noise. Among the 

mitigation measures are compliance with Federal and State regulations, use of hearing 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-80 April 2011

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),(a

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.

) 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 was 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:

Considering the anticipated low noise levels, the temporary nature of construction and 

preconstruction activities, and the location and characteristics of the VCSNS site, and the 

distances of the nearest residence and other sensitive noise receptors from the VCSNS site, the 

review team concludes that the noise impacts from construction would be minimal, and 

additional mitigation beyond the actions identified above would not be warranted. 

4.8.3 Impacts of Transporting Construction Materials and Construction 

Personnel to the Proposed Site

This EIS assesses the impact of transporting workers and construction materials to and from the 

proposed VCSNS site and alternative sites from the perspective of three areas of impact: the 

socioeconomic impacts, the air quality impacts of dust and particulate matter emitted by vehicle 

traffic, and the potential health impacts due to additional traffic-related accidents. The human 

health impacts are addressed in this section, while the socioeconomic impacts are addressed in 

Section 4.4.1.3, and the air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7.2.

The general approach used to calculate the nonradiological impacts of fuel and waste 

shipments (see Section 6.2 of this EIS) is the same as that used for the transportation of 

construction materials and construction personnel to and from the VCSNS site and alternative 

sites. However, preliminary estimates are the only data sources available to estimate the 

demand for these transportation services. The assumptions made to fill in reasonable estimates 

of the parameters needed to calculate nonradiological impacts are discussed below.

 

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999 (NRC 

1999). All references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-81 NUREG-1939

Construction material requirements are based on information taken from the ER (SCE&G 

2010a). SCE&G (2010a) estimated that constructing one new Westinghouse Electric Company, 

LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactor unit requires 

up to 75,000 yd3 of concrete, 23,000 T of structural steel and rebar, 6,500,000 linear ft of cable, 

and 137,500 linear ft of piping. These quantities would be doubled to account for a two-unit 

plant. Additional information needed to develop the nonradiological impact estimates are as 

follows:

• It was assumed that maximum shipment capacities are ~13 yd3 of concrete, 11 T of 

structural steel, and 3300 linear ft of piping and cable per shipment. It was assumed that 

these materials would be transported to the site in levelized annual quantities over a 5-year 

period, based on the estimated construction schedule given in the ER (SCE&G 2010a). 

(Operation costs are frequently expressed as levelized cost of electricity, which is the price 

per kWh of producing electricity, including the amounts needed to cover operating costs and 

annualized capital costs.) 

• The number of construction workers was estimated to peak at 3600 (SCE&G 2010a). This 

value represents the peak workforce for construction of two units simultaneously. For a 

single plant, the peak construction workforce was estimated to be 1800 workers per year. 

Conservatively assuming that each vehicle carries one worker to the site, there would be 

about 1800 vehicles per day per unit. Each person was assumed to travel to and from the 

VCSNS site 250 days per year.

• Average shipping distances for construction materials were assumed to be 50 mi one way. 

The average commute distance for construction workers was assumed to be 20 mi one way.

• Accident, injury, and fatality rates for construction materials were taken from Table 4 in 

ANL/ESD/TM-150 State-level Accident Rates for Surface Freight Transportation: A 

Reexamination (Saricks and Tompkins 1999). Rates for the State of South Carolina were 

used for construction material shipments, typically conducted in heavy-combination trucks. 

The data provided by 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 and from the site was not 

available. A South Carolina-specific fatality rate for all traffic for the years 2003 to 2007 was 

used to develop representative commuter traffic impacts (DOT 2009a). The average fatality 

rate for the 2003 to 2007 period in South Carolina was used as the basis for estimating 

South Carolina-specific commuter injury and accident rates. Adjustment factors were 

developed using the national 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 South Carolina-specific fatality rate to 

approximate the injury and accident rates for commuters in the State of South Carolina.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-82 April 2011

• The Saricks and Tompkins (1999) accident rates were taken from the Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration evaluated the data underlying these rates and determined that they were 

under-reported. To account for the under-reported accident, injury, and fatality rates from 

Saricks and Tompkins (1999), the review team adjusted them using factors derived from 

data provided by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI 

2003). The UMTRI data indicate that accident rates for 1994 to 1996, the same data used 

by Saricks and Tompkins (1999), were under-reported by about 39 percent. Injury and 

fatality rates were under-reported by 16 percent and 36 percent, respectively. As a result, 

the accident, injury, and fatality rates were increased by factors of 1.64, 1.20, and 1.57, 

respectively, to account for the under-reporting. These adjustments were applied to the 

construction materials that are transported by heavy-truck shipments similar to those 

evaluated by Saricks and Tompkins (1999) but not to commuter traffic accidents.

The estimated nonradiological impacts of transporting construction materials to the proposed 

VCSNS site and of transporting construction workers to and/or from the site are shown in 

Table 4-6. Round-trip distances were used in the assessment. The estimates would be 

approximately doubled for construction of two units at the VCSNS site but because two units are 

being constructed simultaneously, the peak construction worker demands for the two units 

occur in different years. As discussed above, the peak construction workforce would be 3600 

workers, so the peak nonradiological impact estimates would be double the estimates listed in 

Table 4-6. Note that the nonradiological impacts are dominated by the transportation of 

construction workers to and/or from the VCSNS site. The estimated total annual construction 

fatalities represent less than a 3-percent increase above the average 14 traffic fatalities per year 

that occurred in Fairfield County, South Carolina, between 2003 and 2007 (DOT 2009b). This 

represents a small increase relative to the current traffic fatality risks in the area surrounding the 

proposed VCSNS site. Nonradiological impacts for the alternative sites range from less than a 

1-percent increase for the Cope alternative site to about a 7-percent increase in nonradiological 

fatalities for the Saluda alternative site relative to the average traffic fatalities in their respective 

counties from 2003 to 2007 (DOT 2009c, 2009d, 2009e, 2009f). Because these increases are 

small relative to the baseline traffic fatalities (that is, before the plants are constructed) in the 

counties where SCE&G has proposed to build the new plants, the review team concludes that 

the impacts of transporting construction materials and personnel to the proposed VCSNS site 

and alternative sites would be minimal, and mitigation would not be warranted.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-83 NUREG-1939

Table 4-6. Annual Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Workers and Construction 

Materials to and/or from the VCSNS Site for a Single AP1000 Reactor

Accidents per Year

Per Unit

Injuries per Year 

Per Unit

Fatalities per Year 

Per Unit

Workers 5.5 x 10+1 2.5 x 10+1 3.8 x 10−1

Materials

 Concrete 8.6 x 10−2 6.1 x 10−2 4.8 x 10−3

 Rebar, structural steel 3.1 x 10−2 2.2 x 10−2 1.7 x 10−3

 Cable 3.0 x 10−2 2.1 x 10−2 1.6 x 10−3

 Piping 6.3 x 10−4 4.4 x 10−4 3.5 x 10−5

Total – construction 5.5 x 10+1 2.5 x 10+1 3.8 x 10−1

4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

The review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts on construction workers at the 

VCSNS site, operations workers at the existing VCSNS Unit 1 site, and the local population 

from fugitive dust, occupational injuries, noise, and transport of materials and personnel would 

be SMALL, and additional mitigation beyond the actions identified above would not be 

warranted. Based on the above analyses, and because NRC-authorized construction activities 

represent only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the 

nonradiological health impacts of NRC-authorized construction activities would be SMALL. The 

NRC staff also concludes that further mitigation beyond the measures stated above would not 

be warranted. 

4.9 Radiological Health Impacts

The sources of radiation exposure for construction workers include direct radiation exposure, 

exposure from discharges of liquid radioactive waste, and exposure from gaseous radioactive 

effluents from existing VCSNS Unit 1 during the construction phase, the impacts of which are 

described in the following sections and summarized in Section 4.9.5. For the purposes of this 

discussion, construction 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. SCE&G noted that all major construction and preconstruction activities are expected 

to occur outside of the VCSNS Unit 1 site protected area boundary, but inside the restricted 

area boundary (SCE&G 2010a).

4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures

In its ER (SCE&G 2010a), SCE&G identified three sources of direct radiation exposure from 

nuclear facilities within the VCSNS site: (1) the reactor building for existing Unit 1, (2) a planned 

independent spent-fuel storage installation (ISFSI), and (3) the old steam generator recycle 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-84 April 2011

facility. In addition, there may be direct radiation to workers finishing construction of Unit 3 from 

Unit 2 when it begins operation. At certain times during construction, SCE&G would also 

receive, possess, and use specific radioactive byproduct, source, and special nuclear material 

in support of construction and preparations for operation. These sources of low-level radiation 

are required to be controlled by the applicant’s radiation protection program and have very 

specific uses under controlled conditions. The staff did not identify any additional sources of 

direct radiation during the site visit or during document reviews. 

Recent surveys of the area around the old steam generator recycle facility show that readings 

around this building are not significantly different than background radiation levels. Direct 

radiation from either Unit 1 or the old steam generator recycle facility was determined to not be 

a significant source of dose to the construction workers (SCE&G 2010a). 

SCE&G indicated the planned ISFSI would be located on the shore of Monticello Reservoir next 

to Unit 1, more than 4000 ft from the construction site for Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2010g). 

SCE&G concluded the direct radiation dose to construction workers from the ISFSI would be 

negligible based on experience at operating ISFSIs at nuclear power plants (SCE&G 2010a). 

The NRC staff agrees that the direct radiation dose rate to construction workers from an ISFSI 

located near Unit 1 would be negligible because of the large distance. 

SCE&G used fenceline thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and environmental TLDs to 

measure direct radiation levels at locations in and around the VCSNS site protected area 

(SCE&G 2010a). Environmental TLDs are located at the exclusion area boundary around the 

VCSNS Unit 1 site, at an inner ring near the site boundary, and at locations at various distances 

from the plant (SCE&G 2007). The TLDs are read quarterly and measure the contribution to 

dose from any source, including natural background, the current reactor building, and the old 

steam generator recycle facility. The TLD monitoring system includes locations that are 

representative of the proposed construction site. The environmental TLD results at the old 

steam generator recycle facility (the location closest to proposed Units 2 and 3) were 

comparable to TLD results at control locations.

SCE&G estimated the maximum direct radiation dose for continuous occupancy would be 

1 mrem/yr from Unit 1, and an additional maximum of 1 mrem/yr from Unit 2 after it begins 

operation. Adjusting for a 2000-hour work year gives a maximum estimate of 0.46 mrem/yr to a 

construction worker. The dose to construction workers from byproduct, source, and special 

nuclear material is expected to have a negligible contribution to this value.

The staff reviewed the potential locations for exposures and recent records of dose rates, the 

locations of the TLDs, and the method to estimate doses to construction workers from direct 

radiation. Based on that review, the NRC staff concludes the direct radiation dose rate to 

construction workers would be low.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-85 NUREG-1939

4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents

Radioactive gaseous effluents from VCSNS Unit 1 are released from three points: the Main 

Plant Vent, the Reactor Building Purge Exhaust, and the Oil Incineration Facility. Releases from 

all of these points are considered to be ground-level releases (SCE&G 2010f). SCE&G 

estimated a dose to a maximally exposed individual (MEI) using 2005 gaseous effluent data, 

which are representative of recent years. The MEI is assumed to be located 1.2 mi east of Unit 

1, and 0.2 mi east of the Unit 1 exclusion area boundary. SCE&G (2010a) estimated a 

maximum dose of 1.2 mrem annually to someone who was continuously present; correcting for 

a 2000-hour work year, the annual dose to a construction worker becomes 0.27 mrem. The 

NRC staff concludes this estimate of the dose to construction workers from the gaseous 

effluents from Unit 1 would be bounding. 

Using 2 years’ meteorological data and the XOQDOQ (Sagendorf et al. 1982) and GASPAR II 

(Strenge et al. 1987) codes, SCE&G estimated that the dose to a Unit 3 construction worker 

from gaseous effluent from Unit 2, once it begins operation, would be 0.45 mrem to the total

body. The staff reviewed SCE&G’s calculation and determined that the method used to 

estimate dose from gaseous effluents was acceptable. Combining 0.27 mrem from Unit 1 and 

0.45 mrem from Unit 2, SCE&G gave a bounding estimate of the dose to construction workers 

on Units 2 and 3 of 0.72 mrem for a year from gaseous effluents.

4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents

Liquid radioactive effluents are discharged from Unit 1 to Monticello Reservoir, and SCE&G 

estimated the maximum dose to a construction worker due to liquid radioactive effluents from 

Unit 1 to be 0.0015 mrem to the total body (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G used the LADTAP II code 

(Strenge et al. 1986) to calculate the total body radiation dose to a maximally exposed 

construction worker due to liquid radioactive effluents from Unit 2 after it begins operation to be 

0.032mrem/yr to the total body (SCE&G 2010a). Adding the doses from Units 1 and 2 results in 

a dose of 0.033 mrem/yr to the total body.

Therefore, the dose to construction workers from liquid effluents would be negligible compared 

to the dose from direct radiation exposure.

4.9.4 Total Dose to Construction Workers

The maximum annual dose to a construction worker was estimated by SCE&G to be 

1.2 mrem/yr, which is the sum of three pathways: (1) direct radiation (0.46 mrem), (2) gaseous 

effluents (0.72 mrem), and (3) liquid effluents (0.033 mrem) (SCE&G 2010a). This maximum 

dose assumes an occupancy of 2000-hr/yr. The NRC has established an annual dose limit to 

an individual member of the public of 100 mrem total effective dose equivalent. The NRC staff 

concludes the dose to construction workers would be well below the 100-mrem annual limit.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-86 April 2011

SCE&G estimates a peak loading of 3600 construction workers before Unit 2 startup and a peak 

loading of 3500 construction workers after Unit 2 begins operations. The total estimated 

collective dose for the maximum dose year would be 4.7 person-rem (SCE&G 2010a). The 

maximum annual dose to a construction worker is much smaller than the approximately 

311 mrem/yr that U.S. residents receive on average from background radiation (NCRP 2009).

4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts

The NRC staff concludes that the estimate of doses to construction workers during building of 

the proposed Units 2 and 3 are well within NRC annual exposure limits (i.e., 100 mrem) 

designed to protect the public health. Based on information provided by SCE&G and the NRC 

staff’s independent evaluation, the NRC staff concludes that the radiological health impacts on 

workers for proposed Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

warranted. Radiation exposure from all NRC-licensed activities, including operation of VCSNS 

Unit 1, is regulated by the NRC. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the radiological health 

impacts for NRC-authorized construction activities would be SMALL, and no further mitigation 

would be warranted.

4.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts

The following sections provide descriptions of the potential environmental impacts from the 

generation, handling, and disposal of nonradiological waste during the building activities for 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Potential types of nonradioactive wastes expected to be generated, 

handled, and disposed of include construction debris, spoils, stormwater runoff, municipal and 

sanitary waste, dust, and air emissions. The assessment of potential impacts resulting from 

these types of wastes is presented in the following sections.

4.10.1 Impacts on Land

Building activities related to the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 could result in solid waste 

materials like construction debris from excavation, land clearing, and dredge spoils. SCE&G 

plans to use excess excavation as backfill as needed during construction onsite. Remaining 

construction debris from excavation and land clearing would be disposed in one of the several 

construction and demolition debris landfills in the surrounding counties. SCE&G stated that 

there is adequate capacity at these construction and demolition debris landfills to handle the 

additional generated waste (SCE&G 2010a). 

Spoils generated as a result of dredging the Monticello and Parr reservoirs for building activities 

associated with the intake and discharge structure for the new units, would be placed in a 5.5-ac 

upland spoils area near the discharge structure access road. The review team anticipates that 

disposal of all spoils resulting from dredging would comply with the DA Clean Water Act Section 

404 permit. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-87 NUREG-1939

SCE&G plans to minimize construction debris during building activities. One way is by ordering 

appropriate quantities of materials and returning any excess to the vendor (SCE&G 2010a). 

Other types of solid waste generated such as office waste, cardboard, and aluminum cans 

would be recycled (SCE&G 2010a). 

Based on SCE&G plans to manage solid wastes in accordance with all applicable State, and 

local requirements and standards, and implement recycling and minimizing waste practices, the 

review team expects the impacts on land from nonradioactive wastes generated during the 

building activities of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be 

warranted.

4.10.2 Impacts on Water

Surface water and groundwater have the potential to be affected due to the building activities of 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3. SCE&G will have to obtain a NPDES General Permit for Stormwater 

Discharges from Large and Small Construction Activities to minimize potential impacts on 

surface water and groundwater. As part of the permit, a SWPPP will be required. In addition, 

an erosion and sediment control plan would be a component of the NPDES permit. Water-use 

impacts and water-quality impacts during the development of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are further 

discussed in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3. 

Onsite sanitary wastes generated during the building activities would be accommodated with a 

temporary sanitary waste-treatment plant. This treatment plant would serve workers in the 

support area while onsite workers would be served by portable toilet facilities (SCE&G 2010a). 

The discharge location for the temporary sanitary waste-treatment plant would be finalized as 

part of the NPDES permitting process; proposed locations are Mayo Creek, Parr Reservoir, or 

the Broad River (SCE&G 2010a). If additional sanitary waste provisions are necessary during 

building activities, SCE&G plans to provide restroom trailers units. Wastes associated with 

these units would be disposed of and transported according to local and State regulations and 

standards (SCE&G 2010a). 

The public wastewater-treatment systems serving the four-county area (Fairfield, Lexington, 

Newberry, and Richland) have the excess capacity to meet the increased generation of 

wastewater by the in-migrating project workforce. The influx of workforce for construction of the 

proposed Units 2 and 3 is expected to reside in these four counties.

Currently, SCE&G has no plans to use groundwater during the construction phase. However, if 

the need for water in remote construction areas onsite becomes necessary, SCE&G plans to 

comply with local and State regulations and standards (SCE&G 2010a). 

Based on the regulated practices for managing liquid discharges, including wastewater, and the 

NPDES permit with an approved SWPPP that SCE&G plans to implement for managing surface 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-88 April 2011

and groundwater, the review team expects that impacts on water from nonradioactive effluents 

when building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be 

warranted.

4.10.3 Impacts on Air

As discussed in Sections 4.4.1, 4.5.2, and 4.7.1, fugitive dust and other generated emissions 

during site-development activities are to be managed. SCE&G plans to control these emissions 

through a dust control plan or similar document. Possible mitigation measures in this dust 

control plan would include: stabilizing construction roads and spoils piles, covering haul trucks, 

and watering unpaved construction roads to control dust. Equipment and vehicles used for site 

preparation and the increase in vehicle traffic of construction workers involved in building 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would result in increased emissions. Possible mitigation measures that 

would be used to limit these emissions are phase construction and performance maintenance 

on construction vehicles and equipment (SCE&G 2010a). 

Based on the regulated practices for managing air emissions from construction equipment and 

temporary stationary sources, the review team expects that impacts on air from nonradioactive 

emissions during the building of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minimal, and no further 

mitigation would be warranted. 

4.10.4 Summary of Nonradioactive Waste Impacts

Solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes generated when building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be 

handled according to county, State, and Federal regulations. County and State standards and 

regulations for handling and disposal of solid waste would be obtained and implemented. An 

NPDES permit that would include a SWPPP for surface-water runoff and groundwater quality, 

and the use of temporary facilities for sanitary waste systems during the construction period 

would ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act and the State of South Carolina standards. 

Based on this information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that nonradiological waste impacts on land, water, and air would be 

SMALL and that additional mitigation would not be warranted. Because NRC-authorized 

construction activities represent only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff 

concludes that the nonradioactive waste impacts of NRC-authorized construction activities 

would be SMALL. The NRC staff also concludes that no further mitigation would be warranted. 

Cumulative impacts on water and air from nonradioactive effluents and emissions are discussed 

in Sections 7.2 and 7.6, respectively. For the purposes of Chapter 9, the review team expects 

that there would be no substantive differences between the impacts of nonradioactive waste for 

the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and the alternative sites and no substantive cumulative 

impacts that warrant further discussion beyond those discussed for the alternative sites in 

Section 9.3.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-89 NUREG-1939

4.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During 

Construction

A number of measures and controls are described by SCE&G (2010a) to limit the adverse 

impacts during construction, many of which are planned for incorporation into a Construction 

Environmental Controls Plan. The plan would include the following:

• a summary matrix of environmental requirements for project permits, including the titles of 

the individuals responsible for confirming compliance with each permit

• a training program for construction personnel that would be based on the specific 

requirements for each project. The training would include, but may not be limited to, general 

site maintenance, erosion and sediment control, the protection of sensitive areas, hazardous 

material and/or waste handling, spills prevention/response, and how to respond to such 

unanticipated discoveries as contaminated soils, archaeological artifacts, or tanks.

• periodic discussions of current and future construction activities and how to maintain 

environmental compliance during these activities

• field inspections to confirm adherence to environmental requirements for the project.

Table 4-7 summarizes the measures and controls to limit adverse impacts when building 

proposed Units 2 and 3 based on Table 4.6-1 in the ER (SCE&G 2010a) and other information 

provided by the applicant. Some measures apply to more than one impact category.

Many of the specific controls in the Construction Environmental Controls Plan would be based 

on measures prescribed by applicable Federal, State, and local ordinances, laws and 

regulations, existing permits and licenses for VCSNS Unit 1, and the incorporation of conditions 

of environmental permits for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 into construction contracts. Table 4.6-1 of 

the ER (SCE&G 2010a) lists specific measures and controls to be applied during construction at 

the site and vicinity relevant to land-use impacts, water-related impacts, ecological impacts, 

socioeconomic impacts, impacts from radiation exposure to construction workers, and 

nonradiological health impacts. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-90 April 2011

Table 4-7. Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts when Building Proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3

Impact Category Specific Measures and Controls

Land-use impacts

Site and vicinity Implement stormwater-management systems, groundwater monitoring wells, and 

spill-containment controls.

Permanently disturbed locations would be stabilized and contoured in 

accordance with design specifications.

Comply with applicable laws, regulations, permits, good engineering and 

construction practices, and recognized environmental BMPs.

Follow South Carolina Storm Water Management Best Management Practices 

handbook and industry guidance.

Locate all but intake and discharge structures outside of 100- and 500-year 

floodplains.

Transmission

corridors and

offsite areas

Incorporate recommendations of Federal and State agencies into route 

selections, including the recommendations of the South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental Control, South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources, South Carolina Department of Archives & History, U.S. EPA, US 

Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Site new corridors to minimize or avoid critical or sensitive habitats or species as 

much as possible. 

Site new corridors to avoid historical properties

Before site disturbance, conduct archaeological surveys in accordance with 

management plans and ecological surveys as needed and determine sitespecific erosion control measures.

Water-related impacts

Hydrologic

alterations

Comply with applicable laws, regulations, permits, sound engineering and

construction practices, and recognized environmental BMPs.

Follow BMPs for erosion control. Install drainage system to divert dewatering 

runoff to settling basin before discharge through a permitted NPDES outfall.

Install cofferdams and turbidity curtains to minimize suspended sediment 

impacts in surface waters.

Continue conducting hydrological monitoring to determine baseline hydrological 

conditions and detect changes.

Implement BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control during installation of new 

transmission lines.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-91 NUREG-1939

Table 4-7. (contd)

Impact Category Specific Measures and Controls

Water-use impacts Obtain FERC authorization for construction water use.

Water-quality 

impacts

Develop an erosion, sedimentation, and pollution control plan. Use BMPs, 

including structural (e.g., silt fences and sediment retention basins) and 

operational controls, to prevent movement of pollutants (including sediments) 

into wetlands and waterbodies.

Obtain and comply with NPDES stormwater permit; conduct monitoring as 

required by the permit. Use NPDES monitoring program for Unit 1 to detect 

water-quality changes due to construction activities.

Obtain and comply with Department of the Army permit.

Develop and comply with approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and 

spill response plan. Quickly clean up any spilled fuel or oil. Follow South 

Carolina Storm Water Management Best Management Practices handbook and 

industry guidance.

Install stormwater-drainage system and stabilize disturbed soils.

Conduct shoreline construction when pool level of Parr Reservoir is low, to the 

extent practicable.

Ecological impacts

Terrestrial and 

wetland 

ecosystems

Site structures to minimize impacts on wildlife habitat and wetlands. Site new 

transmission-line corridors to avoid sensitive habitats.

Clear land according to Federal and State regulations and permits, SCE&G 

procedures, good construction practices, and established BMPs.

Develop and comply with spill response plan. Schedule equipment maintenance 

procedures to minimize emissions and spills.

Minimize fugitive dust by watering.

Obtain and comply with Department of the Army permit; determine mitigation 

measures for impacted wetland areas in consultation with USACE.

Install silt fencing or other controls to protect wetlands.

Aquatic 

ecosystems 

Obtain and comply with NPDES stormwater permit; conduct monitoring as 

required by the permit. Use NPDES monitoring program for Unit 1 to detect 

water-quality changes due to construction activities. Develop and implement a 

construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

Prepare and implement Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan for 

construction activities. Restrict activities using petroleum products and solvents 

to designated areas that are equipped with spill containment.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-92 April 2011

Table 4-7. (contd)

Impact Category Specific Measures and Controls

Avoid wetlands, waterbodies, and sensitive areas when possible; plan 

transmission route to minimize impacts on wetland and waterbodies that must be 

crossed and use equipment specifically designed for work around wetlands and 

streams; install erosion controls; and implement BMPs to minimize impacts on 

aquatic ecosystems.

Stabilize upslope and adjacent areas to shoreline construction sites with erosioncontrol devices and after construction, reseed the areas. Follow South Carolina 

Forestry Commission BMPs manual and SCDHEC handbook and field manual 

BMPs to prevent sediment loading and minimize soil disturbance.

Before transmission-line construction, conduct surveys, as needed, and 

determine site-specific erosion control measures.

If there is potential for construction of a new transmission line that could degrade 

habitat of a listed aquatic species, work closely with the State agency to develop 

a construction schedule and construction techniques that are protective of the 

habitat and species in question. Preserve vegetation in stream buffer zones to 

minimize disturbance of aquatic habitats.

Socioeconomic impacts

Physical impacts Train and appropriately protect construction workers to reduce the risk of 

potential exposure to noise, dust, and exhaust emissions. Regularly inspect and 

maintain equipment to include exhaust and noise aspects.

Make public announcements or prior notification of atypically loud construction 

activities.

Phase construction to minimize daily emissions. Restrict extreme noise-related 

activities to daylight hours. Restrict delivery times to daylight hours.

Develop and implement a dust control plan that includes mitigation measures 

such as watering unpaved roads, stabilizing construction roads, phasing grading 

activities and ceasing them during high winds, limit speeds on unpaved roads, 

minimizing material handling, etc.

Develop construction-management traffic plan before the start of construction. 

Post signs near construction entrances and exits to make the public aware of 

potentially high construction traffic areas.

Minimize waste by using excavated material where fill is needed, ordering 

materials in appropriate quantities and returning overage to the vendor, and 

recycling scrap metal.

Social and 

economic impacts

Develop a construction-management traffic plan before the start of construction.

Regularly communicate with local school authorities regarding construction 

worker influx.

Coordinate with job-training institutions.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-93 NUREG-1939

Table 4-7. (contd)

Impact Category Specific Measures and Controls

Environmental 

justice impacts

Provide mitigating measures as for socioeconomic impacts.

Historic and 

cultural

properties impacts

Consult State Historic Preservation Office (South Carolina Department of 

Archives and History). Developed management agreements.

Before site disturbance, conduct archaeological surveys.

Conduct awareness training for procedures associated with inadvertent 

discoveries.

Develop and implement a procedure for construction activities that includes 

actions to protect cultural, historic, or paleontological resources.

Continue to have a fence barrier around Pearson Cemetery.

Continue any applicable mitigation measures for any National Register-eligible 

sites.

Air quality impacts Implement dust-control plan. 

Stagger use of equipment and keep equipment in good working order.

Transportation Develop project traffic-management plan.

Nonradiological 

health impacts

Train contractors on safety requirements to ensure contractors arriving onsite 

are adequately trained with regard to VCSNS safety requirements. 

Require construction contractors and subcontractors to develop and implement 

safety procedures.

Implement noise mitigation to include restricting noise-related activities to 

daylight hours.

Provide onsite services for emergency first aid, and conduct regular health and 

safety monitoring.

Radiological health 

impacts

None proposed (estimated exposure would be well below established limits to 

workers and members of the public)

Nonradioactive 

waste impacts

Liquid discharges would comply with the NPDES permit.

A spill prevention and response plan would be implemented.

A waste minimization plan would be implemented; personnel would be trained in 

proper handling and management of wastes, including hazardous waste.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-94 April 2011

4.12 Summary of Construction and Preconstruction Impacts

The impact levels determined by the review team in the previous sections are summarized in 

Table 4-8. The impact levels for NRC-authorized construction as evaluated in this chapter are 

denoted in the table as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE as a measure of their expected 

adverse environmental impacts, if any. Combined construction and preconstruction impact 

levels are similarly noted. Some impacts, such as the addition of tax revenue from SCE&G for 

the local economies, are likely to be beneficial impacts to the community.

Table 4-8. Summary of Impacts from Construction and Preconstruction of Proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3

Category Comments

NRC-Authorized 

Construction 

Impact Level

Construction 

and 

Preconstruction 

Impact Level

Land-use impacts Construction and preconstruction impacts on land 

use would be limited. Preconstruction impacts 

involving land use attributable to the new 

transmission-line corridors would be noticeable. 

Land-use impacts on the site would be limited.

SMALL SMALL for onsite; 

MODERATE for 

transmission lines

Water-related impacts

Water use – surface water Construction and preconstruction impacts on 

surface water use would be negligible. 

SMALL SMALL

Water use – groundwater Construction and preconstruction impacts on 

groundwater use would be negligible.

SMALL SMALL

Water quality – surface water Construction and preconstruction impacts on 

surface and groundwater quality would be 

negligible.

SMALL SMALL

Water quality – groundwater Construction and preconstruction impacts on 

groundwater quality would be negligible

SMALL SMALL

Ecological impacts

Terrestrial and wetland 

ecosystems

Construction and preconstruction activities would 

have minimal impact on terrestrial ecological 

resources and habitat on the VCSNS site, but 

terrestrial habitats are expected to be noticeably 

altered where new transmission-line corridors are 

established.

SMALL SMALL for onsite; 

MODERATE for 

transmission lines

Aquatic ecosystems Construction and preconstruction activities would 

have minimal impact on onsite and offsite aquatic 

ecological resources and habitat.

SMALL SMALL
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-95 NUREG-1939

Table 4-8. (contd)

Category Comments

NRC-Authorized 

Construction 

Impact Level

Construction 

and 

Preconstruction 

Impact Level

Socioeconomic impacts

Physical impacts Construction and preconstruction physical impacts 

are minimal; unavoidable impacts would be limited 

by mitigation measures

SMALL SMALL

Demography Construction and preconstruction demographic 

impacts on the communities nearest VCSNS are 

expected to be small and temporary.

SMALL SMALL

Economic impacts on the 

community

Construction and preconstruction economic and 

tax revenue impacts on the communities nearest 

VCSNS are expected to be small and temporary.

SMALL SMALL

Infrastructure and community 

services

Construction and preconstruction traffic impacts 

would be noticeable but not destabilizing; other 

infrastructure and community services impacts are 

expected to be limited.

MODERATE for 

traffic impacts 

SMALL for other 

infrastructure and 

community 

service impacts

MODERATE for 

traffic impacts 

SMALL for other 

infrastructure and 

community 

service impacts

Environmental justice Construction and preconstruction traffic-related 

impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing 

to the Jenkinsville community. The review team 

expects impacts related to all categories except 

traffic to be minimal.

MODERATE for 

traffic impacts; 

SMALL for other 

environmental 

justice impacts

MODERATE for 

traffic impacts; 

SMALL for other 

environmental 

justice impacts

Health and environmental Construction and preconstruction impacts could 

be adverse, but would not be disproportionate.

SMALL SMALL

Historic and cultural 

resources

NRC-authorized construction activities represent 

only a part of the analyzed activities; nearly all 

impacts would be attributable to preconstruction 

activities. The NRC staff concludes that the 

potential impacts on historic and cultural 

resources from NRC-authorized construction 

activities would be SMALL. Construction and 

preconstruction activities would noticeably alter 

the resources within the Area of Potential Effect. 

SMALL MODERATE

Air-quality impacts Construction and preconstruction impacts on air 

quality would be limited.

SMALL SMALL

Nonradiological health 

impacts

Construction and preconstruction impacts on 

nonradiological human health are expected to be 

minimal.

SMALL SMALL

Radiological health impacts Exposures would be below NRC annual 

occupational and public dose limits. 

SMALL SMALL

Nonradioactive waste 

impacts

Impacts to land, water and air are expected to be 

minimal.

SMALL SMALL
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-96 April 2011

4.13 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.”

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

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.”

40 CFR Part 230. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30, Protection of Environment, Part 230, 

“Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material.”

67 FR 44502. July 2, 2002. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. "Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants." 

Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

73 FR 16436. March 27, 2008. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.” Federal 

Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

75 FR 61904. October 6, 2010. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 

Listings for Two Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) in the Southeast.” U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-97 NUREG-1939

Regional Office. February 23, 2007. Available at 

www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/CandidateSpeciesProgram/AtlSturgeonStatusReviewReport.pdf.

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

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 16 USC 668-668c.

Bettinger, J., J. Crane, and J. Bulak. 2003. Broad River Aquatic Resources Inventory 

Completion Report. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South 

Carolina. Accessed September 30, 2009, at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/fwfi/broadriver2001-

2002.pdf.

Bettinger, J., J. Crane, and J. Bulak. 2006. Piedmont Stream Survey – Broad River Basin 

Completion Report. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South 

Carolina. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/fwfi/broadrivertributaries2003-2005.pdf. 

Brown, W.M. 1993. Avian Collisions with Utility Structures: Biological Prospectives. In 

Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility Structures, International Workshop, Miami, Florida, 

September 13-16, 1992, EPRI TR-103268, prepared by Electric Power Research Institute, Palo 

Alto, California.

Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2009. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Parr Reservoir 

and Lake Monticello Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric 

and Gas Company, Fairfield County, South Carolina. April 2009. Submitted To: South Carolina 

Electric and Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, Lexington, 

South Carolina. Accession No. ML092230226.

Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401, et seq.

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act [FWPCA]).

Collins, M.R., and T.I.J. Smith. 1997. “Distributions of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeons in 

South Carolina.” North American Journal of Fish Management 17(4):995-1000.

Dames and Moore. 1985. Environmental Monitoring Report January 1983 through December 

1984 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SCDHEC) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

Accession No. ML090630369.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). 16 USC 1531, et seq.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-98 April 2011

Facilities Planning & Siting, PLLC (FP&S). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 

Transmission Line Siting Study SCE&G. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas 

(SCE&G). Accession No. ML082680277.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). 33 USC 1344, et seq. "Permits for Dredged or 

Fill Material." 

Forman R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. "Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects." Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231.

Francingues, N.R. and M.R. Palermo. 2005. Silt Curtains as a Dredge Project Management 

Practice. DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E21). U.S. Army Engineer 

Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Available at 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doere21.pdf.

Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data

Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Hayes, G. and J. Bettinger. 2006. High Conservation Priority – Piedmont Species. 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/Piedmont.pdf.

Kleinschmidt Energy and Water Resource Consultants (Kleinschmidt). 2007. South Carolina 

Electric & Gas Company Columbia, South Carolina; Columbia Project (FERC No. 1895);

Columbia Fish Ladder Evaluation Report, Final. Available at 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12548946.

Kleinschmidt Energy and Water Resource Consultants (Kleinschmidt). 2008. South Carolina 

Electric & Gas Company Columbia, South Carolina; Columbia Project (FERC No. 1895); 2008 

Columbia Fish Ladder Evaluation Report, Final. Available at 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12548946.

Kleinschmidt Energy and Water Resource Consultants (Kleinschmidt). 2009. City of Columbia, 

South Carolina; Columbia Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1895); 2009 Columbia Fishway 

Report, Final. Available at 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12548946.

Larkin R.P. 1996. Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois. Available at 

http://nhsbig.inhs.uiuc.edu/bioacoustics/noise_and_wildlife.pdf. Accession No. ML051150109.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-99 NUREG-1939

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper. Prepared for Santee Cooper, 

Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082680275.

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2009. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper—Revision #1. Prepared for 

Santee Cooper, Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Accession No. ML102160577. 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2010. Summary of Federally Protected 

Species Survey V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 New Santee Cooper Transmissions 

Lines. Accession No. ML103220140. 

Manville, A.M., II. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers, 

and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science – next steps toward mitigation. Bird 

Conservation Implementation in the Americas: Proceedings 3rd International Partners in Flight 

Conference 2002, eds. C.J. Ralph and T. D. Rich. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical 

Report PSW-GTR-191, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 16 USC 703, et seq.

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 Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 2009. Ionizing Radiation 

Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160, NCRP Publications, 

Bethesda, Maryland.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2007. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

Surveys: Draft Final Report. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. Aiken, South Carolina.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2008. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

Surveys: Summer Report Final. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. Aiken, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML091050699.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2009. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

Surveys: Winter Report Final. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. Aiken, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML092050189.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the 

Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-100 April 2011

Palmetto Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Palmetto). 2010. Summary of Federally Protected 

Species Assessments, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 Transmission Lines, Various 

Counties, South Carolina. Lexington, Kentucky. Accession No. ML103220140. 

Pike Energy Solutions LLC (Pike). 2010. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 

Transmission Line Siting Study Addendum Number 1. Prepared for South Carolina Electric & 

Gas Company. Charlotte, North Carolina. Accession No. ML102980200. 

Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2009. Amended Order Approving 

Applied Application − Combined Application of South Carolina Electric and Gas Company for a 

certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Pubic Convenience and Necessity and for a Base 

Load Review Order for the Construction and Operation of a Nuclear Facility in Jenkinsville, 

South Carolina. Docket No. 2008-196-E; Order 2009-104A, p. 123. Available at 

http://dms.psc.sc.gov/pdf/orders/5E3440FB-FC31-8115-18C5057D060BF8EF.pdf. 

Quattlebaum, M. 2008a. Fish Community Assessment of Parr Reservoir 2007-2008. SCANA 

Services Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082830397.

Quattlebaum, M. 2008b. Limited Fish Community Assessment of Mayo Creek 2007-2008. 

SCANA Services Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082830320.

Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 Section 403. 33 USC 403, as amended.

Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South 

Carolina. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.

Sagendorf J.F., J.T. Goll., and W.F. Sandusky. 1982. XOQDOQ: Computer Program for the 

Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations. 

NUREG/CR-2919; PNL-4380, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Saricks C.L. and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates for Surface Freight 

Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-150, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

Illinois. Available at http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=12051. 

SC Code Ann. 48-1-110. 2008. “Permits Required for Construction or Alteration of Disposal 

Systems; Classification; Unlawful Operations or Discharges.” South Carolina Codes Annotated.

SC Code Ann. 58-33-20. 2009. “Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection Act.” South 

Carolina Code Annotated.

SC Code of Regulations 61-62. 2009. “Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards.” 

South Carolina Code of Regulations.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-101 NUREG-1939

Self, R.L. and J. Bettinger. 2006. Highest Conservation Priority – Big River Species. 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed August 30, 2009, at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/BigRiverSpecies.pdf. Accession No. ML100110572.

South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2010. Letter from Rebekah 

Dobrasko (State Historic Preservation Office, Review and Compliance Coordinator) to the NRC

dated May 25, 2010, “Re: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement Fairfield County, South Carolina.” Accession No. ML101540528.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2002. Standards 

for Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Regulation 72-300 thru 72-316. June 28, 

2002. Available at http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/regs/r72-300.pdf.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008. Sediment, 

Erosion, and Stormwater Management Program. Available at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/swerfmain.htm. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009. South 

Carolina Ozone Nonattainment Boundary Recommendations. Available at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/baq/docs/OzoneBoundaries/Ozone%20Boundary%20Reco

mmendations%203-12-09%20Final.pdf. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2005. The 100 Largest Public 

Water Supplies in South Carolina–2005. Water Resources Report 37. Available at 

https://www.dnr.state.sc.us/water/hydro/.../Abs_dnr_R37.htm. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2006. Common Aquatic Plant 

Management Problems: Alligator Weed. Available 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/water/aquaff/alligatorweed.html. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2008. South Carolina Aquatic 

Invasive Species Management Plan. Prepared in coordination with the South Carolina Aquatic 

Invasive Species Task Force. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/invasiveweeds/. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009. Rare, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species and Communities Known to Occur in Richland County. Available at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html#C. August 24, 2009. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-102 April 2011

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2010a. Rare, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species Inventory for Calhoun, Chester, Colleton, Dorchester, Fairfield, Hampton, 

Lancaster, Lexington, Newberry, Orangeburg, and Richland Counties. Accessed on November 

15, 2010 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/species/index.html.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2010b. Email from Julie Holling 

(SCDNR) to Lara Aston (PNNL) dated December 16, 2010, regarding threatened and 

endangered species in transmission corridors. Accession No. ML110350208. 

South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). 2009. South Carolina Strategic 

Corridor System Plan. Available at 

http://www.dot.state.sc.us/inside/multimodal/corridorplan.shtml. Accession No. ML093421433.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2002. Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Application 

for Renewed Operating License Appendix E - Environmental Report. South Carolina Electric 

and Gas Company Docket No. 50-395, License No. NPF-12. August 2002. Available at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/summer.html. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual for South 

Carolina Electric and Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Revision 26, 

Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession Nos. ML081280582 and ML072910571.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 

Project No. 743. Submittal of a Combined License Application for V.C. Summer Nuclear Station 

Units 2 and 3. Revision 0, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. NND-08-0004. Accession No. 

ML081300460.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina. Accession No. ML092170463.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 

1, 2009 in response to letters from Manny Comar (NRC) dated March 1, 2009, "Subject: Virgil 

C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined License Application (COLA) –

Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Response to NRC Request for Additional Information 

(RAI) Letter No. 041." NND-09-0109. Accession No. ML091270890.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-103 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 

21, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, "Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: GW-1, 2, 3, 9, and 10, and SE-5." NND-09-0139. Accession No. 

ML091480009.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009e. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 

11, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, "Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: ACC-11, ALT-3, AQ-5, AQ-6, GW-11, LU-3, and SW-12." NND-09-0126. 

Accession No. ML091350104.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009f. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

August 6, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and 

Patricia J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): USACE-2, 3, 4, and 5.” 

NND-09-0236. Accession No. ML092230165.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009g. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

June 9, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: ACC-5 (Item 1), AQ-9, BC-1, GW-7 (Item 3) and SE-S1.” NND-09-0158. 

Accession No. ML091630212.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009h. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

July 13, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, "Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3. Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): Alt-3, AqEco-7, CR-3, 

GW-6, Met-1, SEcon-6, and SW-2." NND-09-0184. Accession No. ML092010266.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-104 April 2011

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009j. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

President, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated November 

20, 2009 in response to letter from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. 

Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined 

License Application – Supplemental Response to NRC Environmental Report (ER) Information 

Needs NP-1, AQ-11 and AQ-13.” NND-09-0320. Accession No. ML093310245.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009k. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

August 7, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and 

Patricia J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): BenCost-1 and 

SEcon-4.” NND-09-0237. Accession No. ML092230779.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009l. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

May 11, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: CR-2, 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 22.” NND-09-0125. Accession No. 

ML091350104.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009m. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

July 21, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): CR-4, 5, 7,8, 9,and 10, 

and TLine-1.” NND-09-0204. Accession No. ML092040676.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009n. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

July 13, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): CR-1 and 11, AqEco-5, 6, 

and 8, TerEco-2 and 3, GW-4, 5, 7, and 8, LU-2, SEcon-1, 5, and 7, and BenCost-2 and 3.” 

NND-09-0183. Accession No. ML092020357.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-105 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009o. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

May 18, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: CR-5 and CR-9.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. ML091480622.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 2, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML101930231. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010b. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 2, Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina. Accession No. ML100360598. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010c. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated October 6, 2010 referencing R.B. Clary letter dated 

October 2, 2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined 

License Application – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 – Voluntary Submittal for the 

Environmental Report to Update Transmission Line Information.” NND-10-0361. Accession No. 

ML102850211. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010d. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated September 28, 2010 referencing R.B. Clary letter dated 

July 2, 2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined 

License Application (COLA) – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 –Submittal of Environmental 

Report (ER) Revision 2 Figures and Related Data Files of Interest.” NND-10-0352. Accession 

No. ML102780267. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010e. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated October 19, 2010 referencing R.B. Clary letter dated 

July 2, 2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 Docket Numbers 52-027 

and 52-028 Combined License Application – SCE&G Transmission Line Siting Study Revision 

and Associated GIS Data.” NND-10-0383. Accession No. ML102980200. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010f. Letter from George A. Lippard to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated April 26, 2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. NPF-12, Radiological Environmental 

Operating Report.” Accession No. ML101200057. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010g. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated October 27, 2010 referencing R.B. Clary letter dated 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-106 April 2011

July 2, 2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 Docket Numbers 52-027 

and 52-028 – Voluntary Submittal for the Environmental Report to Update Figure 3.1-3 and 

Tables 1.2-1 through 1.2-4” NND-10-0384. Accession No. ML102780267. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010h. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated July 27, 2010 referencing R.B. Clary letter dated July 2, 

2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3– Docket Numbers 52-027 and 

52-028 Combined License Application – Response to NRC Environmental Report (ER) 

Requests for Additional Information (RAI): Gen-2 Part 2 and Gen-3.” NND-10-0283. Accession 

No. ML102160539. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2011. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated February 8, 2011 referencing R.B. Clary letter 

dated July 2, 2010 and email clarifications from NRC dated January 25, 2011 and February 1, 

2011, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined License 

Application (COLA) – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 – Response to Clarification 

Requests Concerning Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).” NND-11-0027. 

Accession No. ML110410185. South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC). 1994. South 

Carolina’s BMP: Best Management Practices for Forestry. Columbia, South Carolina.

Strenge D.L., R.A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II - Technical Reference and User 

Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Strenge D. L., T. J. Bander, J. K. Soldat, and J. K. Swift. 1987. GASPAR II – Technical 

Reference and User Guide. NUREG/CR-4653, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, D.C.

Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007. Mayo Creek Aquatic Survey V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 

Combined Construction/Operating License Project. Prepared for South Carolina Electric & Gas 

Company by Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082830320.

Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009a. Mayo Creek Quarterly Fish Surveys: Winter and Spring 2009 

V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 Combined Construction/Operating License Project. Prepared for 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company by Tetra Tech NUS Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML092160245.

Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009b. Nuclear Plant Site Selection Study Report. Prepared for South 

Carolina Electric & Gas Company by Tetra Tech NUS Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. Accession 

No. ML090270990.

Tipler, P.A. 1982. Physics. Worth Publishers, New York.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-107 NUREG-1939

University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). 2003. Evaluation of the 

Motor Carrier Management Information System Crash File, Phase One. UMTRI 2003-6, 

University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Available at 

http://www.umtri.umich.edu/content/UMTRI_2003_6.pdf. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. Letter from Richard Darden (Biologist, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers) to F. David Haddon dated June 29, 2009, “Re: SAC 2007-1852, 

Fairfield County.” Accession No. ML100750573.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Letter from Richard Darden (Project Manager, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to F. David Haddon (Senior Environmental Specialist, SCE&G) 

dated December 14, 2010 in response to letter from David Haddon dated October 6, 2010, on 

behalf of SCE&G and Santee Cooper regarding request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional 

Determination for linear utility corridors. Accession No. ML110470607. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011a. Letter from Tina Hadden (Chief, Regulatory 

Division) to Ronald B. Clary (Vice President SCE&G New Nuclear Deployment) dated January 

21, 2011, transmitting signed cultural resources management plan and agreement among the 

South Carolina Department of Archives & History, State Historic Preservation Office; the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers; and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) regarding the 

VC Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 & 3 Site and Associated New 230 KV SCE&G 

Transmission Lines. Accession No. ML110310829.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011b. Letter from Tina Hadden (Chief, Regulatory 

Division) to Ken Johnson (Supervisor Transmission Design, Santee Cooper) dated January 21, 

2011, transmitting signed Cultural Resources Management Plan For Two New Transmission 

Lines Serving The Proposed New Units at the VC Summer Nuclear Station Accession No. 

ML110310858.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USACE and NRC). 

2008. Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Environmental Reviews Related to the Issuance of 

Authorizations to Construct and Operate Nuclear Power Plants. Accession No. ML082540354.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008a. May 2008 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan 

Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Columbia, South Carolina – Construction 

and Extraction Occupations. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_17900.htm. Accession No. ML093360688.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008b. Table 1. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal 

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2009. Accessed September 

15, 2009 at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh.t01.htm. Accession No. ML100481291.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-108 April 2011

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008c. Table 6. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2007. South Carolina. 

Available at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/pr076sc.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2008. Visual Resource Management VRM System 1986. 

Available at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/vrmsys.html. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2007. National Transportation Statistics 2007.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2007/index. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009a. Traffic Safety Facts, South Carolina, 2003-

2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd30/ncsa/STSI/45_SC/2007/45_SC_2007.htm. Accession No. ML093360621.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009b. Traffic Safety Facts, Fairfield County, South 

Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Fairfield%20County_2007.htm. 

Accession No. ML093360600.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009c. Traffic Safety Facts, Barnwell County, South 

Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Barnwell%20County_2007.htm. 

Accession No. ML093360596.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009d. Traffic Safety Facts, Aiken County, South 

Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Aiken%20County_2007.htm. 

Accession No. ML093360588.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009e. Traffic Safety Facts, Orangeburg County, 

South Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd3...nties/South%20Carolina_Orangeburg%20County_2007.htm. Accession No. ML093360609.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009f. Traffic Safety Facts, Saluda County, South 

Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Saluda%20County_2007.htm. 

Accession No. ML093360617.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Ground-level Ozone – Ozone Standards. 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html#stand.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 4-109 NUREG-1939

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Global Greenhouse Gas Data. 

Accessed December 15, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html. 

Accession No. ML100221499.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage 

Restoration Plan. Available at 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12197642. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 

Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagl

eManagementGuidelines.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010. South Carolina List of Endangered, Threatened, 

and Candidate Species March 2010. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/endangeredSpeciescountylist.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS). 2011. Species Profile: Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona 

decorata). Accessed January 1, 2011 at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/F02L.html. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. South Carolina 27-Class Land Cover [GRID raster].

South Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, USGS Biological Resources

Division, Clemson, South Carolina. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/mapping.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Statement Related to 

the Operation of Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1. NUREG-0719, 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, Washington, D.C.

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

20 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, NUREG-1437, Addendum 1, 

Washington, D.C.

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

(ESRP) — Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. 

NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols 1 and 

2, Washington, D.C.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 4-110 April 2011

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Notes taken at Robust Redhorse 

Conservation Committee Meeting, September 16, 2009, Garnet, South Carolina. Accession No. 

ML100600774.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Summary of Conference Calls 

Concerning Section 106 Consultation and the NRC Environmental Review of the VC Summer 

Units 2 and 3 COL Application, March 8, 2010. Accession No. ML100660003.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Memorandum from Patricia Vokoun, 

Project Manager, to Ryan Whited, Branch Chief, dated March 18, 2010, Subject: “Summary of 

the Environmental Site Audit and Alternative Site Visit Related to the Review of the Combined 

License Application for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3.” Accession No. 

ML100480082.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010c. Staff Memorandum from Scott Flanders,

DSER Division Director, to Brent Clayton, RENV Branch Chief, dated December 10, 2010,

“Addressing Construction and Preconstruction Activities, Greenhouse Gas Issues, General

Conformity Determinations, Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative Impact

Analysis, and Cultural/Historical Resources Analysis Issues In Environmental Impact

Statements.” Accession No. ML100760503.
April 2011 5-1 NUREG-1939

5.0 Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

This chapter examines environmental issues associated with operation of the proposed new 

nuclear Units 2 and 3 at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site for an initial 40-year 

period as described by South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). As part of its application for 

combined construction permits and operating licenses (COLs), SCE&G submitted an 

Environmental Report (ER) that discussed the environmental impacts of station operation 

(SCE&G 2009a, 2010a). In its evaluation of operational impacts, the review team composed of 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, its contractor staff, and U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) staff, relied on operational details supplied by SCE&G in its ER, SCE&G 

responses to NRC Requests for Additional Information (RAIs), and the review team’s own 

independent review. Also consulted were permitting correspondences between SCE&G and the 

USACE, a cooperating agency in this action. 

This chapter is divided into 13 sections. Sections 5.1 through 5.12 discuss the potential 

operational impacts on land use, water, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics, 

environmental justice, historic and cultural resources, meteorology and air quality, 

nonradiological and radiological health effects, postulated accidents, and 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, as appropriate. The NRC 

staff’s 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 operational impacts is 

presented in Section 5.13. The references cited in this chapter are listed in Section 5.14.

5.1 Land-Use Impacts

This section contains information about the land-use impacts associated with operation of 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Section 5.1.1 discusses land-use impacts at the VCSNS site 

and in the vicinity of the site. Section 5.1.2 discusses land-use impacts with respect to offsite 

transmission-line corridors and offsite areas.

5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

Onsite land-use impacts from operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are expected to be minimal. 

The proposed units would use two mechanical draft cooling towers for each unit. As discussed 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-2 April 2011

in Sections 5.3.1.1 and 5.7.1 of this chapter, operation of the cooling system would have 

minimal impacts on vegetation, and fogging, icing, and drift impacts on land use also are 

expected to be minimal. Occasional dredging around the discharge diffuser pipe in the Parr 

Reservoir and the intake structure in Monticello Reservoir may be required during operations. 

SCE&G would follow generally accepted best management practices (BMPs) and all applicable 

regulations and permit conditions for disposal of dredging spoils at an onsite upland location.

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 vehicle parks, apartment buildings, single-family condominiums and homes, 

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 

Fairfield County and surrounding counties as a result of infrastructure improvements (e.g., new 

roads, utility services). Additional information about operations-related infrastructure impacts is 

provided in Section 5.4. However, the review team assumes that any induced residential 

growth would be managed because the four counties in the economic impact area have 

comprehensive land-use plans in place. Fairfield County allows low-density residential 

development in the vicinity of the site, in accordance with its comprehensive land-use plan. 

Based on the existence and projected implementation of land-use plans, the information 

provided by SCE&G, and the NRC’s own independent review, the review team concludes that 

the land-use impacts of operation would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be 

warranted.

5.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors and Offsite Areas

Most land-use impacts in transmission-line corridors would occur during installation, rather than 

during operations. SCE&G and Santee-Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, 

formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority) provide easements to allow 

agricultural activities under their transmission lines. Transmission-line corridor vegetation 

management practices are discussed in Section 5.3.1.2. Therefore, the review team concludes 

that the offsite land-use impacts of operations would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would 

not be warranted. 

5.2 Water-Related Impacts

This section discusses water-related impacts on the surrounding environment from operation of 

the VCSNS Units 2 and 3.

Managing water resources requires understanding and balancing the tradeoffs between various, 

often conflicting, objectives. At the VCSNS site, these objectives include recreation, visual 

aesthetics, reservoir ecology, and a variety of beneficial consumptive uses of water. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-3 NUREG-1939

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, 

SCE&G must obtain the same water-related permits and certifications as any other large 

thermoelectric power generation facility. These include:

• Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification. This certification would be issued by the South 

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) and would confirm 

that operation of the plant would not conflict with State water-quality management programs.

• Clean Water Act Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Discharge Permit. This permit would be issued by the SCDHEC 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. The scope will be covered under the NPDES 

permit with the SCDHEC.

• 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. The scope will be covered under the NPDES permit with the SCDHEC

• South Carolina Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use, and Reporting Act (SC Code 

Ann. 49-4). This act provides for the permitting of surface-water withdrawals greater than 

3 million gallons per month.

Section 5.2.1 discusses the expected hydrologic alterations in surface water and groundwater 

related to operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Water-use impacts are discussed in Section 5.2.2 

for surface water (5.2.2.1) and groundwater (5.2.2.2). Water-quality impacts are discussed in 

Section 5.2.3 for surface water (5.2.3.1) and groundwater (5.2.3.2). Water monitoring is 

discussed in Section 5.2.4.

5.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations

The proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be positioned on a hilltop with natural drainage away 

from the facilities. Modifications of the land surface made during construction and 

preconstruction activities would alter the local hydrology. Specifically, surface water would be 

routed away from the nuclear plant through ditches described in the site layout plan. In addition, 

groundwater infiltration areas would be significantly different because of the large number of 

impervious surfaces that would decrease infiltration and the use of stormwater-retention basins

that could locally increase infiltration. The aquifer beneath the VCSNS site is likely to be 

affected by the new hydrology for a period shortly after construction and preconstruction, but 

water levels would eventually equilibrate to the conditions of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operations. 

The aquifer may also be locally affected to a small extent by the altered surface hydrology, 

although these impacts are not likely to have a significant impact on other adjacent 

permitted users.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-4 April 2011

The impact of the consumptive use of surface water by proposed Units 2 and 3 is evaluated in 

terms of the estimated reduction in flow in absolute and percentage terms for normal and 

maximum modes of operation and for long-term average flows and low flows in the Broad River. 

These flows are discussed in Section 5.2.2.1.

The quantitative measures used to assess the level of impact on water use are twofold: (1) the 

ability to discern the reduced flow from the historical flows determined using current U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) methods, and (2) the decreased ability of a hypothetical small 

downstream reservoir to serve hypothetical water users. These measures are discussed in 

Section 5.2.2.1.

SCE&G stated that “groundwater would not be withdrawn for operational use by Units 2 and 3” 

(SCE&G 2010a). The hydrologic alterations of groundwater due to construction and 

preconstruction activities (e.g., site grading, changes in recharge, fill materials, excavation 

dewatering) are discussed in Section 4.2.1 of this environmental impact statement (EIS). 

Localized dewatering during operations may be required to reduce the water table to minimize 

seepage for below-grade portions of buildings. As mentioned by SCE&G (SCE&G 2010a), the 

pumping rates would be low due to the low permeability of the aquifers in this area (see 

Sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.2.2 of this EIS). Based on the low amount of groundwater pumping 

that may occur if dewatering is required, the review team concluded that any groundwater 

alterations at VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be localized to the site.

5.2.2 Water-Use Impacts

A description of water-use impacts on surface water and groundwater is presented in the next 

sections. The water resource usage by VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operations is limited to the 

Monticello Reservoir and the Broad River/Parr Reservoir. Surface water would be used by 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 for cooling and all other plant water needs. No local groundwater use is 

proposed. Information presented in the ER for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2010a), as well as 

other information obtained by the review team, and independent analysis performed by the 

review team were used to assess water-use impacts.

5.2.2.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Use

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would withdraw water from Monticello Reservoir, which comes from the 

old Frees Creek basin and indirectly from the Broad River via the Fairfield Pumped Storage 

Facility (FPSF). Some of the water supplied to these units would be used consumptively 

(e.g., through evaporation). The Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir are

hydrologically connected by the FPSF. Cooling water blowdown would be discharged to Parr 

Reservoir. The VCSNS Unit 2 and 3 water-treatment facility would discharge to Monticello 

Reservoir. A diagram showing the direction and magnitude of flows between the Broad River, 

Parr Reservoir, Monticello Reservoir, VCSNS Unit 1, and the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is 

shown in Figure 5-1.
April 2011

5-5 NUREG-1939

Figure 5-1. Diagram of the Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir System (SCE&G 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-6 April 2011

Some water would be consumptively used by VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Operational surface-water 

withdrawals for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are estimated to be between 83 cfs (normal 

operation) and 137 cfs (maximum use). Of these totals, between 62 cfs (normal operation) and 

69 cfs (maximum use) of water would be consumptively used due to evaporation and drift 

related to the operation of the proposed cooling towers, while between 21 cfs (normal operation) 

and 68 cfs (maximum use) of water would be discharged to the Parr Reservoir just upstream of 

the Parr Shoals Dam. For comparison purposes, the long-term annual and lowest annual mean 

flows are reported for the Alston gauging station (nearest station downstream of VCSNS) as 

6302 cfs and 2153 cfs, respectively. The estimated surface-water withdrawals for the proposed 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be between 1 and 4 percent of the long-term annual mean of 

Broad River flows, while the actual surface-water consumptive use of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

would be around 1 percent of the long-term annual mean flow. For the lowest annual mean 

flow, the withdrawal percentages based upon normal and maximum use increase to between 2 

and 6 percent, respectively, while consumptive use increases to around 3 percent. The 

consumptive surface-water use impacts of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operations on Broad River flow 

are summarized in Table 5-1.

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

Flow Characteristic

Broad River 

Flow at Alston 

(cfs)

Normal (max) 

Consumptive Use for 

Units 2 and 3 (cfs)

Difference in Broad River 

Flow Under Normal (max) 

Operating Conditions 

(Percent)

Long-term annual mean flow 6302 62 (69) 1 (1.1)

Lowest annual mean flow 2153 62 (69) 2.9 (3.2)

7Q10 flow 853 62 (69) 7.3 (8.1)

The 7Q10 flow (lowest flow for 7 consecutive days expected to occur once per decade) is also 

used to assess the impacts of alteration to flow during low-flow periods. The 7Q10 was 

reported by SCE&G to be 853 cfs in the absence of accounting for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

consumptive uses. Including the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 consumptive use would 

reduce the 7Q10 flow to 791 and 784 cfs under normal and maximum use modes of operation 

or between a 7 to 8 percent reduction in 7Q10 flow. 

When surface-water flow is at or above either the long-term annual or lowest annual mean 

flows, the percent reduction in the Broad River flow due to consumptive use related to the 

operation of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (1 to 6 percent) would be minimal. Due to the 

seasonality of the Broad River flow, it is expected that the impacts would be larger in the 

summer than during the remainder of the year. At lower Broad River flows, SCE&G has 

suggested that, as a mitigative measure, some of the water-supply needs could be met by 

drawing from Monticello Reservoir storage instead of relying fully on the Broad River. The 

useable storage within Monticello Reservoir is 45,000 ac-ft.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-7 NUREG-1939

The review team assessed the impact of the estimated maximum consumptive use of water of 

the proposed Units 2 and 3 (69 cfs) to assess the ability of the Broad River to satisfy current and 

likely future water demands. Based on a combination of existing historical flow records at the 

USGS Alston and Richtex gauges, the maximum consumptive use represents about 1 percent 

of the average annual flow (6155 cfs) and 1.6 percent of the flow during the lowest month 

average flow (4300 cfs) of the entire period of record (1925 to 1983). The consumptive water 

use of proposed Units 2 and 3 would fall within the range of uncertainty in typical streamflow 

measurements of a stream this size. Given the minor fractional reduction due to consumptive 

use, the review team determined that the impact of proposed Units 2 and 3 on the water 

resources’ ability to meet current water demands would be minimal.

The review team also assessed the impact of consumptive water use of the proposed plant with 

water demands that might occur toward the end of the plant’s operating life in 2060. Because 

no precise method exists to project water demands out to 2060, the review team relied on 

population projections for 2060 for the primary counties in the Broad River basin (Cherokee, 

Chester, Fairfield, Greenwood, Richland, Spartanburg, Union, and York Counties). Based on 

the combined population growth for 2060 (discussed in Section 2.5.1.1, Table 2-23) and the per 

capita water-use requirements derived from annual South Carolina Water Use Reports 

(SCDHEC 2002, 2003a, b, 2004, 2005a, 2006a, 2007), the review team postulated a water 

requirement of 251,508 ac-ft/yr (350 cfs), assuming a linear relationship between growth in 

population and increase in surface-water use. 

To confirm that a reliable water supply will continue to meet the postulated demand given the 

expected seasonal and annual variability of streamflows (see Section 2.9.1), the review team 

postulated a hypothetical off-stream reservoir sized to ensure that a steady future water demand 

would be reliably delivered. For the purposes of this analysis, streamflow withdrawals were 

limited in the critical months of July, August, and September so the median Broad River flows 

would not change. Withdrawals from the river were limited to 700 cfs (as a water-supply design 

parameter) and further limited to 479 cfs (to maintain a required minimum flow in the Broad 

River). These limitations represent a postulated set of requirements designed to allow for 

transfer of water from the Broad River to the hypothetical reservoir only under excess river flow 

conditions. The modeled reservoir size needed to satisfy the postulated steady future water 

demand was 55,000 ac-ft. The reliability of this reservoir to meet future water requirements (as 

identified above) was reduced from 99.65 percent to 99.61 percent when VCSNS Units 2 and 3

consumptive use was removed from the available supply. Based on the magnitude of the 

change the review team concluded that the impact of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operation on future 

water-supply reliability would not be noticeable and mitigation would not be warranted. 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operation would consumptively use only a small proportion of Broad River 

flow, and the review team’s independent water-supply reliability analysis found that this 

consumptive use would not noticeably alter long-term regional water supply reliability even 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-8 April 2011

when considering potential future supply reduction because of climate change. Therefore, the 

review team concludes that the impacts of surface-water use by VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

operations would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.2.2.2 Impacts on Groundwater Use

As described in Section 5.2.1, groundwater would not be used for operation of proposed 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3, but some dewatering may be necessary to reduce below-grade seepage 

in buildings. Dewatering is currently used to reduce below-grade seepage in buildings around 

Unit 1 (using two wells at a combined rate of about 26 gpm as described in Section 2.3.2.2 of 

this EIS). 

As stated in Section 2.3.2.2, the closest water-supply well to the site is currently at a private 

residence approximately 1 mi east of the site. The nearest groups of wells, used for residences 

and stores, are located 1.5 mi east of the VCSNS site and 2.5 mi southeast of the site 

(SCE&G 2010a). The closest water-supply well that could potentially be located near the facility 

is approximately 0.75 mi to the southeast at the site boundary (SCE&G 2009b). As discussed in 

Sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.2.2 of this EIS, yields from groundwater wells, both regionally and 

locally, are generally less than 30 gpm.

Similar to VCSNS Unit 1, a potable-water treatment plant that draws water from Monticello 

Reservoir would provide the potable water for Units 2 and 3 during operations (SCE&G 2009b, 

2010a). SCE&G stated that they will not use water from a municipal system for operations 

(SCE&G 2010a). Therefore, water usage at the VCSNS site during operations would not affect 

municipal water suppliers who may draw water from groundwater sources.

Based on the low groundwater pumping rates needed for dewatering due to the generally low 

permeability of the aquifers in this area; relatively large distances to local groundwater supply 

wells; and the site location that is partially isolated from offsite users by surface waterbodies 

(Parr Reservoir, Mayo Creek, and Monticello Reservoir); the review team concludes that the 

impacts on groundwater use during the operation of Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL, and 

additional mitigation would not be warranted.

5.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts

This section discusses the impacts on the quality of water resources from the operation of 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Surface-water impacts include thermal, chemical, and 

radiological wastes, and physical changes in the Monticello Reservoir and the Broad River 

and/or Parr Reservoir resulting from effluents discharged by the proposed nuclear plants. 

Section 5.2.3.1 discusses the impacts on surface-water quality and Section 5.2.3.2 discusses 

the impacts on groundwater quality.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-9 NUREG-1939

5.2.3.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Quality

Impacts to surface water quality could result from blowdown discharge and stormwater runoff. 

Cooling towers concentrate solids and solutes from the raw makeup water during the process of 

evaporative heat loss. Other materials are introduced to the makeup water to inhibit scale, 

biofilm formation, and corrosion. These solids and solutes are contained in blowdown. 

Blowdown for the two proposed units at the VCSNS site would be discharged to Parr Reservoir. 

Stormwater runoff would be managed through engineering controls (SCE&G 2010a) based on 

BMPs as detailed in a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). 

The water-treatment methods to be used at VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are described in Section 3.4 

and are likely to be similar to those used for VCSNS Unit 1. In addition to the anti-scalants, 

biocides, and corrosion inhibitors described above, additional water treatment would be 

achieved through the use of algaecides, pH adjusters, and silt dispersants (see Table 3-5). The 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling towers would operate by recycling cooling water two to four times, 

which would concentrate any material present in the makeup water. While the amount of these 

materials would not differ, the dissolved concentration in the blowdown discharge to Parr 

Reservoir would be two to four times the initial concentration in the makeup water. Intake 

concentrations are listed in Table 2-10 through Table 2-12; estimated concentrations in 

blowdown are provided in Table 3-4. An NPDES permit is required before blowdown effluent 

can be discharged, and discharges must be in compliance with the permit. When the blowdown 

discharge mixes with the much larger flow of the Broad River, the downstream Broad River 

concentration would approach that of the upstream concentrations.

Temperature standards for fresh waters as well as guidelines for determining whether a mixing 

zone needs to be created around a thermal discharge are established in State Regulation 61-

68, “Water Classifications and Standards” (SCDHEC 2008) as follows: “...water temperature of 

all freshwaters which are free flowing [or lakes] shall not be increased more than 5°F (2.8°C) 

above natural conditions and shall not exceed 90°F (32.2°C) as a result of the discharge of 

heated liquids unless a different site-specific temperature standard as provided for in C.12 has 

been established, a mixing zone as provided in C.10 has been established, or a Section 316(a) 

determination under the Federal Clean Water Act has been completed” (SCDHEC 2008, at 

E(12)(a) and (c)). If a mixing zone is to be created, then its size should be minimized 

(SCDHEC 2008). For chronic mixing permit conditions, SCDHEC has established that a mixing 

zone be no larger than half the river width and extend a distance no further than twice the river 

width (SCDHEC 2005b). Based on the Parr Reservoir eastern channel width of 600 ft, the 

largest mixing zone size could be 300 ft across the channel and 1200 ft along the channel. 

SCE&G focused on simulations where either the 90°F or the +5°F criterion could be exceeded. 

The blowdown discharge into Parr Reservoir would be, in most cases warmer than the ambient 

water. SCE&G used the Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System (CORMIX) modeling software, 

version 4.3, to estimate the thermal plume from the discharge in Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a; 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-10 April 2011

Toblin 2007). The blowdown flow and temperature were estimated using meteorological data, 

cooling tower performance curves, and historical Parr Reservoir water temperatures (Toblin 

2007). The largest blowdown flow and the highest blowdown temperature that were estimated 

were 64 cfs and 91.75°F. 

The review team independently conducted a thermal plume analysis to estimate the thermal 

plume’s extent across the reservoir and to maximize the plume size estimate. Because no 

7Q10 flow value is available for the Parr Shoals Dam, the review team estimated a value based 

on a nearby gauge. The Alston gauge is the nearest gauge downstream of the dam. The 7Q10 

flow for the Broad River was estimated at Alston gauge as 853 cfs (USGS 2007). To correct for 

the increased flow associated with the 5.3 percent larger drainage area at the Alston gauge, the 

7Q10 flow for Alston was reduced by 5.3 percent to provide a 7Q10 value for Parr Shoals Dam

of 808 cfs. When the flow record was limited to the spring time period a higher low flow of 

1469 cfs was reported (Toblin 2007). These flows (808 cfs for summer and 1469 cfs for spring) 

were used to estimate the blowdown thermal plume dimensions for the spring and summer 

conditions. The review team examined the temperature records computed using 3-month rolling 

temperature averages for spring and summer. From these averages, a conservatively low 

ambient temperature during the spring of 43.3°F and a conservatively high summer ambient 

temperature of 84.0°F were used to maximize the estimated difference between ambient water 

and plume water temperatures (in spring) as well as plume temperature itself (summer). To 

make the estimates conservative, the review team analysis used the maximum effluent 

discharge flow rate (blowdown plus other liquid effluents) and highest blowdown discharge 

temperature, low flow through Parr Reservoir, low ambient water temperatures in spring, and 

high ambient water temperatures in summer. 

The review team’s thermal plume analysis is based on the estimation of the completely mixed 

water temperature within a prescribed fraction of the cross section of Parr Reservoir. While the 

assumption of complete and instantaneous mixing is physically implausible, this approach is 

based exclusively on the principle of conservation of energy, and provides a bounding estimate 

of the portion of the water that could be raised to a specified temperature differential. The wellmixed assumption here extends the 5°F limit to be wider than it would actually be, because no 

accommodation is made for more of the heat to be stored at the core of the plume than at the 

edges. The review team’s calculations are not designed to distinguish these plume features; 

estimated plume temperatures in the context of this discussion refer solely to the well-mixed, or 

average temperature within the plume. The analysis is based on the assumption that a portion of 

the cross section of the Parr Reservoir is significantly affected by the blowdown discharge. That 

is, a portion of the ambient flow is completely mixed with the blowdown discharge. That portion 

is based on specification of the fraction of affected width and depth. In all of the analysis, the 

plume is assumed to be mixed over one-half of the depth, meaning that the upper half of the 

water column will contain the thermal plume because of its buoyancy. A range of plume widths 

was examined (10 percent, 25 percent, and 50 percent of the channel width). A fraction of the 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-11 NUREG-1939

ambient flow is assumed to be entrained into the blowdown discharge flow and which, when 

mixed, adjusts to combined water temperature above the ambient water temperature and below 

the blowdown discharge temperature. The differences between the estimated plume water 

temperature and the ambient water temperature as well as the overall plume temperature were 

computed for these conditions and summarized in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3.

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

Plume Thickness Equal to 50 Percent of Water Depth

Plume Width

Plume Temperature (°F)

Spring (1469 cfs) Summer (808 cfs)

Normal 

Operation

Maximum 

Operation

Normal 

Operation

Max 

Operation

10% of channel width (60ft) 54 66 87 89

25% of channel width (150 ft) 48 56 85 87

50% of channel width (300ft) 46 51 85 86

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

and Summer with Assumed Plume Thickness Equal to 50 Percent of Water Depth

Plume Width

Plume Temperature Above Ambient (°F)

Spring (43.3°F ambient) Summer (84.0°F ambient)

Normal 

Operation

Maximum 

Operation

Normal 

Operation

Maximum 

Operation

10% of channel width (60ft) 11 23 3 5

25% of channel width (150ft) 5 13 1 3

50% of channel width (300 ft) 3 8 1 2

During spring conditions, the difference between the plume water temperature and ambient 

water temperature exceeds 5°F. The review team increased the width of the modeled plume 

area to 75 percent of the channel width and found that the temperature difference was reduced 

to 5°F. When the blowdown discharge was reduced to 40 cfs from the more conservative value 

of 68 cfs, a 5°F temperature difference was estimated for a plume width that was 50 percent of 

the channel width.

After the publication of the draft EIS, SCE&G submitted an independent analysis to the State of 

South Carolina using the CORMIX code on the thermal impacts of the proposed discharge. 

Based on a review of the document submitted to the State of South Carolina (SCE&G 2011), 

the review team determined that the results were bounded by the review team’s earlier 

independent assessment.

The discharge velocity is estimated to be in the range 2.3 to 3.8 fps (four-cycle operation) or 6.9 

to 11.3 fps (two-cycle operation) at the diffuser ports (SCE&G 2010a). The ambient currents 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-12 April 2011

range from 0.2 to 0.6 fps for low and average flow conditions (SCE&G 2010a). The diffuser has 

an alternative port configuration to yield a net momentum balance of zero. SCE&G judged that 

the momentum would dissipate within a limited area estimated to be 0.3 acre adjacent to the 

diffuser (Toblin 2007). Within this zone some scouring of the reservoir bottom would be 

expected. Because Parr Reservoir is characterized as depositional, SCE&G determined that 

the scour caused by the diffuser would be minimal. 

The discharges to Parr Reservoir and the much smaller discharges from the water-treatment 

plant to Monticello Reservoir have low projected contaminant levels that would be controlled 

through the NPDES permitting process. As such, the impacts on the water quality of the Broad 

River, Monticello Reservoir, and Parr Reservoir from proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 discharges 

are expected to be minor enough to not alter the SCDHEC 303(d) designated use of the three 

water resources and would comply with SCDHEC maximum contaminant levels (SCDHEC 

2008;SCE&G 2010a).

Based on the review team’s independent analysis of the temperature of, and chemical 

constituents in, plant discharges to Parr Reservoir and Monticello Reservoir, the review team 

concludes the impacts of the proposed Units 2 and 3 discharges on surface-water quality would 

be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.2.3.2 Impacts on Groundwater Quality

As discussed in Section 5.2.2.2, no groundwater would be used for the operation of VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3. Some localized dewatering may be necessary to reduce below-grade seepage in 

buildings. The small alterations of groundwater flow and usage during operations would not 

change groundwater quality.

SCE&G referred to its Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan and Facility 

Response Plan, as required by SCDHEC, that would “tend to mitigate impacts on local 

groundwater because spills are quickly attended to and not allowed to penetrate to 

groundwater” (SCE&G 2010a). Spills may include diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, and lubricants 

(SCE&G 2010a).

Factors that limit the impacts of operations on groundwater quality in the area are (1) SCE&G’s 

BMPs for spill prevention and control as mentioned above; (2) the relatively large distances to 

local groundwater supply wells; and (3) the partial isolation of onsite groundwater from offsite 

users by surface waterbodies (Parr Reservoir, Mayo Creek, and Monticello Reservoir).

Impacts on groundwater quality from the proposed operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are 

limited by the lack of groundwater use and the factors identified above. Based on all these 

factors, the review team concludes that groundwater quality impacts of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

operations would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be warranted.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-13 NUREG-1939

5.2.4 Water Monitoring

SCE&G stated that “[w]hile specific requirements for radiological, hydrologic, and chemical 

monitoring programs for operation of Units 2 and 3 have not yet been established, they are 

expected to be similar to and tiered from or added to the ongoing Unit 1 monitoring programs...” 

(SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G expects to work with SCDNR on the development of a surface-waterquality monitoring program to ensure that water quality will not be degraded as a result of 

operation of Units 2 and 3 (SCDNR 2010). SCE&G also provided a map showing four wells 

from the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 subsurface investigation program (described in Section 2.3.1.2) 

that would remain available for groundwater monitoring (SCE&G 2009c). These wells are 

outside the footprint of the nuclear island. Additional groundwater monitoring wells would be 

installed “based on any needs determined during detailed design and discussions with SC 

Department of Health and Environmental Control during site activity permitting” (SCE&G 

2009c). SCE&G also committed to following the requirements for additional groundwater 

monitoring wells as part of the voluntary Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative – Final 

Guidance Document (NEI 2007) (SCE&G 2009d). Hydrologic monitoring of groundwater 

involves measuring groundwater levels in wells. The operational chemical monitoring program 

“...would be implemented to identify any changes in water quality that may result from the 

operation of the new units...” (SCE&G 2010a). 

5.3 Ecological Impacts

This section describes the potential impacts on ecological resources from the operation of the 

two proposed new units at the VCSNS site and transmission-line operation, which includes 

transmission-line corridor maintenance. The impacts are discussed for terrestrial ecosystems, 

aquatic ecosystems, and threatened and endangered species. 

5.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts Related to Operation

Impacts on terrestrial communities and species that could result from operation of the proposed 

units are generally related to either cooling-system operations or transmission-system 

operations. The operation of the cooling towers transfers heat to the atmosphere in the form of 

water vapor and can result in icing, fogging, increased humidity, increased noise levels, and the 

deposition of dissolved solids (i.e., cooling-tower drift). There is also a risk of avian collision 

mortality with permanent structures.

5.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity 

The impacts of the operation of proposed Units 2 and 3 on the VCSNS site and vicinity would be 

associated with the operation of four circular mechanical draft cooling towers (two per unit) 

(SCE&G 2010a). As described in Chapter 3 of this EIS, the proposed circulating-water system 

(CWS) for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would return heated water from the heat exchangers to the 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-14 April 2011

cooling towers to transfer heat into the atmosphere. The cooling towers would each be 70 ft 

high with a base diameter of 275 ft (SCE&G 2010a). In this system, heat would be transferred 

to the ambient atmosphere in the form of water vapor and drift of small water droplets. Vapor 

plumes and water droplet drift may affect vegetation, such as native plant communities, 

ornamental vegetation, and crops, and water losses that cause reservoir draw-down could affect 

shoreline habitat. In addition, birds could collide with the mechanical draft cooling towers and 

other tall facility structures.

Impacts of Cooling Tower Operations

For each proposed unit, two mechanical draft cooling towers would be used to remove excess 

heat from the CWS by transferring it into the atmosphere. Through the process of evaporation 

followed by partial re-condensation, the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration in the CWS 

would increase. Operation of the CWS would be based on four cycles of concentration, which 

means the TDS in the makeup water would be concentrated approximately four times before 

being released. A small percentage of the water in the CWS would be released into the 

atmosphere as fine droplets containing elevated levels of TDS that could be deposited on 

nearby vegetation. CWS water losses from drift would be minor in comparison to evaporation 

and blowdown discharge losses; the cooling-tower design drift rate would be 0.001 percent of 

the circulating-water flow (SCE&G 2010a). 

Depending on the source of makeup water, 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 by drift with high levels of TDS deposition, either directly by 

deposition onto foliage or indirectly from the accumulation in the soils. Vegetation adjacent to 

the proposed cooling tower locations is a mix of recently harvested and forested communities 

(planted pine, mixed pine-hardwood, hardwood) (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G estimated the 

combined cooling-tower plumes to have a maximum deposition rate of 0.28 lb/ac/mo, and that 

maximum deposition would occur 3280 ft east of the towers and approximately 1000 ft east of 

the site boundary (SCE&G 2009e). General guidelines for predicting the effects of drift 

deposition on plants suggest that sensitive species have a threshold for visible leaf damage of 

8.9 lb/ac/mo on leaves during the growing season (NRC 1996).

(a)

 Because the maximum 

deposition for the proposed VCSNS is below the level that could cause leaf damage in many 

common species, the impacts would be negligible. No agricultural crops or silviculture in the 

region are expected to receive significant salt deposition from plume drift from proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3. Where the maximum salt deposition is expected to occur, the maximum levels 

would be well below the levels known to cause adverse effects. In addition, the impact of drift 

on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plant communities was evaluated for existing 

nuclear power plants (including plants with more than one cooling tower) in the Generic 

 

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999 

(NRC 1999). Hereafter, all references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-15 NUREG-1939

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

and was found to be of minor significance (NRC 1996).

As described in Section 5.7.1, substantial fogging and icing are not expected to occur from the 

operation of the four proposed mechanical draft cooling towers for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

(SCE&G 2009e) and therefore would not be expected to affect habitat or wildlife. In addition, 

the potential for impacts related to cloud shadowing and increased precipitation are estimated to 

be minimal, and no adverse effects on terrestrial species or habitats are expected. Thus, the 

potential impacts on native plant communities, ornamental vegetation, and crops from the 

operation of cooling towers for proposed Units 2 and 3 would be minimal.

Bird Collisions with Cooling Towers and Structures

A potential for avian mortality due to collision with proposed nuclear power plant structures 

exists and could pose a threat to species in decline and to threatened or endangered species. 

The height of the cooling towers associated with proposed new VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be 

approximately 70 ft. The NRC previously concluded that the relatively low height of mechanical 

draft cooling towers causes negligible mortality (NRC 1996). In addition, the NRC concluded 

that avian collisions are unlikely to pose a biologically significant source of mortality due to the 

small fraction of total bird mortality that has been attributed to collision with nuclear power plant 

structures (NRC 1996). Thus, the review team concludes that the potential for impacts on bird 

species from collisions with cooling towers for proposed Units 2 and 3 would be minimal.

Noise Impacts of Operation

Simultaneous operation of the four mechanical draft cooling towers for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

would generate approximately 71 dBA at 200 ft and 55 dBA at 1000 ft for each cooling tower 

(SCE&G 2010a). This is below the 80- to 85-dBA threshold at which birds and small mammals 

are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). Noise from operating mechanical draft cooling 

towers would not likely disturb wildlife in habitats away from the planned facilities and would not 

be expected to affect wildlife beyond 1000 ft. Thus, the potential impact on wildlife posed by 

incremental noise resulting from the operation of the four mechanical draft cooling towers for the 

proposed Units 2 and 3 and other facilities on the VCSNS site would be minimal, and additional 

mitigation would not be warranted.

Impacts of Increased Vehicle Traffic

Increased traffic associated with operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 has the potential 

to increase wildlife mortality resulting from vehicle-wildlife interactions. An estimated 800 

additional workers would be employed to operate proposed Units 2 and 3 and SCE&G has not 

determined the exact routes for access to the site. The Unit 1 workforce of 635 would access 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-16 April 2011

the site via State Highway 215 (SC-215) (SCE&G 2010a). The additional work trips during peak 

hours would occur on the rural roads and highways in the vicinity. Local wildlife populations 

could suffer declines if road-kill rates were to exceed the rates of reproduction and immigration. 

However, although road-kills occur frequently in the United States, they reportedly have minimal 

effect on wildlife populations (Forman and Alexander 1998). The review team concludes that 

these impacts would not be detectable beyond the local vicinity and would not destabilize 

regional populations.

Light Pollution During Facility Operation

Light pollution during facility operation could potentially affect wildlife on the VCSNS site by 

altering behavioral patterns such as bird flight direction that are influenced by photoperiod 

(period of daylight) (FWS 2008). Possible mitigation measures could include the use of lowerwattage lights, hooded or down-turned lights, and turning unnecessary lights off at night to 

minimize potential impacts on wildlife (FWS 2008). If mitigation measures such as those noted 

above were implemented the impacts from light pollution would be expected to be minimal. 

5.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines

Electric power transmission systems have the potential to affect terrestrial ecological resources 

through corridor maintenance, bird collisions with transmission lines and structures, 

electrocution, and electromagnetic fields (EMFs). A total of six new offsite 230-kV transmission 

lines would be needed to distribute the power generated by proposed Units 2 and 3 at the 

VCSNS site. Santee Cooper would maintain two of the lines, and the other four lines would be 

maintained by SCE&G in three corridors (one double-circuit line and two single-circuit lines; see 

details about transmission lines in Table 4-1). As indicated in Tables 2-2 and 2-3, there would 

be approximately 392 mi and 5703 ac of transmission-line corridor (SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

lines combined) that would be used to connect proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to the regional 

grid (SCE&G 2010d; FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2009). A substantial portion of the new lines would 

be routed in existing corridors, but approximately 45 mi would be in new corridor (Pike 2010; 

MACTEC 2009). 

Corridor Maintenance – Vegetation

Vegetation control in the transmission-line corridors would be the primary source of potential 

impacts on terrestrial resources. Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper have established 

maintenance procedures for power transmission systems (SCE&G 2006a; Sott 2006; MACTEC 

2008). Transmission-line corridors must be kept clear of woody growth through maintenance 

practices that prevent growth from becoming a safety hazard or potentially interrupting service. 

SCE&G and Santee Cooper have maintenance cycles for tree trimming that range from 1 to 

7 years depending on the activity. Both utilities use chemical and mechanical control methods 

appropriate for the location, terrain, and vegetation or habitat present. Chemical methods 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-17 NUREG-1939

include the use of nonrestricted-use herbicides (only herbicides registered by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) to control any vegetation that may interfere with the 

transmission-line corridor. In general, both companies spray herbicides on a 3-year rotation. 

The consistent use of herbicides results in the growth of low-growing, non-woody vegetation 

such as grasses and other native plants. Mechanical methods of vegetation control include 

hand clearing, pruning, mowing, and felling (SCE&G 2006a; Sott 2006; MACTEC 2008).

The impact of transmission-line corridor maintenance on wildlife and habitats, including 

floodplains and wetlands, was evaluated in the V.C. Summer supplement to the license renewal 

GEIS (NRC 2004a), and the impact was found to be of minimal significance at operating nuclear 

power plants with associated transmission-line corridors of variable widths (NRC 2004a). 

SCE&G and Santee Cooper have procedures in place that minimize adverse impacts on wildlife 

and important habitats such as floodplains and wetlands (SCE&G 2010a). Corridormaintenance activities would be performed by Santee Cooper and SCE&G (in their respective 

corridors) in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and permit 

requirements. Therefore, the potential effects on terrestrial species and habitats from 

transmission-line maintenance in existing and new transmission-line corridors would be minimal, 

and mitigation beyond the use of standard BMPs would not be warranted.

Avian Mortality Impacts from Power Transmission Lines

Potential avian impacts from operation of transmission lines include bird injury or morality 

through collision or electrocution. Avian interactions with power transmission lines and 

structures are species- and site-specific. The NRC’s analysis in NUREG-1437 determined that 

bird collisions with transmission lines are of small significance at operating nuclear power 

plants, including transmission-line corridors with variable numbers of transmission lines 

(NRC 1996). In addition, the V.C. Summer supplement to the license renewal GEIS

(NRC 2004a) stated that impacts from bird collisions were expected to be of small significance 

at all sites. SCE&G and Santee Cooper also stated that all new lines would be “raptor safe” 

under the guidelines recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (FP&S 2008;

MACTEC 2009). Thus, the addition of the proposed transmission lines along existing corridors 

would likely present few new opportunities for bird collisions. The addition of new corridors may 

lead to an additional number of collisions in that corridor; however, it would not be expected to 

cause a measurable reduction in bird populations. The review team concludes that the potential 

for impacts on birds due to collision with transmission lines for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 

3 would be minimal, and additional mitigation would not be warranted.

Impacts of Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna

EMFs are unlike many other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals, ionizing 

radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

exist, are subtle (NRC 1996, 2004a). The NRC reviewed biological and physical studies of 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-18 April 2011

EMFs but found no consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures (NRC1996, 

2004a). The NRC determined that EMFs produced by operating transmission lines for existing 

nuclear power plants up to 1100 kV were not linked to significant harmful effects on flora 

(NRC 1996, 2004a). Minor damage to plant foliage and buds can occur near strong electric 

fields, caused by heating of the leaf tips and margins. Damage does not appear within the stem 

and root systems of the plants and would not significantly affect growth (NRC 1996, 2004a). 

EMFs have been demonstrated to affect some fauna. Voltage buildup can affect the overall 

health of honeybee hives (NRC 1996, 2004a). Birds that nest within transmission-line corridors 

experience chronic EMF exposure, but lines energized at levels less than 765-kV do not affect 

terrestrial biota (NRC 1996, 2004a). 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). 

The conclusion presented in the GEIS for license renewal stated that the impacts of EMFs on 

terrestrial flora and fauna appear to be of small significance at operating nuclear power plants, 

including power transmission systems with variable numbers of transmission lines (NRC 

2004a). Therefore, the review team concludes that the increased EMF impact on flora and 

fauna posed by the operation of new 230-kV transmission lines proposed for the VCSNS project

would be negligible, and additional mitigation would not be warranted.

Floodplains and Wetlands in Transmission-Line Corridors

The effects of maintaining transmission-line corridors on floodplains and wetlands were 

evaluated in the V.C. Summer supplement to the license renewal GEIS, and, although periodic 

vegetation control is necessary in wetlands under power lines, it can be carried out with minimal 

damage to the wetlands (NRC 2004a). In addition, SCE&G and Santee Cooper have 

procedures in place that minimize adverse impacts on important habitats such as floodplains 

and wetlands in transmission-line corridors and all maintenance activities would be performed in 

compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and permit requirements 

(SCE&G 2010a). Thus, the ecological impacts from maintenance operations on transmissionline corridors were found to be of small significance at operating nuclear power plants, including 

those of variable widths. The review team concludes that the incremental effects of maintaining 

the proposed transmission-line corridors on floodplains and wetlands would be minimal, and 

mitigation beyond use of standard BMPs would not be warranted.

5.3.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats

This section discusses the potential impacts of operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 on 

Federally and State-listed species, on the ecologically important species and/or habitats 

(including wetlands), and on commercially important species.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-19 NUREG-1939

Important Terrestrial Species – Site and Vicinity

The Federally and State-listed species that potentially occur on the VCSNS site and in the fourcounty vicinity are described in Section 2.4.1.3 (Tables 2-16 and 2-17). Biologists conducted 

formal and informal surveys for species that could occur in terrestrial habitats or wetlands onsite 

as well as surveys of whether or not suitable habitat exists for species that may occur in those 

four counties. Surveys were conducted in 2002 (in support of license renewal), 2006, 2007, 

2008, and 2009. Nine Federally or state listed species were identified by the FWS that could 

potentially exist in the vicinity or that historically occurred onsite or in the vicinity of the proposed 

project: Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), wood stork (Mycteria 

americana), pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata),

Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia 

asperulifolia), and Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi). The bald eagle was the only Federally 

listed species found on the VCSNS site during each survey. Although bald eagles were delisted by the FWS in August 2007, the species is still protected under the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Operation of Units 2 and 3 at the 

VCSNS site would not be expected to affect the Federally listed or State-listed species that are 

not found on the site or in the vicinity.

Game species, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), wild turkey 

(Meleagris gallopavo), and a variety of waterfowl species, are common inhabitants of the 

VCSNS site. Increased noise levels near the cooling towers may cause these wildlife species to 

avoid the immediate area and increased activity and traffic would also cause wildlife to avoid the 

habitats immediately adjacent to the proposed units. Drift, fogging, and icing are expected to 

cause negligible or no impacts on habitats and would not be expected to affect important game 

species. Although animals may avoid habitats adjacent to the new units during operations, the 

VCSNS property and surrounding landscape contain large expanses of terrestrial and aquatic 

habitat to which these species could relocate. Thus, operational impacts on commercially and 

recreationally important species would be minimal, and no mitigation would be warranted.

Important Terrestrial Habitats – Site and Vicinity

No areas designated by the FWS as “critical habitat” for threatened or endangered species, or 

State or Federal parks, wildlife refuges, or preserves occur on or immediately adjacent to the 

VCSNS site (SCE&G 2010a). However, as described in Section 2.4.1.3, Parr Reservoir, which 

is adjacent to the VCSNS site, is managed for wildlife by the South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources (SCDNR) as the Broad River Wildlife Management Area (BRWMA). 

Wetland habitat remaining on the site after development of the proposed units and associated 

facilities would include a few emergent wetlands on the edge of Parr Reservoir, as well as 

several forested palustrine wetlands (see EIS Sections 2.4.1 and 4.3.1). None of the wetland 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-20 April 2011

habitats on the site or on the nearby BRWMA is likely to be adversely affected by salt deposition 

or fogging and icing as a result of drift from the mechanical draft cooling towers.

Important Terrestrial Species – Transmission Lines

The transmission lines associated with the proposed project do not travel through any areas 

designated by the FWS as “critical habitat” for endangered or threatened species (FP&S 2008; 

MACTEC 2008). However, Federally and State-listed species do inhabit portions of the 

transmission-line corridors that would be managed to transmit power from the proposed project. 

A complete list of Federally and State-listed species that are known to occur in counties crossed 

by transmission lines associated with the project is given in Chapter 2, Table 2-17. The list was 

compiled from the SCDNR Natural Heritage Database (SCDNR 2010) and the FWS list (FWS 

2010). SCE&G and Santee Cooper consulted with FWS and SCDNR and conducted targeted 

ground surveys in September, October, and November 2010 for Federally listed, threatened, 

endangered, and candidate species along the proposed transmission-line corridors and no 

protected species were found (Palmetto 2010; MACTEC 2010). However, there is still a 

potential that protected species might be discovered in the transmission-line corridors over the 

operational life of the proposed transmission lines. 

Transmission-lines serving the proposed new units would travel through a variety of habitats 

that support large and small game as well as waterfowl species. Because most of the proposed

transmission-line corridors would be constructed within or adjacent to existing corridors for 

operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, no significant additional impacts would be 

expected to occur on any commercially or recreationally important species as a result of 

vegetation maintenance activities in the corridors.

No areas designated by the FWS as “critical habitat” for threatened or endangered species 

occur on or immediately adjacent to the proposed transmission-line corridors associated with 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. None of the transmission lines crosses State or Federal parks, 

wildlife refuges, or preserves or wildlife management areas. The effects of transmission-line 

corridor maintenance on floodplains and wetlands were evaluated in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). 

The impacts were found to be of small significance at operating nuclear power plants, and these 

included transmission-line corridors of variable widths. Because SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

have procedures in place to minimize impacts on important species and habitats, the potential 

impacts of maintaining existing corridors would be minimal.

5.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring During Operation 

SCE&G has stated that there would be no preoperational or operational monitoring of 

terrestrial ecological resources at the VCSNS site or associated transmission-line corridors 

(SCE&G 2010a). The review team has not identified any preoperational or operational 

monitoring of terrestrial ecological resources necessary to prevent impacts on those resources.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-21 NUREG-1939

5.3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures for Operations-Related Terrestrial Impacts 

SCE&G has committed to employing mitigation measures for operations-related terrestrial 

impacts including the implementation of BMPs associated with transmission-line and corridormaintenance practices. As described in the above sections, these BMPs include the use of 

properly labeled herbicides in accordance with label instructions regarding the application rates, 

timing, and setting, as well as compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations.

5.3.1.6 Summary of Operational Impacts on Terrestrial Resources

The potential impacts of operating proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 on vegetation, birds, and 

terrestrial, wetland, and shoreline habitats are likely to be minimal. The potential impacts of 

transmission-line corridor maintenance and similar impacts on important habitats including 

floodplains and wetlands, birds, and biota because of EMFs are considered minimal assuming 

that BMPs and guidance available from State and Federal agencies are followed, as 

appropriate.

The review team assessed the potential terrestrial ecological impacts of operating two new 

nuclear power-generation facilities at the VCSNS site, including the associated heat-dissipation 

system, transmission lines, and associated corridor maintenance. Given the information 

provided in SCE&G’s ER (SCE&G 2010a), the response to RAIs (SCE&G 2009e), interactions 

with State and Federal agencies, the public scoping process, and the review team’s 

independent assessment, the review team concludes that the impacts from operation of the new 

facilities and associated transmission-line corridors would be SMALL, and additional mitigation 

beyond the BMPs mentioned above would not be warranted.

5.3.2 Aquatic Impacts Related to Operation

The following sections discuss potential impacts resulting from the operation of proposed 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 on the aquatic ecosystem in the Broad River and Parr Reservoir, 

Monticello Reservoir, onsite streams, and water courses crossed by transmission lines. 

5.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity

For aquatic resources, the primary concerns related to water intake and consumption are the 

impacts related to the relative amount of water drawn from the cooling-water source (Monticello 

Reservoir) and the potential for organisms to be impinged on the intake screens or entrained in 

the cooling-water system. Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against the rawwater intake screens by the force of the water passing through the intake structure used for 

cooling water (66 FR 65256). Aquatic biota subjected to impingement can experience 

starvation and exhaustion, asphyxiation (water velocity forces may prevent proper gill 

movement or organisms may be removed from the water for prolonged periods of time), and 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-22 April 2011

descaling (66 FR 65256). Entrainment occurs when organisms are drawn through the rawwater intake into the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling-water system. Organisms that

become entrained are typically small benthic, planktonic, and nektonic (organisms within 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 facility’s cooling 

system, they are subject to pressure, 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.

SCE&G indicated in its ER that a closed-cycle recirculating cooling system with mechanical 

draft cooling towers would be used for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2010a). 

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 

used a once-through cooling system (66 FR 65256). This significant reduction in waterwithdrawal rate results in a corresponding reduction in impingement and entrainment.

Monticello Reservoir Intakes

The intake design through-screen velocity greatly influences the rate of impingement of fish and 

shellfish at a facility. The higher the through-screen velocity, the greater the number of biota 

impinged. The EPA has established a national standard for the maximum design throughscreen velocity of no more than 0.5 fps (66 FR 65256). The EPA determined that species and 

life stages evaluated in various studies could endure a velocity of 1.0 fps, and subsequently 

applied a safety factor of two to derive the threshold of 0.5 fps. 

SCE&G (2010a) stated that both the CWS raw-water intake and the water-treatment plant 

intake associated with proposed Units 2 and 3 would be located in Monticello Reservoir, and 

would have a design through-screen velocity of less than 0.5 fps at a minimum reservoir water 

elevation of 414.3 ft Northern American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) (SCE&G 2010a). 

Each CWS intake pump would be protected by a debris-exclusion system consisting of a bar 

screen to trap large debris and a dual-flow traveling screen to filter out fine debris. At the watertreatment plant intake, the end of the intake pipe would be inside a concrete wet well (a 

chamber used to collect liquid). Screens in the side of the wet well would allow water to pass 

into the wet well while excluding debris (SCE&G 2009h, 2010a).

Monticello Reservoir is primarily fed by water from the Broad River, which is transferred via the 

FPSF. The consumptive use of water from the Broad River for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

represents between 1 and 4 percent of the long-term annual mean flow and the lowest annual 

mean flow, as described in Section 5.2.2.1. These consumptive-use estimates for VCSNS 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-23 NUREG-1939

Units 2 and 3 are less than the conservative withdrawal limit of no more than 5 percent as 

allowed by the EPA Phase I regulations (66 FR 65256). In the event of low-flow conditions in 

the Broad River, Monticello Reservoir can supply a total of 45,000 ac-ft of usable storage for 

cooling water for VCSNS Units 1 through 3. If drought conditions in the Broad River persist and 

the storage water from Monticello Reservoir is used before hydrologic conditions are restored, 

“...SCE&G would curtail or cease operation of VCSNS until water is available” (SCE&G 2010a). 

Due to these operational conditions to maintain a usable volume of water storage in Monticello 

Reservoir, impacts on aquatic biota during drought conditions are expected to be minor. 

Impingement and entrainment of aquatic biota are also influenced by the application and use of 

design and construction technologies aimed at minimizing impingement mortality and 

entrainment. The EPA indicated (66 FR 65256) that the optimal design requirement for the 

intake location is to place the inlet of the cooling-water intake structure (CWIS) in an area of the 

source waterbody away from areas with the potential for high productivity, where impingement 

and entrainment of organisms are minimized. Dames and Moore (1985) noted a high diversity 

and abundance of fish in the southwest portion of Monticello Reservoir and suggested these 

trends may have been linked to the delivery of nutrient-rich water from the Parr Reservoir via 

the FPSF. Since those data were collected, large fluctuations in the composition of fishes within 

the reservoir have been observed (Christie and Stroud 1997). Since the creation of Monticello 

Reservoir in 1977, the aquatic biota within the reservoir may have adapted to environmental 

factors (e.g., frequently fluctuating water surface elevation because of FPSF operation), biotic 

interactions (e.g., predator-prey, invasive species), or a combination of both. Based on the 

2006–2009 fishery data collection effort led by SCE&G (e.g., Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a) 

and the aquatic surveys conducted by SCDNR (Christie and Stroud 1998, 1999), the community 

composition of fish within Monticello Reservoir consists of a diversity of species exhibiting an 

array of life-history requirements and habitat associations, such as shallow-water nesting for 

reproduction and benthic scavenging. The recent data documenting changes in fish community 

composition and the diversity of fish present in the system do not indicate that the southwest 

portion of Monticello Reservoir is consistently more productive than any other part of the 

reservoir. 

Beginning in October 1983, after VCSNS Unit 1 commenced operations, a study was conducted 

for VCSNS Unit 1 discharge permitting where ichthyoplankton were collected during a 12-month 

study at several discrete locations within Monticello Reservoir to determine the types of larvae 

that would be subjected to entrainment at the VCSNS Unit 1 intake (Dames and Moore 1985). 

Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) accounted for 91 percent of the larval samples, followed 

by white bass (Morone chrysops) and perch species (Perca spp.), which accounted for 6 and 

2 percent of the collective samples, respectively. The remaining taxa encountered during the 

1983–1984 ichthyoplankton surveys included minnows (Cyprinidae), suckers (Catostomidae), 

centrarchids (Centrarchidae), and crappie species (Pomoxis spp.) with each accounting for less 

than 1 percent of the larvae sampled (Dames and Moore 1985).
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-24 April 2011

The results of a 2008–2009 ichthyoplankton study conducted by Normandeau (2009b) indicated 

a predominance of threadfin shad (D. petenense), whereas gizzard shad predominated in the 

1983–1984 Dames and Moore (1985) study. In addition, overall densities of larval fish were 

lower in the 2009 study. Dames and Moore (1985) reported that the highest densities of larvae 

occurred during May and June, with an average annual estimate of 53.9 larvae/100 m3 at the 

surface, and 11.8 larvae/100 m3 at mid-depth. While there are similarities in the temporal trends 

of abundance between the two studies, the 2009 ichthyoplankton study results indicate 

dissimilar trends in that total annual larval densities across depths were only 7.47 larvae/100 m3 

(Normandeau 2009b). Therefore, the overall abundance of fish near the southern portion of 

Monticello Reservoir appears to be lower than it was over 20 years ago. Differences in 

ichthyoplankton abundance may be attributed to a shift in the community composition within 

Monticello Reservoir such that blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) are now predominant (Christie 

and Stroud 1996; Normandeau 2009b). Furthermore, Normandeau (2009b) speculated that 

nutrients within the Monticello Reservoir may be lower than they were during the time period 

that coincided with the Dames and Moore (1985) study. In assessing VCSNS license renewal 

for Unit 1, NRC determined that although fish community composition had changed since 1985 

with the introduction of white perch (Morone americana) and blue catfish, the potential impacts 

from entrainment on fish populations in Monticello Reservoir would remain small. Survival of 

larval and juvenile fish is largely compromised by predation and competition and results in low 

percentages of fish that may survive to become reproducing adults (NRC 2004a).

The projected annual entrainment of larval fish species for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 CWS is 

between 15.3 million for a normal pumping rate of 36,214 gpm (81 cfs) and 24.9 million for a 

maximum pumping rate of 58,800 gpm (131 cfs) with a through-screen velocity of less than 

0.5 fps (Normandeau 2009b). It should be noted that no eggs for any species were collected 

during the 2008–2009 ichthyoplankton surveys. The dominant entrained species is likely to be 

the threadfin shad, which is a prolific spawner, with females producing over 10,000 eggs per fish 

and spawning in both spring and fall. Speculation as to the difference in population dynamics 

include a natural progression of community turnover, stabilization of reservoir water quality or 

alteration of incoming nutrients into the system, introduction of new species, and densitydependent interactions between predator-prey fish species (Normandeau 2009b). 

VCSNS Unit 1 was designed as a once-through cooling plant to withdraw approximately 

767 Mgd (1190 cfs) from Monticello Reservoir (Geosyntec 2007). Units 2 and 3 are designed

as a closed-cycle recirculating cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers and would 

withdraw between 7 and 12 percent of the water needed for Unit 1 operations (SCE&G 2010a). 

Based on the small percentage of water withdrawn, the planned low through-screen intake 

velocity, the closed-cycle cooling system design, and the high fecundity of the most likely 

entrained fish species, the review team concludes that the impacts on the fish populations of the 

Monticello Reservoir from entrainment would be minor.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-25 NUREG-1939

Two impingement studies have been conducted at the VCSNS Unit 1 intake structure; the first 

occurred 10 months after Unit 1 began operation and the second study commenced during 

2005. In the first study, Dames and Moore (1985) collected a total of 5140 fish weighing 31 kg 

sampling at 2-week intervals between October 1983 and September 1984. The abundance of 

gizzard shad accounted for 82.6 percent of the impinged individuals and 51.8 percent of the 

overall impinged biomass. Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) accounted for 7.6 percent of the 

abundance and 8.0 percent of the overall biomass. However, numerically dominant taxa 

detected in the Dames and Moore (1985) study were not necessarily proportional to the 

biomass of impinged organisms. For example, white catfish (Ameiurus catus) accounted for 

2.4 percent of the abundance and 17.6 percent of the biomass. Species such as warmouth

(Lepomis gulosus), white bass, and white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) each accounted for less 

than 1 percent of the impinged taxa, yet these fish species each constituted approximately 

3 percent of the overall impinged biomass (Dames and Moore 1985). Assessment of 

impingement impacts during license renewal for VCSNS Unit 1 noted that non-benthic species 

such as gizzard shad, threadfin shad, white perch, and white bass are most susceptible to 

impingement and that overall impingement impacts are small based on the high reproductive 

and growth rates of these fish, particularly gizzard shad (NRC 2004a).

As a result of EPA regulations stemming from Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, SCE&G 

implemented a 12-month impingement study, with bi-weekly sampling, at existing VCSNS Unit 1 

during 2005–2006. A total of 574 organisms weighing 7.9 kg were impinged between July 12, 

2005 and June 27, 2006 (Geosyntec 2007). The estimated annual impingement at the VCSNS 

Unit 1 during the 2005–2006 study period was 8042 organisms (Geosyntec 2007). Similar to 

the Dames and Moore (1985) impingement study, numerically dominant taxa detected in the 

Geosyntec study were not necessarily proportional to the biomass of impinged organisms 

(Table 5-4). Threadfin shad were the most abundant, making up 50 percent of the impinged 

samples, yet these fish only made up 6.9 percent of the overall biomass. Blue catfish and 

channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) accounted for 12.2 and 11.8 percent of impinged samples 

while accounting for 16.1 and 12.5 percent of the biomass, respectively. White perch 

represented 9.4 percent of the abundance of impinged samples, and yielded the highest 

biomass (36.6 percent) of impinged species. Representing less than 5 percent of the impinged 

catch, gizzard shad and white catfish accounted for 12.9 and 7.4 percent of the impinged 

biomass, respectively (Geosyntec 2007).

Both the Dames and Moore (1985) and the Geosyntec (2007) impingement studies detected 

similar patterns with regard to the size class of fish impinged at the VCSNS Unit 1 intake 

structure. The majority of impinged fish were of small size classes indicative of juvenile to 

subadult life stages (Dames and Moore 1985; Geosyntec 2007). Dames and Moore (1985) 

report that the majority of fish, such as gizzard shad, yellow perch, and bluegill 

(Lepomis macrochirus), were impinged as juveniles. However, the size classes of white catfish 

impinged during their study included juveniles as well as adult stages (Rohde et al. 2009). The 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-26 April 2011

overall size-class distribution of fish impinged during the Geosyntec (2007) study suggests the 

taxa typically subjected to impingement were relegated to small size classes (e.g., less than 

140 mm). Impinged fish ranged from 38 to 349 mm in total length (Geosyntec 2007), which, 

depending on the particular species, can include a range of life stages (Rohde et al. 2009). 

While the majority of the impinged taxa were representative of juvenile or subadult life stages, 

an evaluation of the Geosyntec (2007) length frequency distributions indicated that impingement 

at the Unit 1 intake structure likely included adult threadfin shad, gizzard shad, white perch, and 

white catfish. 

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

(2007) VCSNS Unit 1 Impingement Study 

Common Name

Percent of 

Total Catch

Percent of 

Total Biomass

Threadfin shad 50.2 6.9

Blue catfish 12.2 16.1

Channel catfish 11.8 12.5

White perch 9.4 36.6

Yellow perch 6.1 3.4

Gizzard shad 4.4 12.9

White catfish 2.6 7.4

Bluegill 1 1.5

Crayfish 0.7 0.2

Flat bullhead 0.5 1.1

Snail bullhead 0.3 0.6

Flier 0.2 0

Grass shrimp 0.2 0

Hybrid sunfish 0.2 0.7

Warmouth 0.2 0.1

Both impingement studies also noted similar patterns associated with impingement rates linked 

to seasonal changes. Impingement rates were greatest during winter months. Dames and 

Moore (1985) and Geosyntec (2007) attributed this pattern to cold water temperatures, which 

are thought to impose stress on some fish species (e.g., gizzard shad, threadfin shad), making 

them more susceptible to impingement. Dames and Moore (1985) also postulated that the high 

rates of occurrence of some species may be linked to schooling and migratory behavior 

(e.g., gizzard shad, yellow perch), or associations with habitat features near the intake structure 

(e.g., white catfish).
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-27 NUREG-1939

Neither the Dames and Moore (1985) nor the Geosyntec (2007) study observed correlations 

between impingement rates and fluctuating elevations of the water surface in Monticello 

Reservoir resulting from the operation of the FPSF. While impingement rates were not linked to 

changing water-surface elevations, the size of the hydraulic zone of influence associated with 

the CWIS at Unit 1 was inversely correlated with the elevation of the reservoir water 

(Geosyntec 2005). The hydraulic zone of influence was greatest during the lowest reservoir 

elevations, extending 555 ft from the CWIS and encompassing a surface area equal to 2.9 ac 

(Geosyntec 2005).

The fish most vulnerable to impingement include small size classes of fish that exhibit weak 

swimming capabilities, are particularly sensitive to cold water temperatures, demonstrate an 

affinity for habitats near the intake structure, and/or maintain life-history requirements that 

increase the likelihood of contact within the CWIS hydraulic zone of influence. Based on these 

criteria and the results of the Geosyntec (2007) impingement study, the most vulnerable fish 

include clupeids (gizzard shad, threadfin shad), ictalurids (blue, channel, and white catfish), and 

white perch. Collectively, these fish are commonly encountered and represent appreciable 

proportions of the standing stocks of fish in Monticello Reservoir (Christie and Stroud 1997). 

Furthermore, these fish are typically highly fecund and prolific spawners (Rohde et al. 2009). 

Of the fish most vulnerable to impingement, blue catfish and white perch are non-native to 

Monticello Reservoir. Impingement impacts from operation of VCSNS Unit 1 were determined 

to be small during license renewal assessment (NRC 2004a). Given that the impingement and 

entrainment rates for Unit 1 are based on a flow rate of 1190 cfs, and the CWS flow rates for 

Units 2 and 3 would require between 81 and 131 cfs, the reduced flow rates should result in 

lower impingement rates compared with Unit 1 (SCE&G 2010a). Based on the planned low 

through-screen intake velocity (less than 0.5 fps), flow rates that are at least 9 times less than 

those of existing Unit 1, and the high fecundity of the species sampled in the Unit 1 

impingement studies the review team concludes that impacts from impingement of fish related 

to the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minor.

Cooling-Water Discharge

The effluent from proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be discharged directly to the Parr 

Reservoir on the Broad River. Section 3.2 discusses the location and design of the discharge 

and outfall structures; Section 3.4 discusses the effluent discharge rates (Table 3-6). Discharge 

from VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operations would be 21 cfs for normal operations (68 cfs maximum),

which represents about 0.3 percent to 1 percent of the long-term average flow for normal and 

maximum operating conditions, respectively. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-28 April 2011

Aquatic Thermal Impacts

Heat Stress

Thermal conditions influence all aspects of aquatic ecology, which includes an array of 

processes: feeding, metabolic processes, growth, reproduction, development, distribution, and 

survival (Coutant 1976). In a general sense, biota are often able to persist (e.g., grow, 

reproduce, survive) under a range of thermal conditions. While many species exhibit similar 

tolerance for temperature regimes, growth and survival are linked to optimal thermal conditions 

that are driven by species-specific requirements (Kellog and Gift 1983). The thermal tolerance 

for aquatic organisms is defined in different ways. Some definitions relate to the temperature 

that causes fish to avoid the thermal plume, other definitions relate to the temperature that fish 

prefer for spawning, and others relate to the temperatures (upper and lower) that may cause 

mortality. The differing life stages of aquatic organisms often have different temperature 

tolerances and differing abilities to avoid temperature extremes. Spatially, thermal pollution may 

exist at the site or may include offsite waterbodies. Temporally, conditions that result in water 

temperatures that exceed ambient levels may be more pronounced during certain times of the 

year (i.e., winter). Finally, the consequences of thermal pollution within aquatic ecosystems 

may be confined to individuals or depending on ecosystem conditions, may result in a 

population-level response (Coutant 1976). 

The blowdown discharge from proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 into Parr Reservoir would be, in 

most cases, warmer than the ambient water (Table 5-3). SCE&G, using the CORMIX Version 

4.3 model, discusses a mixing zone (where discharge effluent combines with Parr Reservoir 

water) of less than 25 percent (i.e., 150 ft) of the Parr Reservoir channel width during a 

maximum heat discharge scenario (winter) to bound the maximum potential for plume 

temperatures and temperature differentials with the ambient water of Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 

2010a). In Section 5.2.3.1, the review team describes its independent assessment of the 

incremental impacts of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 on the water temperatures in the Parr 

Reservoir. The review team used a range of mixing zone to channel width ratios (10, 25, and 

50 percent) to independently assess thermal changes for comparison with SCE&G’s thermal 

analysis. The following review team analysis was based on the assumption that complete 

mixing occurs over the portion of the channel width that is specified (10, 25, or 50 percent) over 

the upper half of channel depth, at 7Q10 flow conditions (Table 5-2 and Table 5-3).

The 7Q10 flow rate during the summer season is used to assess potential extreme drought 

conditions, with only two cycles of concentration for a maximum discharge of 68 cfs. A mean 

low flow of 1469 cfs was calculated just for the months from November through April, analogous 

to a 7Q10 calculation (Toblin 2007) for flows relevant during the lowest ambient water 

temperatures through the beginning of spawning season. As noted in Table 3-6, blowdown and 

other liquid effluent would discharge to Parr Reservoir at a normal discharge flow rate of 21 cfs 

(assuming four cycles of concentration) and at maximum blowdown temperature of 91.8°F
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-29 NUREG-1939

(SCE&G 2010a). Under normal operations with low-flow conditions between November and 

April, the thermal plume would exceed the 5°F difference between ambient and plume 

temperature if the mixing zone occurs across 10 percent or less of the Parr Reservoir channel. 

If the mixing zone was extended to 25 percent, the thermal plume differential with ambient water 

would be 5°F. Under extreme 7Q10 conditions in the summer, none of the scenarios for mixing 

zone width violate criteria set by SCDHEC to not exceed 90°F, or be more than 5°F above 

ambient water temperature for the mixing zone (SCDHEC 2008). The flow reversal by FPSF 

operation is not expected to exceed the results presented above as representative of extreme 

flow conditions (see Section 5.2.3.1).

Under the previous extreme assumptions used to assess the extent of the 5°F above ambient 

isotherm, a mixing zone that would occupy one-half of the Parr Reservoir channel width would 

still allow motile aquatic biota to avoid the affected mixing zone area during spring conditions. 

However, fish eggs and larvae would drift with the upstream or downstream current, depending 

on FPSF operation, and would not be able to avoid the 5°F above ambient isotherm. According 

to Schubel et al. (1977), some species of fish larvae may tolerate a temperature increase of up 

to 50°F above ambient for as much as 60 minutes, but no tested fish larval species has been 

documented to withstand increases of 68°F or more above ambient. Extreme temperature

increases of 68°F above ambient are not likely to occur within the mixing zone even under 7Q10 

conditions during the spring season. However, based on the review team’s analysis, the worstcase conditions occur during maximum operation in the spring with an anticipated maximum 

temperature change of 23°F above ambient river temperature (Table 5-3). One species present 

in abundance in Parr Reservoir, gizzard shad, is known to be particularly susceptible to mortality 

caused by sudden or extreme changes of temperature (Williamson and Nelson 1985). 

However, increases in temperature are generally more tolerated than decreases for this species 

as described below.

To evaluate the potential thermal impact on aquatic biota downstream of the Parr Shoals Dam,

the review team examined conditions that corresponded to the greatest extent of plume 

coverage across the river at the multiport diffuser (e.g., 8°F above ambient during spring; 

Table 5-3). Due to hydraulic mixing from water passing through the turbines it is likely that 

complete mixing of river and blowdown discharge would occur downstream of Parr Shoals Dam. 

Extrapolation of data described in Table 5-3 yields no more than a 2°F increase above ambient 

river temperature below the Parr Shoals Dam during spring months. A less than 5°F change 

from ambient water temperatures meets State standards (SCDHEC 2008). Based on the minor

increase in water temperature below Parr Shoals Dam during the spring months, thermal 

impacts on aquatic biota below Parr Shoals Dam are likely to be negligible.

Based on the review team’s analysis, the thermal plume would not exceed the maximum 

thermal criterion (>90°F) established by SCDHEC during spring and summer months 

(Table 5-2). Model simulations also indicate the thermal plume may exceed ambient conditions 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-30 April 2011

by 5°F; however, this occurrence would be limited to specific plume width and operating 

conditions (Table 5-2). These exceedances may be very short in duration (<9 hr/yr), or may 

never occur (Toblin 2007). The most abundant fish in Parr Reservoir include gizzard shad, 

threadfin shad, bluegill, and white perch, all of which are prolific spawners (Dames and Moore 

1985). Because even under worst-case conditions at least one-quarter of the width of the Parr 

Reservoir channel would be unaffected by thermal plume impacts, it is not expected that these

fish populations would be adversely affected by thermally induced mortality to eggs and larvae. 

Sufficient habitat for motile species is available in Parr Reservoir under all plume conditions to 

prevent impacts on the fish populations from the VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Therefore, impacts on

aquatic biota from thermal discharges to Parr Reservoir would be minor, and additional 

mitigation would not be warranted.

Cold Shock

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 have typically involved small numbers of fish and did 

not result in population-level effects (NRC 1996). Cold shock may also occur under extreme 

weather events and may adversely affect aquatic biota. For example, in January 1984 an 

extreme cold event resulted in the mortality of a large number of young-of-year gizzard shad 

within Monticello Reservoir (Dames and Moore 1985). 

Impacts on aquatic biota stemming from cold shock most often occur in winter months. Lifehistory stages that can be particularly sensitive to perturbations in water temperature include 

larval and juvenile stages as well as spawning and egg development. Fish within the Parr 

Reservoir do not typically undergo these vulnerable life stages and life-history events during the 

winter months. Because there would be multiple units that are unlikely to shut down 

concurrently, the temperature decrease from shutting down one unit would be moderated by the 

heated discharge from the units that continue to operate. In addition, gradual shutdown of plant 

operations generally precludes cold shock events (NRC 1996). Based on this analysis, the 

review team concludes that the thermal impacts on the fish populations due to cold shock would 

be minor and additional mitigation would not be warranted.

Invasive Organisms 

Invasive organisms found on the VCSNS site include two aquatic plant species (alligatorweed 

[Alternanthera philoxeroides] and water primrose [Ludwigia uruguayensis]), two fishes (blue 

catfish, white perch), and one mollusk (Asian clam [Corbicula fluminea]) (see Section 2.4.2.3). 

Neither these invasive organisms nor any other invasive species have been observed to have 

increased in numbers in the vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 thermal plume in Monticello Reservoir. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-31 NUREG-1939

Therefore, it is assumed that no large growths of invasive organisms are anticipated from the 

thermal plume for proposed Units 2 and 3 in Parr Reservoir.

Based on this analysis of the potential for thermal impacts on the aquatic ecosystem of the Parr 

Reservoir, the review team concludes that the impacts on aquatic organisms from thermal 

discharges from the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minor.

Chemical Impacts

Another discharge-related impact includes the chemical treatment of the cooling water. The ER 

indicates that chemicals would be added to the circulating-water and service-water systems that 

would be discharged into the blowdown lines and ultimately into Parr Reservoir. Biofouling 

would be controlled using metered pumps that inject chemicals into the raw-water pipeline and 

into the service-water pump discharge (SCE&G 2010a).

Chemical treatments proposed for use during the operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are 

outlined in Table 3-5 in Section 3.4.4.1 of this EIS. These chemicals are the same that are in 

use for VCSNS Unit 1 (SCE&G 2010a). The water flow from the Parr Reservoir would further 

dilute the concentration of these chemicals occurring in the station blowdown discharge. 

The use of chemicals in the existing VCSNS Unit 1 is regulated by an NPDES permit, which is 

granted under permit number SC0030856. The chemical concentrations at the outfall for the 

existing units meet the NPDES limits (SCE&G 2010a). A new NPDES permit would likely be 

needed for the new discharge into Parr Reservoir. Sampling efforts in Monticello Reservoir 

since the operation of Unit 1 have not indicated any impacts associated with chemical toxicity 

(Christie and Stroud 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999; Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a). Therefore, the 

impacts resulting from chemical discharges from proposed Units 2 and 3 to the Parr Reservoir 

would likely be minor.

Physical Impacts from Discharge

Physical impacts can occur from discharge in the form of scouring, siltation, sediment transport, 

increased dissolved oxygen, eutrophication, and increased turbidity. The maximum discharge 

velocity at the diffuser ports is anticipated to range from 6.9 to 11.3 fps, during periods of twocycle operation (SCE&G 2010a). Discharge velocities are discussed further in Section 5.2.3.1. 

The diffuser line would be located near the bottom of the reservoir, approximately 10 ft below 

the normal minimum water surface (SCE&G 2010a). Riprap placed on the bottom of the 

reservoir to stabilize the diffuser would also likely reduce localized scouring. The maximum 

extent of scouring as a result of the discharge system is expected to encompass an area equal 

to 0.3 ac, or roughly one-sixth of the width of Parr Reservoir at the point of discharge

(SCE&G 2010a). Within this localized area, the benthic invertebrate community would likely 

be altered. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-32 April 2011

Because this potential scouring is limited to such a small portion of Parr Reservoir, and would 

likely result in only localized disturbance to benthic invertebrates, the review team concludes 

that the physical impacts on aquatic biota from thermal discharges from proposed VCSNS Units 

2 and 3 would be minor.

Stormwater Drainage 

During the period of operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, onsite streams (Mayo Creek 

and intermittent streams) as well as Monticello and Parr reservoirs could be affected by 

stormwater drainage. SCE&G has an existing SWPPP to manage stormwater prior to its 

discharge to Monticello Reservoir. SCE&G would revise the existing VCSNS Unit 1 SWPPP to 

reflect the addition of new paved areas and facilities and changes in drainage patterns 

(SCE&G 2010a). The review team concludes that based on the use of a stormwater system 

comparable to the system currently used for the VCSNS Unit 1 site, the impacts on onsite 

streams (Mayo Creek and intermittent streams) as well as Monticello and Parr reservoirs from 

operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minimal.

5.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines

Maintenance activities along the six new 230-kV transmission lines could lead to periodic 

temporary impacts on the waterways being crossed. However, it is assumed that the same 

vegetation-management practices currently used by SCE&G and Santee Cooper for their 

existing transmission-line corridors would be applied to the proposed new and upgraded 

transmission-line corridors (MACTEC 2009; Pike 2010). SCE&G and Santee Cooper use 

practices and procedures developed to minimize impacts on aquatic ecosystems from operation 

and maintenance of transmission lines. Santee Cooper would continue to use its Right-of-Way 

Management Unit Plan, which addresses vegetation clearing or maintenance for stream buffer 

zones (MACTEC 2008). Methods include selective application of herbicides aimed at the 

removal of large woody vegetation that may ultimately interfere with the operation of 

transmission lines. Herbicides applied in wetlands are EPA-approved and their application 

would be aimed at controlling woody vegetation while still promoting low-growing, native 

vegetation. Low-growing vegetation along waterbody shorelines would be maintained as buffer 

zones (MACTEC 2008). Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper restrict the use of heavy equipment 

around stream crossings to prevent erosion and sedimentation (SCE&G 2010a). 

The review team concludes that the impacts of transmission-line corridor maintenance activities 

on aquatic resources would not adversely affect aquatic ecosystems, and additional mitigation 

beyond that described above would not be warranted.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-33 NUREG-1939

5.3.2.3 Important Aquatic Species and Habitats

As described in Section 2.4.2.3, both Monticello and Parr reservoirs support a recreational 

fishery that consists mainly of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), sunfish 

(Lepomis spp.), and catfish (Ictalurus spp.). No Federally listed threatened or endangered 

aquatic species are known to occur at the VCSNS site; however, seven Federally protected or 

proposed threatened or endangered aquatic species occur within counties proposed for siting of 

new transmission lines (Table 2-20). Several aquatic taxa within Fairfield and Newberry 

Counties are State species of concern (Table 2-20). In addition, some of the aquatic taxa 

encountered during onsite aquatic inventories have been identified as State conservation 

priority species, such as the robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum), or are important 

recreational fish that are stocked to establish a self-sustainable fishery, such as the smallmouth 

bass (Micropterus dolomieu). These taxa (identified in Section 2.4.2.3) demonstrate a range of 

life-history attributes and habitat requirements. Particularly sensitive life stages include larvae 

and juveniles that are more sensitive to water quality. The operation of the intakes located on 

Monticello Reservoir and the multiport diffuser located on Parr Reservoir would likely exclude 

access by aquatic biota in the vicinity of these localized areas in the southwestern portion of 

Monticello Reservoir and eastern nearshore area of Parr Reservoir, respectively. However, 

many aquatic species are motile and would likely move to adjacent habitat and would not be 

affected by operational activities. Impacts are not anticipated on the Federally and State-listed 

species identified in Section 2.4.2.3 from maintenance of the transmission-line corridors 

because of the BMPs that SCE&G and Santee Cooper would use during maintenance activities.

Habitat restoration activities in the Broad River basin may eventually result in the re-introduction 

of diadromous species, such as sturgeon, in Parr Reservoir (FWS 2001). Changes may be 

made to water-flow criteria to accommodate spawning activities by diadromous fish if needed, 

as is stipulated for the striped bass below Parr Shoals Dam (SCE&G 2010). However, impacts 

to the thermal, chemical, and physical impacts from the discharge are expected to be minimal to 

reintroduced diadromous fish species, as previously described in Section 5.3.2.1.

Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species Summary

Although the existing VCSNS-Flat Creek corridor crosses a portion of Flat Creek in Lancaster 

County, that is listed by FWS as critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter (67 FR 44502), 

maintenance activities for this transmission-line corridor are not likely to affect the protected 

habitat. The use of BMPs for activities associated with maintenance of transmission-line 

corridors is expected to limit potential impacts on this species. 

Based on threatened and endangered species surveys, historical records, life-history 

information, known threatened and endangered species locations, possible re-introduction 

through habitat restoration, and information provided by SCE&G in its ER and in responses to 

RAIs, the review team concludes that there would be no impacts on aquatic Federally listed 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-34 April 2011

species from operational activities on the VCSNS site and associated transmission-line 

corridors. More detailed analysis can be found in Appendix F in the biological assessments and 

supplements prepared for the FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service, respectively, in 

accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

5.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring During Operation

SCE&G plans to perform operations-related monitoring for water quality as required by the 

NPDES permit (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G will also continue the voluntary monitoring program 

for water quality in Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a). Monitoring associated with the 

SWPPP may also be implemented during operations (SCE&G 2010a), and SCDNR and 

SCDHEC may require specific monitoring activities as a part of their permitting process to 

assess potentially affected areas such as onsite waterbodies and transmission-line corridors.

5.3.2.5 Summary of Operational Impacts on Aquatic Resources

With regard to aquatic ecosystems, operational impacts associated with proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 are centered on the intake structures and the multiport diffuser, but also include 

stormwater management as well as maintenance and operation of transmission-line corridors. 

The aquatic community in the vicinity of the VCSNS site consists of a diversity of biota with a 

range of life-history requirements. Biota most vulnerable to entrainment and impingement 

include planktonic and nektonic life forms, respectively. As reviewed in Section 5.3.2.1, the low 

through-screen intake velocity (less than 0.5 fps), the use of closed-cycle cooling, and the 

population status and reproductive potential of fish most vulnerable to impingement and 

entrainment would result in minimal adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem in Monticello 

Reservoir. The blowdown line would deliver effluent with thermal, chemical, and physical inputs 

to Parr Reservoir, which would be regulated by State and Federal agencies. With regard to 

thermal influence, a mixing zone that covers approximately 50 percent of the Parr Reservoir 

channel width would result in a thermal plume that would not exceed the maximum criteria 

established by SCDHEC. Furthermore, the temporal occurrence of such infrequent events (i.e., 

exceeding SCDHEC discharge criteria) is not concurrent to critical life-history events of 

important aquatic biota (e.g., spawning, rearing). Based on the foregoing, the review team 

concludes that the impacts on the aquatic resources of Monticello and Parr reservoirs and 

onsite streams from the operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and associated transmission-line 

corridors would be SMALL. 

5.4 Socioeconomic Impacts

Operations activities can affect individual communities, the surrounding region, and minority and 

low-income populations. This section assesses the impacts of operations-related activities and 

of the operations workforce on the region. Unless otherwise specified, the primary source of 

information for this section is the ER (SCE&G 2010a).
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-35 NUREG-1939

Although the review team considered the 50-mi region when assessing socioeconomic impacts, 

the primary geographic region for physical impacts is the four most local counties (Fairfield, 

Lexington, Newberry, and Richland). As described in EIS Section 2.5, the review team also 

uses these counties for the economic impact area when discussing economic impacts such as 

employment, income, and output impacts from operations. 

The socioeconomic impacts of operating two new Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

(Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactors at the VCSNS 

site include the activities and demands of the 800-person operating workforce supplemented by 

as many as 1000 outage workers onsite for about 45 to 90 days every 18 months 

(SCE&G 2010a). 

Construction at the site is planned to span a total of 123 months or 10.25 years, with 30 months 

dedicated to site clearing and preparation and 93 months for construction of Units 2 and 3, with 

Unit 3 construction starting 24 months after the start of Unit 2 operation. According to SCE&G’s 

most recent Integrated Resource Plan (SCE&G 2010a), SCE&G expects to bring Unit 2 online 

in 2016 and Unit 3 online in 2019.

5.4.1 Physical Impacts

The potential physical impacts of operating the two nuclear units include noise, odors, exhausts, 

thermal emissions, and visual intrusions. The review team expects these impacts to be 

mitigated by operating the facility in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local 

environmental regulations without significantly affecting the region surrounding the VCSNS site. 

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.

5.4.1.1 Impacts on Workers and the Local Public

This section discusses potential air quality and noise impacts on workers and the local public 

from operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The VCSNS site is located in western Fairfield County, 

South Carolina, in an attainment area for ozone and for carbon monoxide. A description of 

baseline air quality characteristics is included in Section 2.9.2. Once the two new reactors have 

begun operation, they are not expected to produce any known air pollutants, except for (1) 

some combustion-related air emissions during the periodic testing and operation of the standby 

diesel generators and auxiliary power systems, (2) particulate matter created by commuter 

vehicle dust and exhaust, (3) odors from operations, and (4) operations-based noise. Because 

certificates to operate diesel generators require that air emissions comply with all applicable 

regulations, and because the operation of the generators would be intermittent and brief, the 

review team expects that the impact of the operations of the two units on air quality would be 

minimal. By enforcing access road maintenance and speed limits, dust generated by 

commuting workers can be minimized. The review team expects that during normal plant 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-36 April 2011

operation, proposed Units 2 and 3 would not use chemicals in amounts that would generate 

odors exceeding Federal and State limits. If these practices are followed, the review team 

expects that the addition of two new reactors to the site would have only a minimal impact on 

air quality.

Most equipment would be located inside structures, thereby reducing the outdoor noise level. In 

addition, because Unit 1 is already located at the VCSNS site, SCE&G does not expect impacts 

to be significantly greater than current background levels (SCE&G 2010a). Ambient noise 

heard by recreational users at local parks under normal conditions typically does not include 

noise from the operation of Unit 1 because of the distance from the site, and attenuation by 

vegetation and topography. Units 2 and 3 would be located even farther away from the public 

than Unit 1. Noise levels below 60 to 65 dB are not considered to be significant (NRC 1996). 

The maximum sound level generated by the operation of Units 2 and 3 at a distance of 1000 ft 

would not exceed 60 dB, would not affect residents or the usage of nearby recreational areas, 

and would not warrant mitigation. 

The baseline level of traffic noise on SC-213 and SC-215 is relatively low and includes tractor 

trailers and other heavy trucking equipment. The annual average daily traffic (AADT) for the 

routes near the plant is as much as 2400 vehicles. SCE&G estimated the incremental noise 

from VCSNS-related traffic on these routes would not be significant and would not occur outside 

of traditional operations shift changes. 

5.4.1.2 Impacts on Buildings 

Operations activities would not affect offsite buildings. Onsite buildings have been constructed 

to safely withstand any possible impact, including shock and vibration, from operations activities 

associated with the generation of electricity at a nuclear power plant (10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix A). Except for VCSNS site structures, no other industrial, commercial, or residential 

structures would be affected. 

5.4.1.3 Impacts on Transportation

This EIS assesses the impact of transporting workers and materials to and from the VCSNS site 

from three perspectives: the socioeconomic impacts, the air quality impacts of dust and 

particulate matter put into the air by vehicle traffic, and the potential health impacts from 

additional traffic-related accidents. The socioeconomic impacts are addressed here and in 

Section 5.4.4.1. The air quality impacts are addressed in Section 5.7.2, and human health 

impacts from traffic-related accidents are addressed in Section 5.8.6.

Public roads and railways would transport workers, construction materials, and equipment to the 

site during operations. During plant operations, roads in the vicinity of the site would experience 

an increase in traffic over baseline levels, but a reduction from the levels at peak construction. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-37 NUREG-1939

Peak road use would occur at the end of each operations shift and at the beginning and end of 

each outage support shift. All of the access roads are paved, which reduces both noise and 

dust. No new public roads would be constructed or be subject to major modifications due to the 

operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Railroad deliveries during the operation phase would be 

less frequent than during construction.

5.4.1.4 Impacts on Aesthetics

As discussed in Sections 2.5 and 4.4, the existing 520-ft-tall Unit 1 containment building on the 

VCSNS site and the transmission line and towers leading into and out of the site are visible from 

a number of vantage points in the vicinity of the VCSNS site and have already aesthetically 

altered the area. The additional visual impact from operations compared with the construction 

phase would result from the steam plumes from the cooling towers, which would resemble 

cumulus clouds. The plumes would be most visible during cooler weather, and from on and 

around Monticello Reservoir (see Figure 5-2). The cooling towers and plumes would be most 

prominent to those using the Monticello Reservoir who could directly view the operation areas. 

Other recreation areas in the vicinity may also be aesthetically altered during weather conditions 

that increase plume size. Section 5.7.1 describes the effects of the plume in more detail. 

Because low-profile cooling towers would be used and weather conditions would vary the 

visibility of the cooling-tower plumes, the review team concludes that the marginal aesthetic 

impact of the new reactors and plumes would not be significant, and would be naturally

mitigated by topography.

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

Viewed from Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2009h)
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-38 April 2011

5.4.1.5 Summary of Physical Impacts

Based on the information provided by SCE&G, the review team’s interviews with local public 

officials, and the review team’s independent assessment of the physical impacts on workers and 

the local public, buildings, transportation and aesthetics, the review team concludes that the 

physical impacts of operations at the two new proposed units would be SMALL and additional 

mitigation would not be warranted.

5.4.2 Demography

This section evaluates the demographic, economic, infrastructure, and community impacts on 

the region as a result of the operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, with a particular focus on the 

four-county economic impact area and the communities in the vicinity of the VCSNS site.

5.4.2.1 Demographic Impacts

The baseline population of the four most local counties is estimated to increase steadily over the 

40 years of operation under the license (see Table 2-23). SCE&G projects a Units 2 and 3 

workforce of 800 operations workers, who would start arriving onsite during site development, as 

discussed in Section 4.4. The operations workforce is projected to increase from 635 workers 

currently operating Unit 1 to about 1435 workers for all three units. The review team estimates 

that the majority of the new operations workforce, up to 600 workers (75 percent), would come 

from within the economic impact area. The review team expects that up to 200 (25 percent) of 

the new operations workforce would be highly specialized and would relocate to the economic 

impact area because the needed skill sets would not be readily available in the greater Columbia 

area. The remainder of the operations workforce would be recruited from within the 50-mi 

region. Based on these assumptions and because the review team assumes that impacts 

outside of the economic impact area would be minimal, even if all 800 operations workers 

migrated into the area, they would constitute less than half a percent increase over the baseline 

population of the four-county economic impact area. Therefore, the review team concludes that 

the demographic impact of operations workers on the local area would be minimal. 

In addition to the operations workers, each new unit would require an outage workforce of 1000 

temporary employees who would be onsite for periods of approximately 30 days for scheduled 

refueling outages every 18 months. This means there would be an outage at one of the two 

new units about every 9 months. The review team expects that outage workers would typically 

migrate to the area from all over the country and stay only during the outage period at 

temporary lodging as close to the site as possible. Having three units at the VCSNS site would 

increase the frequency of the refueling outages; however, the temporary nature of the work 

would generate only a minimal impact on the economic impact area, with little or no effects felt 

in the larger region.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-39 NUREG-1939

5.4.2.2 Summary of Demographic Impacts

Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent review, the 

review team concludes that operations workers and their families would be expected to have a 

SMALL beneficial impact on the local communities and governmental entities in Fairfield County 

and the economic impact area, and a SMALL beneficial impact on the region.

5.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community

This section evaluates the social and economic impacts on the four-county economic area 

expected as a result of operating proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. The evaluation 

assesses the impacts of the jobs, wages, project purchases, and tax payments on the local 

communities and surrounding region over the estimated 40-year duration of the nuclear power 

plant operating license.

5.4.3.1 Economy

The primary economic impacts of nuclear power plant operation result from jobs created, wages 

paid, regional purchases, and tax payments made in the course of operating the power plant. 

The impacts of plant operation on the local and regional economy depend on the region’s 

economy and population at that time and will be influenced by how the affected communities 

have responded to the impacts of the construction phase. Although future impacts cannot be 

predicted with certainty, consideration of historical patterns, projected economic and 

demographic trends, and consultation with local planners can provide some insight into the 

qualitative nature of these impacts over the 40-year period of plant operation.

Section 2.5 of this EIS presents a detailed description of local and regional employment trends 

and workforce characteristics. The economic impact area has a relatively diverse and stable 

economy, ranging from agricultural and manufacturing on the peripheries to health care and 

research in Columbia. The 800 new jobs at the VCSNS site during operations are expected to 

constitute only a very small percentage increase over baseline income in the economic 

impact area. 

The jobs of operations and outage workers would have a multiplier effect in the local and 

regional economy, similar to that described in Section 4.4 for the construction phase workforce. 

The applicable Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) employment multiplier 

provided to SCE&G from the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis is 

3.13 (SCE&G 2009g). This means that about 1704 indirect jobs would be supported by VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 operations in the economic impact area, increasing the total number of jobs 

supported to about 2504 (not counting outage workers and their temporary effects). The review 

team expects that only a minimal number of jobs would be created in the wider region. Because 

the review team expects that 25 percent of the operations workforce would migrate to the 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-40 April 2011

economic impact area, only 25 percent of the total employment effects would represent a net 

impact on the area. Employment effects representing upgraded employment for in-area 

workers also would count as impacts. However, the review team expects most of the 

operations workforce and associated indirect and induced employment would come from within 

the economic impact area. Therefore, the review team concludes that the new jobs would not 

increase the local baseline employment significantly. Because the indirect jobs typically would 

be service-related and not highly specialized, the review team expects that they would be filled 

primarily by residents of the region and would not induce new migration to the region.

Based on additional information supplied by SCE&G, total first-year operations costs for the new 

units are projected to be $668 million. This represents new spending in the economic impact 

area. The new expenditures would result in an income multiplier impact felt in the economic 

impact area. The applicable income multiplier provided from RIMS II is 0.33 (SCE&G 2009g). 

This means that for each dollar of new expenditure for output from the power generation 

industry, 33 cents of new income is generated in the economic impact area. Using that number 

as a basis, the resulting income impact would be $220 million in annual income attributable to 

the annual expenditures in at VCSNS Units 2 and 3, in addition to incomes received by new 

operations workers, which are part of the $668 million annual expenditure. Similar to the 

employment impact, this is not significant in the context of the greater Columbia area.

Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s own independent review, the 

review team concludes that slight beneficial economic impacts would be experienced in the 

four-county economic impact area. The region also would expect minimal but beneficial 

impacts.

5.4.3.2 Taxes

The tax structure of the region is discussed in Section 2.5. Several types of taxes would be 

generated during the operational life of proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. Employees 

would pay sales, use, personal property, and income taxes; and vendors selling materials and 

services to the facility would pay a variety of State, Federal, and local taxes. The VCSNS site 

would be subject to property taxes paid to Fairfield County.

Property, Sales and Use, Income, and Corporate Taxes

To the extent that new operations employees move into the area from outside the state to work 

at the plant, or currently unemployed persons living in the state become employed at the plant, 

the States, counties, and communities within the region would experience an increase in sales 

and use taxes and income tax revenues. This increase in revenue would come from both the 

taxes paid by VCSNS employees on their personal incomes, sales taxes on goods they 

purchase within the region, and from SCE&G for property taxes on the VCSNS site. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-41 NUREG-1939

Upon completion and operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, based on additional information 

provided by SCE&G (SCE&G 2010a), the review team expects that SCE&G would enter an 

agreement with Fairfield County to pay from $13 to $31 million annually in property taxes over 

the 40-year operating life of the new units. Taxes in the new units would be in addition to 

existing taxes being collected by Fairfield County on Unit 1 operations. Table 5-5 provides more 

detailed information. Santee Cooper also contributes a minor amount of fee-in-lieu-of-propertytaxes to Fairfield County, but this amount represents only a negligible source of revenue.

The review team does not expect significant growth in the Fairfield County tax base between 

now and the start of operations that could otherwise diminish the scale of the VCSNS tax impact 

on county revenue. The VCSNS-attributable contribution to the total property tax revenue for 

Fairfield County would increase by 150 percent to an amount that is more in each year than the 

current overall total property tax revenue of the county. Therefore, the review team concludes 

that property tax revenue impacts would be substantial and beneficial for Fairfield County. 

Table 5-5. Expected Annual Property Tax Payments to Fairfield County from Operation of 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3

Operation Years

SCE&G Average Annual Fee-in-Lieuof-Taxes Payments to Fairfield County

2017–2019 $ 18,644,400 

2020–2034 $ 31,144,600 

2035–2044 $ 20,342,300 

2045–2056 $ 13,928,900 

Sum over 40 yr $ 861,265,100

Source: SCE&G 2010a

(a) Dollars are nominal 2007 dollars; 

(b) Assumes SCE&G’s portion of construction costs amounts to 

$3404/kW, excluding transmission costs.

In addition to the property taxes paid on the value of the plant itself, the economic impact area 

would 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. This 

overall impact likely would not be noticeable because the operations workforce that is new to 

the community and their families would make up only a slight proportion of the property tax base 

in any county in the region.

The current South Carolina sales tax rate is 6 percent for most goods and services and each of 

the counties in the economic impact area adds a 1-percent use tax to the State sales tax 

(SCDOR 2009). However, impacts in the state would come from operations workers relocating 

from out of state or otherwise significantly upgrading their disposable income compared to 

previous in-state employment. The review team concludes that, when viewed in the context of 

total sales tax revenue to the State of South Carolina, the net impact on sales tax revenue 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-42 April 2011

caused by potential relocations to South Carolina, or from the effect of upgrading disposable 

income through better employment, would be minimal. 

SCE&G would be subject to Federal and State corporate income taxes on income generated 

from the new units (SCE&G 2010a). Table 5-6 lists the expected revenues from these sources. 

Santee-Cooper also would pay fee-in-lieu of income tax to Fairfield County. In all cases, when 

viewed in the context of the all income tax revenues received by Federal, State and County 

sources, these annual income tax amounts would not be significant at any level of government.

5.4.3.3 Summary of Economic and Tax Impacts

Based on the information provided by SCE&G, the review team interviews with local public 

officials, and the review team’s review of the data on regional economy and taxes, the review 

team concludes that the economic and fiscal impacts of operations at the two new 

proposed units would be SMALL and beneficial for the region and LARGE and beneficial for 

Fairfield County.

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

Operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3

Operations Years

Annual SCE&G Federal 

Income Tax Liability

Annual SCE&G State 

Income Tax Liability

Annual Santee-Cooper 

Portion of Sum-in-Lieu 

of (Income) Tax Paid to 

Fairfield County

2017-2030 $ 89,490,000 $ 15,004,500 $ 1,030,000 

2031-2040 $ 89,490,000 $ 15,004,500 $ 1,270,000 

2041-2050 $ 89,490,000 $ 15,004,500 $ 1,520,000 

2051-2056 $ 89,490,000 $ 15,004,500 $ 1,780,000 

Sum over 40 yr $3,579,580,000 $600,180,000 $56,000,000

Source: SCE&G 2010a

(a) Dollars are nominal 2007 dollars.

5.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Services

Infrastructure and community services include transportation, recreation, housing, public 

services, and education. The operation of two new units at the VCSNS site would affect the 

transportation network because the additional workforce would use the local roads to commute 

to and from work and possibly additional truck deliveries would be made to support operation of 

the new units. These same commuters potentially could affect recreation in the area. As the 

workforce migrates to and settles in the region, there may be impacts on housing, education, 

and public sector services. These impacts are discussed further below.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-43 NUREG-1939

5.4.4.1 Transportation

Based upon the SCE&G traffic analysis, the review team expects that even if there is only one 

employee per vehicle, traffic would remain within the capacity of the access roadways, as 

suggested by State management standards (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G anticipates some 

congestion, lasting between 10 and 15 minutes, to occur during these shift changes. SCE&G 

has indicated that it would work to mitigate transportation impacts where they occur with 

possible alternate routes that can be made available in the future. However, if some employees 

carpool, the review team expects operations-related traffic to have a lesser impact on traffic 

congestion at the regional, county, and local levels. In any case, there are few residents 

along access routes to the site, which further limits the socioeconomic impacts of operationsrelated traffic.

During refueling and other outages, about 1000 additional workers would be commuting to and 

from the site for approximately 30 days at a time. SCE&G stated that it would implement 

measures to stagger road use and reduce the number of vehicles by scheduling shift changes 

at times other than traditional high-traffic periods and minimizing drive time overlap with 

operations personnel. Mandatory carpooling, providing buses to transport employees, or other 

measures also may be warranted, particularly if the work schedule puts workers on these 

access roads during nighttime hours. Based on information from SCE&G and the review team’s 

independent review, the review team concludes that if the mitigation measures discussed here 

are implemented, transportation impacts resulting from operation of Units 2 and 3 would not be 

significant, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

5.4.4.2 Recreation

Recreational activities in the area include many outdoor activities such as recreational boating 

and fishing on Monticello Reservoir, as well as hiking, camping, and hunting. Several State and 

county parks in the region provide facilities and recreational opportunities as do a number of 

lakes and forests in the area, as discussed in Section 2.5.2.4. The review team expects 

impacts on area recreation resources to be minimal during operations because the operations 

would not affect recreational opportunities. The aesthetic impacts of the plant operations from 

the vantage point of local recreational areas also would not be significant.

5.4.4.3 Housing

Regional housing characteristics and availability are described in Section 2.5.2.5. The proximity 

of a number of population centers to the VCSNS site, including the City of Columbia, offers a 

variety of available housing types. The other urban areas in the vicinity include West Columbia, 

Lexington, Irmo, and Cayce, which are all within reasonable commuting distances of the site. 

The operations workers who start work during the construction phase would not likely 

experience housing shortages as a consequence of the increase in demand initially created by 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-44 April 2011

the onsite workforce due to the high growth rate of the area. The review team expects the 

majority of operations workers to come from within the region, and consequently, they would not 

represent new net demand for housing. The review team also expects Richland and Lexington 

Counties to receive the greatest number of operations workers and their families, and therefore, 

the greatest portion of the benefits and costs attributable to operations of Units 2 and 3. 

Richland and Lexington Counties would also experience the majority of the impacts from outage 

workers for Units 2 and 3. Outage workers typically find temporary housing as close as possible 

to the VCSNS site, although SCE&G anticipates that most outage workers would also come 

from within the region and may commute to the VCSNS site during maintenance.

The review team expects the loss of jobs after construction is completed would result in only a 

minimal decline in population or housing demand because the majority of construction and 

operation workers would come from within the area. For workers that do move into the area, a 

wide selection of housing is available throughout the area. Because, over the long term, the 

region continues to grow at a steady pace and is constantly developing new housing to meet the 

increased need, operations workers would have a minimal impact on housing in both the 

economic impact area and the region.

5.4.4.4 Public Services

This section describes the available public services and discusses the impacts of the operation 

of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 on water supply and waste treatment; police, fire-protection 

and medical services; education; and social services in the region.

Water-Supply Facilities

Section 2.5.2.6 describes the water-supply systems and facilities in the vicinity of the VCSNS 

site. Potable water would be supplied to Units 2 and 3 by the onsite VCSNS water-treatment 

plant operated by SCE&G. Units 2 and 3 would use the Monticello Reservoir as their source of 

water. Monticello Reservoir does not supply any industrial, municipal, commercial, or 

agricultural organizations other than VCSNS Unit 1 and proposed Units 2 and 3. As discussed 

in Section 4.4.4.4, the local water systems in the four-county area are expected to be able to 

meet the demand for water from the peak population during construction. Therefore, because 

the planned operations workforce is less than a quarter of the expected construction workforce, 

the review team expects local water systems would have no difficulty meeting water demand 

during the operations phase. 

Local water systems have already begun projects to expand capacity or are in the early stages 

of planning expansions in response to population growth, especially in the area surrounding the 

VCSNS site. Based on information provided in Section 2.5.2.6, these water systems are 

generally not operating at or near capacity, and the system managers have been able to provide 

adequate water to their service territories and expand their systems when necessary. Because 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-45 NUREG-1939

the overall population impact from the VCSNS site would not be a significant portion of the 

projected population growth, the VCSNS site is unlikely to cause water managers to implement 

their current water-supply plans. Consequently, because demand during the operations phase 

of the project would be substantially below the demand derived from peak construction levels, 

the review team expects the impacts of plant operation on municipal water suppliers would be 

minimal, and mitigation would not be needed. For additional discussion of water-resource 

impacts, see Section 4.2. 

Wastewater-Treatment Facilities

As described in Sections 2.5.2.6 and 3.2.2, the VCSNS site has a wastewater-treatment facility 

onsite near Unit 1 and SCE&G proposes to construct another one to serve Units 2 and 3 

(NRC 2004a; SCE&G 2010a). The five wastewater-treatment systems in the surrounding 

counties have demonstrated an ability to expand when necessary. Because local planners 

expect the demand for wastewater treatment to grow during the period of construction as a 

result of natural regional population growth, any needed facility expansion would already have

been put in place when operations begin at Units 2 and 3. Therefore, the local wastewatertreatment systems would have excess capacity sufficient to meet the new demand from inmigrating operations workers.

Police, Fire-Protection, and Medical Facilities

Based on analysis provided in Section 2.5.2, the review team expects that current levels of law 

enforcement and fire-protection personnel would be adequate to meet the need of the 

communities throughout the construction phase, as discussed in Section 4.4.2. Therefore, even 

without adding capacity during the construction phase, the impact on law enforcement and 

firefighting services from the operation of Units 2 and 3 would be minimal. A similar analysis 

applies to medical services, where the impact of plant operations on medical services for the 

region also would be minimal.

Social Services

The review team anticipates that demands placed on social services related to operations would 

occur in proportion to the settlement pattern of the operations workforce. Based on the 

expected settlement proportions, no single county would experience greater per capita 

increases in demand for social services than any other. The review team believes the fact that 

Fairfield County is the host county of the VCSNS site does not imply that Fairfield County would 

receive any more impact on its social services infrastructure than any other county in the 

economic impact area. 

Once the transition to operations occurs, the review team expects the demands on social 

services during the operations phase to be less than during the construction phase. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-46 April 2011

Consequently, because the construction phase impacts on social services were not significant, 

the review team expects the operations phase impacts also would be minimal.

5.4.4.5 Education

To meet the growing demands resulting from continued growth in the region, larger local 

districts already have begun to build and renovate schools. Because there would be relatively 

few new students coming from operations families, the review team believes the impact of plant 

operations on public schools would be minimal. The review team expects that school-age 

children typically would not accompany outage workers commuting temporarily into the area to 

work at the VCSNS site. 

5.4.4.6 Summary of Impacts on Infrastructure and Community Services

The review team has reviewed information provided by SCE&G, visited the site and its environs, 

and performed its own independent review of potential infrastructure and community services 

impacts of operations on the local area and region of the VCSNS site. In all cases, the 

compelling argument in support of the review team’s conclusions is that the operations 

workforce would be less than a quarter of the size of the workforce at VCSNS construction and 

preconstruction peak employment. Therefore, any impacts derived from operations must 

necessarily be less than the same impact derived from construction. The review team 

concludes that expected operations impacts on transportation, recreation, housing, public 

services, and education would be SMALL and require no mitigation. 

5.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operations would have no physical impacts on any non-SCE&G-owned 

buildings onsite or offsite and would have a SMALL impact on the physical characteristics of 

public roads and transportation in the vicinity of the nuclear plant. Given the plant’s location and 

the presence of Unit 1, impacts on visual aesthetics would be SMALL at both the local and 

regional level and, with adherence to BMPs for controlling dust and emissions, impacts on air 

quality also would be SMALL. Noise from plant operations is expected to be limited to the site. 

Noise from truck and worker traffic is addressed in Section 5.8.2. Consequently, the review 

team concludes that the physical impacts of plant operations would be SMALL, and additional 

mitigation would not be warranted.

The presence of workers and their accompanying family members in the region and the 

economic impact area for operations would represent a SMALL impact on the economic 

characteristics of the region. The review team concludes that the social and economic impacts 

of plant operations would be SMALL at the regional level and SMALL on communities in the 

vicinity of the plant with the exception of fiscal impacts, which would be LARGE and beneficial to 

Fairfield County. Community services and infrastructure impacts would be SMALL in the 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-47 NUREG-1939

economic impact area and SMALL to those communities closest to the site. Traffic noise and 

congestion impacts would be SMALL and would not warrant additional mitigation beyond the 

commitments SCE&G has already made.

5.5 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. The NRC 

has a policy on the treatment of environmental justice matters in licensing actions 

(69 FR 52040). Section 2.6 discusses the locations of minority and low-income populations 

around the VCSNS site, vicinity, and region.

The review team evaluated whether the health or welfare of minority or low-income populations 

at the census blocks identified in Section 2.6 of this EIS and other communities identified 

through scoping and outreach could be disproportionately affected by the potential impacts of 

operating two new reactors at the proposed site. To perform this assessment, the review team 

used the same process applied in Section 4.5. Figure 2-18 identifies minority populations within 

the 50-mi region surrounding the VCSNS site. Several minority and low-income census block 

groups were identified in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. Therefore, the review team concluded 

that more detailed analysis of these populations, communities, and pathways was warranted.

5.5.1 Health Impacts

The results of normal operation dose assessments (see Section 5.9) indicate that the maximum 

individual dose was found to be well below the NRC and EPA regulatory guidelines in 

Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 and the regulatory standards of 10 CFR Part 20. Section 5.9 

further concludes that radiological health impacts to the operational staff and the public for the 

proposed Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL. Section 5.8 of this EIS assesses the nonradiological 

health effects on the public from operation of the cooling system, noise generated by unit 

operations, EMFs, and transporting operations and outage workers. In Section 5.8, the review 

team concludes that the potential impacts of nonradiological effects resulting from the operation 

of two proposed additional units would be SMALL. The review team did not identify evidence of 

unique characteristics or practices in minority or low-income population that may result in 

different radiological or non-radiological health impacts compared to the general population. 

Therefore, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority or lowincome members of the operational staff or the general public as a result of operations.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-48 April 2011

5.5.2 Physical Impacts

5.5.2.1 Soil-Related Impacts

The review team does not expect there to be operations-related environmental impacts on soils 

at the VCSNS site that would affect nearby residents, and there are no populations living on the 

site. Because soil impacts attenuate rapidly with distance, the review team expects that there 

would not be soil-related disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority or low-income 

populations. Land-use impacts in the transmission-line corridors from operation of new units 

would be minimal and are not expected to have adverse effects on the population. In addition, 

as discussed in Section 4.5.2 of this EIS, the review team did not identify evidence of unique 

characteristics or practices that may result in different soil-related impacts compared to the 

general population. Based on information from SCE&G and the review team’s independent 

review, the review team concludes that the operations-related marginal impact from pathways 

related to soils from Units 2 and 3 would not impose disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts on minority or low-income populations.

5.5.2.2 Water-Related Impacts

As discussed in Section 5.2, the review team determined that operating VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

would create a volume of cooling-tower blowdown that would not be significant when compared 

to the river flow and would comply with the existing NPDES permit and applicable State waterquality standards. These impacts would be regulated and monitored, and additional mitigation 

would not be warranted. As discussed in Section 2.6.3 of this EIS, the review team found 

evidence of some subsistence fishing in the site vicinity, but did not identify an operational 

pathway that could result in different water-related impacts compared to the general population. 

The review team did not identify evidence of unique characteristics or practices in minority or 

low-income populations that may result in different water-related impacts compared to the 

general population. Therefore, the review team expects no disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts on identified minority or low-income populations. 

Based on Section 5.2, the review team concludes that Units 2 and 3 water use would have little 

or no effect on the availability of water for other uses. Based on Section 5.3.2, Units 2 and 3 

water use would have minimal impacts on the fish population of Monticello Reservoir or the 

Broad River. Therefore, the impacts would not warrant mitigation or cause a disproportionately 

high and adverse impact on identified minority and low-income populations. 

Based on information from SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review

team concludes that given the relatively minimal impact on water quantity and quality in 

Monticello Reservoir, and the small consumptive water use of Units 2 and 3, there would be no 

operations-related disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on minority and 

low-income populations.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-49 NUREG-1939

5.5.2.3 Air Quality-Related Impacts

As discussed in Section 5.9, the total liquid and gas effluent doses from the new units would be 

well within the regulatory limits of the NRC and EPA. The primary air emissions from a nuclear 

power plant such as VCSNS are water vapor and salt, which do not pose health dangers to the 

general public. In addition, air quality impacts attenuate rapidly with distance from the source. 

As described in Section 5.7 the review team concluded that the potential impacts from sources 

of air emissions would be SMALL. Other than their location within the site vicinity, the review 

team did not identify any evidence of unique characteristics or practices that may result in 

different air-related impacts compared to the general population. Given that the total effluent 

doses from the new units would be well within regulatory limits and given that airborne 

pollutants released from the new units would rapidly disperse to near background levels, the 

review team concludes that the potential impacts from operations-related sources of air 

emissions would not result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or lowincome populations within the site vicinity.

5.5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts

The review team determined that the addition of 800 new operations employees would have 

minimal impacts on local infrastructures and community services (transportation; recreation; 

housing; water and wastewater facilities; police, fire, and medical services; social services; and 

schools). In terms of environmental justice, and as discussed in Section 2.6.1, the review team 

identified several census blocks that meet the criteria for minority populations of interest within 

the vicinity of the VCSNS site and the site access roads. Further investigation by the review 

team also revealed a high percentage of low-income families within the same region (NRC 

2010). The review team determined these areas may have a greater potential for 

disproportionately high and adverse operations impacts on minority and low-income 

populations. Consequently, the review team further analyzed these areas of potential impact to 

determine whether or not such impacts would be significant.

As discussed in Section 5.4.4.1, based upon the SCE&G traffic analysis, the review team 

expects operations-related traffic would remain within the capacity of the access roadways. 

SCE&G anticipates some shift-change congestion, lasting between 10 and 15 minutes and has 

indicated that it would work to mitigate transportation impacts where possible. Other than their 

location along access roads that may become congested, the review team did not identify 

evidence of any other unique characteristics or practices in the affected populations of interest 

that would result in different impacts compared to the general population. Based on (1) the 

analysis presented in Sections 2.6.2, 4.5.4, and 5.4.4.1 of this EIS, (2) the intermittent nature of 

the operations-related traffic impacts, (3) the continued use of mitigation measures implemented 

by SCE&G to reduce construction-related traffic impacts, and (4) the lower traffic volume of 

operations in comparison to the volume associated with construction and preconstruction 

activities (i.e., hundreds of additional workers rather than thousands of workers), the review 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-50 April 2011

team determined that the operations-related impact from traffic would be less than the 

construction- and preconstruction-related impacts of traffic. Therefore, the review team 

concludes the traffic impacts of operations on minority and low-income populations would be 

minor, but not disproportionately high and adverse.

5.5.4 Subsistence and Special Conditions

This segment of the review team’s environmental justice analysis was performed using the 

same methodology as described in Section 4.5 of this EIS.

As part of its visits to the site and region, the review team interviewed public officials and 

community leaders of the local minority populations in relation to subsistence practices

(NRC 2010). The review team was also made aware of anecdotal information about local 

subsistence fishing by the members of the communities of Jenkinsville, Dawkins, and Blair, 

South Carolina. During scoping, the community submitted informal survey data to the record 

(see Appendix D). The data give anecdotal evidence of isolated subsistence fishing in the 

Broad River and Monticello Reservoir. The review team reviewed these accounts and 

determined that there were no operations-related disproportionately high and adverse impacts 

on minority or low-income populations related to subsistence. Because adverse health impacts 

from the operation of the new units are not expected, potential subsistence fishing activity on 

Monticello Reservoir or in the Broad River would not have either a radiological or 

nonradiological adverse health effect (see Sections 5.8 and 5.9). The review team also 

determined that the impacts from chemical discharges to the Broad River would be minimal (see 

Section 5.3.2), and no additional mitigation would be warranted. Therefore, minority or lowincome individuals who may be engaged in subsistence fishing would not experience 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts. 

The review team also identified other subsistence and income-supplementing activities such as 

hunting and vegetable gardening taking place in the rural areas of the region (NRC 2010). 

Potential sources of radiological or nonradiological impacts from operations on these activities 

have been analyzed as part of the air, soil, and water pathways, which have been discussed 

separately in this EIS section. The review team determined these physical pathways to have no 

potential for a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority or low-income 

populations. 

5.5.5 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts

As discussed in Section 2.6.1, the review team identified several census blocks that meet the 

criteria for minority populations within the site vicinity. The review team determined these areas 

may have a greater potential for disproportionately high and adverse operations impacts on 

minority and low-income populations. Consequently, the review team further analyzed these 

areas of potential impacts to determine whether or not such impacts would be significant.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-51 NUREG-1939

Based on information provided by SCE&G, the review team’s interviews with local public 

officials, the team’s own independent assessment, and the analyses presented in the preceding 

sections, the review team did not find environmental pathways that would lead to 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

Therefore, the review team concludes environmental justice impacts of operations would be 

SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted beyond commitments made by the 

applicant. 

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts from Operation

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), requires that Federal 

agencies 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 (NHPA) of 1966, as 

amended, also requires Federal agencies to consider impacts on those resources if they are 

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or National Register) (such 

resources are referred to as “Historic Properties” in NHPA). As outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, 

“Coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,” the NRC is coordinating 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA in fulfilling its responsibilities under NEPA. Operating 

new power units can affect either known or potential historic properties that may be located at 

the site. In accordance with the provisions of NHPA and NEPA, the NRC and the USACE are

required to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties in the areas of 

potential effect and, if such properties are present, determine whether or not significant impacts 

are likely to occur. Identification of historic properties 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, then efforts should be made to mitigate them. As part of the 

NEPA/NHPA integration, even if no historic properties (i.e., places eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places) are present or affected, then NRC is still required to notify 

the SHPO before proceeding. If historic properties are present, then the NRC and the USACE 

are required to assess and resolve adverse effects of the undertaking.

For a description of the historic and cultural resource information about the VCSNS site, see 

Section 2.7 of this EIS. As explained in Section 2.7, the applicant conducted several cultural 

resource identification efforts resulting in the identification of a total of 39 archaeological sites 

within the VCSNS site Area of Potential Effect (APE), most of which have been recommended 

as ineligible for listing in the National Register. Four archaeological sites have either been 

recommended as National Register eligible, 38FA330 (General Pearson Cemetery) and 

38FA360; potentially eligible, 38FA366; or recommended for preservation, despite not being 

considered potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register, 38FA349. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-52 April 2011

These four archaeological sites are located within the project APE but outside of the proposed 

footprint of disturbance identified by SCE&G (2009h). SCE&G currently has protective 

measures in place for these resources, including fencing at the Pearson Cemetery, temporary 

fencing at 38FA360, and delineation of all four sites as sensitive areas on management maps 

and plant layout and design drawings (SCE&G 2009i, j). Proposed signage would read 

“Environmentally Sensitive Area, Do Not Disturb” (SCE&G 2009j). These protective measures 

would be identified and added to SCE&G’s Environmental Management Plan for VCSNS Units 2 

and 3 (SCE&G 2009j). In addition, SCE&G would provide cultural awareness training for all 

workers including awareness of signage and inadvertent discovery procedures for Unit 1, which 

would also be applied to Units 2 and 3 and described in SCE&G’s Environmental Management 

Plan (SCE&G 2009i, j, k). These procedures indicate that work would stop and the SHPO 

would be contacted if inadvertent discovery of cultural resources occurs (SCE&G 2009j, k).

The South Carolina SHPO concurred with a finding of “no adverse effect” on archaeological 

sites 38FA330 and 38FA360 based on protective and avoidance measures being implemented 

by SCE&G, but would like to see the protective and avoidance measures formalized in a 

Programmatic Agreement or a Management Plan (SCE&G 2009e). The SHPO also indicated 

that if archaeological site 38FA366 cannot be avoided, additional archaeological testing would 

need to occur to evaluate this site for National Register eligibility. SCE&G would undertake 

project design and avoidance measures to avoid impacts on site 38FA366 (SCE&G 2009i). The 

SHPO also concurred with a finding of no historic properties affected for the 35 archaeological 

sites that are not eligible (SCE&G 2009e). On May 25, 2010, the South Carolina SHPO 

concurred with both of the NRC’s findings based on avoidance measures and development of a 

management agreement (see Appendix F for a copy of this letter) (SCDAH 2010).

Two separate management agreements between the SHPO, SCE&G, and the USACE and 

between the SHPO, Santee Cooper, and the USACE have been completed and signed. These 

agreements formalize how cultural resource investigations and possible mitigations would be 

carried out in consultation with the SHPO as well as cultural resources awareness training and 

inadvertent discovery procedures (USACE 2011a, b). 

The review team evaluated the activities related to operating the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 

3 and the potential historic and cultural resources impacts. The review team has also 

considered the management agreements between the SHPO, USACE, and SCE&G and Santee 

Cooper that formalize the protection and avoidance measures being undertaken by the 

applicants to ensure protection of the historic and cultural resources (USACE 2011a, b).

For the purposes of NHPA 106 consultation, the NRC and the USACE do not expect any 

significant impacts on historic and cultural resources during the operation of proposed Units 2 

and 3 based on the management agreement between the USACE, SCE&G and the SHPO that 

formalizes and enforces protective measures and inadvertent discovery procedures. Therefore, 

the NRC and the USACE conclude a finding of no adverse effect on historic properties. By 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-53 NUREG-1939

correspondence dated May 25, 2010, the South Carolina SHPO concurred with the NRC’s 

finding provided that the management agreement is in place (see Appendix F for a copy of this

letter) (SCDAH 2010).

For the purpose of the NEPA analysis, the review team does not expect any significant impacts 

on historic and cultural resources during operation of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. All 

proposed onsite operational activities would occur within areas already disturbed by Unit 1 or in 

areas already surveyed for cultural resources for areas to be disturbed for building activities 

(SCE&G 2009g). SCE&G would follow the protection and inadvertent discovery procedures 

described in Section 4.6 (SCE&G 2009l) to confirm that known onsite cultural resources would 

be protected from operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

Operational impacts associated with maintenance of proposed transmission lines would entail 

mostly vegetation maintenance with access on maintenance roads (SCE&G 2009j). Any future 

procedures for avoiding impacts on cultural resources associated with operations, including 

protective measures and inadvertent discovery procedures, are covered in the management 

agreements in place between SCE&G, the SHPO, and the USACE, and between Santee 

Cooper, the SHPO, and the USACE (USACE 2011a, b). With the procedures and management 

plan in place, the review team concludes that the impacts on cultural resources from operations 

would be SMALL. 

5.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

The primary impacts of the 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, which consists of two mechanical draft cooling towers for each AP1000 unit 

(SCE&G 2010a), the operation of auxiliary equipment, and emissions from workers’ vehicles. 

The potential impacts of releases from operation of the cooling system are discussed in 

Section 5.7.1. Section 5.7.2 covers potential air quality impacts from nonradioactive effluent 

gases releases at the VCSNS site.

5.7.1 Cooling-Tower Impacts 

The proposed cooling system for Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site consists of mechanical draft 

cooling towers. A total of four cooling towers would be constructed, two for each unit. 

Mechanical 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 land-use impacts from cloud shadowing, fogging, icing, increased humidity, and drift 

from dissolved salts and chemicals found in the cooling water can result.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-54 April 2011

SCE&G used the Seasonal and Annual Cooling Tower Impacts (SACTI) computer code to 

estimate the impacts from the operation of the cooling towers. Engineering data for the 

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design and 3 years (2006–2008) of data from the Columbia 

Metropolitan Airport were used as input to the SACTI model. The top of each cooling tower 

would be approximately 70 ft above ground (SCE&G 2009j, SCE&G 2010a).

Results from the SACTI analysis, as reported by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009j), indicate that the 

longest average plume lengths would occur in the winter and the shortest average plume 

lengths would occur in the summer. The average summer plume length is 0.34 mi (toward the 

east-northeast), and the average winter plume length is 0.74 mi (toward the east). Average 

plume height is also predicted by SACTI, and is found to range from 420 ft in the summer to 

630 ft in the winter. No cases of fogging were found in the simulations. Icing can occur when 

there is ground-level fogging and the ambient temperature is below freezing. No cases of icing 

were identified in the simulations. Deposition of salts from cooling-tower drift is estimated to be 

0.28 lb/ac/mo, which is well below the 8.9-lb/ac/mo threshold described in NUREG-1555 

(NRC 2000b). The predicted location of the maximum deposition is 3280 ft east of the towers.

A number of other pollution sources in the vicinity of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling 

towers include the auxiliary boilers and generators operated at Units 1, 2, and 3 and the 

combustion turbines located at the Parr Combustion Facility (SCE&G 2010a). The Parr 

Combustion Facility is operated under an air quality permit issued by SCDHEC. This Part 70 Air 

Quality (Title V Operating) Permit (SCDHEC permit AIR-1000-0021) indicates that this facility

could potentially emit more than 100 T/yr of any air pollutant (SCDHEC 2006b). The turbines 

are more than 1.25 mi from the proposed cooling towers, and the boilers and generators at Unit 

1 are approximately 4500 ft north of the proposed cooling towers. This distance is larger than 

the distance to the location of maximum salt deposition. The distance is also greater than the 

average wintertime plume length (which will generally be in an easterly direction). The distance 

between the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling towers and these other sources, as well as the 

orientation of the plumes, decrease the likelihood that there would be significant interaction of 

the cooling towers with plumes from other pollution sources for an extended period of time. 

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from the operation of the cooling towers, 

including the interactions of the cooling-tower plumes and plumes from other sources, on air 

quality would be minimal.

5.7.2 Air Quality Impacts 

Standby diesel generators and auxiliary power systems would be used for emergency power 

and auxiliary steam purposes. A small incinerator would be used periodically to dispose of used 

oil (SCE&G 2010a). 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 SCDHEC, as described in the South Carolina 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-55 NUREG-1939

Code of Laws 48, Chapter 1, (SC Code Ann. 48-1 2009) and any applicable Federal regulatory 

requirements. These systems include the following (SCE&G 2010a):

• four standby diesel generators rated at 4000 kW

• four ancillary diesel generators rated at 35 kW 

• additional small generators

• small incinerator. 

Based on estimates provided by SCE&G, the annual releases of criteria pollutants at the 

VCSNS site related to the operation of the onsite generators are listed in Table 5-7 (excluding 

the additional small generators and incinerator operated at various locations) (SCE&G 2010a).

Table 5-7. Regulated Source Emissions (lb/yr)

Source PM(a) SOx

(b) CO(c) VOC(d) NOx(e)

Four standby generators(f) <1600 <5000 <1000 <1200 <24,000

Four ancillary diesel generators(f) <20 <10 <60 <22 <280

(a) PM = particulate matter

(b) SOx = oxides of sulfur

(c) CO = carbon monoxide

(d) VOC = volatile organic compounds

(e) Oxides of nitrogen

(f) Assumes 4 hours of operation per month for each generator and use of No. 2 diesel fuel.

In addition to the generators described above, particulate emissions would be associated with 

the operation of the cooling towers. These emissions would include particles with a range of 

different sizes, including particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and particles smaller than 

10 microns (PM10). As defined in the Clean Air Act, both PM2.5 and PM10 are considered criteria 

pollutants. The cooling towers would be required to adhere to the New Source Performance 

Standards (40 CFR 60.40Da) and a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit for air 

emissions would be required before the cooling towers could be operated.

Because these generating systems would be used infrequently (i.e., typically a few hours per 

month) and the cooling towers would be operated in accordance with relevant State and Federal 

regulations, the review team concludes that the environmental impact of pollutants from these 

sources would be minimal.

The transportation of workers to and from the site would also result in both particulate and 

gaseous emissions associated with their vehicles. It is anticipated that the operations workforce 

would consist of 800 workers at VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2010a). Strategies to reduce

the emissions of both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases could include the use of 

carpools or shuttle services. This workforce is much smaller than the combined preconstruction 

and construction workforce of up to 3600 workers that were concluded to have a minor impact; 

therefore, the impact from transportation of operational workers on the air quality would be 

minimal.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-56 April 2011

Impacts of existing transmission lines on air quality are addressed in the NUREG-1437 (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.

Six new 230-kV transmission lines would be constructed to accommodate the new powergenerating capacity (SCE&G 2010a) from the proposed Units 2 and 3. This size is well within 

the range of transmission lines discussed in NUREG-1437, and the staff therefore concludes 

that air quality impacts from transmission lines would not be noticeable.

Finally, the operation of a nuclear power plant involves the emission of some greenhouse 

gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). The review team has estimated in Appendix J that the 

total carbon footprint for actual plant operations of Units 2 and 3 for 40 years would be on the 

order of 650,000 metric tons (the sum of about 190,000 metric tons for each unit from plant 

operations and about 130,000 metric tons for each unit from operations workforce 

transportation) of CO2 equivalent (an emission rate of about 16,000 metric tons annually, 

averaged over the period of operation), compared to a total United States annual CO2 emissions 

rate of 6,000,000,000 metric tons (EPA 2009). The AP1000 CO2 emissions estimates are 

based on carbon footprint estimates in Appendix J and emissions data in the ER (SCE&G 

2010a). Based on its assessment of the relatively small plant operations carbon footprint 

compared to the United States annual CO2 emissions, the review team concludes that the 

atmospheric impacts of greenhouse gases from plant operations would not be noticeable.

5.7.3 Summary of Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

The review team evaluated the potential impacts on air quality associated with criteria pollutants 

and greenhouse gas emissions from operating Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. The review 

team also evaluated the potential impacts of cooling-system emissions and transmission lines. 

In each case, the review team determined that the impacts would be minimal. On this basis, the 

review team concludes that the impacts of operation of Units 2 and 3 on air quality from 

emissions of criteria pollutants, CO2 emissions, and cooling-system emissions would be SMALL 

and that no further mitigation would be warranted.

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

This section addresses the nonradiological health impacts of operating proposed VCSNS Units 

2 and 3. Nonradiological health impacts on the public from operation of the cooling system, 

noise generated by unit operations, EMFs, and transporting operations and outage workers are 

discussed. Nonradiological health impacts are also evaluated for workers at proposed VCSNS

Units 2 and 3. Health impacts from radiological sources during operations are discussed in 

Section 5.9.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-57 NUREG-1939

5.8.1 Etiological (Disease-Causing) Agents

Operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would result in a thermal discharge to Parr Reservoir 

(SCE&G 2010a). Discharges of warmer water have the potential to increase the growth of 

thermophilic microorganisms (microorganisms that favor warmer water), including etiological 

agents, both in the CWS and the Parr Reservoir. Thermophilic microorganisms include enteric 

(intestinal) 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.

Available data assembled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the 

years 1996 to 2007 (CDC 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) report 

only two occurrences of waterborne outbreaks of disease from recreational water in the State of 

South Carolina. From 1989 to 2000, the CDC surveillance system for waterborne-disease 

outbreaks documented 24 fatal cases of primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM; a disease 

caused by Naegleria fowleri) in the United States, most occurring in southern states during the 

months of July and September (CDC 2008). Outbreaks of Legionellosis, Salmonellosis, or 

Shigellosis that occurred in South Carolina were within the range of national trends (CDC 1997, 

1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 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 State of South Carolina indicate a very low risk of outbreaks 

from thermophilic microorganisms associated with recreational water (CDC 2006). Two 

SCDHEC water-quality monitoring stations along Parr Reservoir located in or near recreation 

areas monitor for species that are indicators for the presence of other pathogens that may be 

present in the water. The main recreational activities associated with Parr Reservoir are fishing 

and hunting (SCE&G 2010a). There are no public swimming beaches along Parr Reservoir. 

No reported cases of Legionellosis, Salmonellosis, or Shigellosis occurred in Fairfield County in 

2006 (CDC 2006).

Naegleria fowleri is common in freshwater ponds, lakes, and reservoirs throughout the southern 

states. While it is possible that the thermal discharge from Units 2 and 3 could have an impact 

on the abundance of this organism, the affected area of Parr Reservoir would be relatively small 

(Table 5-2 and Table 5-3) under normal operating conditions at most times of the year. In 

addition, because there are no swimming beaches on Parr Reservoir and limited public access 

to the outfall area, the likelihood of recreational exposure is expected to be minimal. Based on 

the historically low risk of diseases from etiological agents in South Carolina, the limited extent 

of thermal impacts in Parr Reservoir, and the limited opportunities for public exposure, the 

review team concludes that the nonradiological impacts on human health would be minimal, and 

mitigation would not be warranted.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-58 April 2011

5.8.2 Noise Impacts 

In NUREG-1437 (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, 

transformers, turbines, and the operation of pumps along with intermittent contributions from 

loud speakers and auxiliary equipment such as diesel generators. There would also be noise 

from corona discharge associated with high-voltage transmission lines (SCE&G 2010a). These 

noise sources are discussed below.

The primary sources for background noise at the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 location are 

railroad operations (~1 mi to the west) and Unit 1 operations (~1 mi to the north) and 

occasionally from the Parr Combustion Facility (~1.4 mi to the south-southeast) (SCE&G 

2010a). The nearest residence to the site is approximately 5800 ft away (SCE&G 2010a). 

SCE&G states in its ER that it has never received a complaint about the noise produced by 

Unit 1 (SCE&G 2010a). 

The proposed units at the VCSNS site would use mechanical draft cooling towers. The ER 

states that noise levels as high as 55 dBA at distances of 1000 ft would be emitted from the 

cooling towers and intermittently run diesel generators (SCE&G 2010a). The exclusion area 

boundary is 3390 ft in all directions from the proposed site of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, and 1300 ft 

from the proposed site of the closest cooling tower (SCE&G 2010a). 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 the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (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.

Noise sources during operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be sufficiently distant from the 

plant boundaries so that noise generated by the plant would be attenuated to near ambient 

levels before reaching critical receptors, such as the nearest residence, outside the plant 

boundary. Given the postulated noise levels for cooling towers and diesel generators, the 

review team concludes that the noise impacts would be minimal, and mitigation would not be 

warranted.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-59 NUREG-1939

5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Electric shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in 

metallic structures are examples of acute effects from EMFs associated with transmission lines 

(NRC 1999). Such acute effects are controlled and minimized by conformance with National 

Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria and adherence to the standards for transmission 

systems. The potential impacts from EMFs of the existing transmission lines for Unit 1 at the 

VCSNS site were evaluated as part of the environmental review for license renewal for 

operation (NRC 2004a). The reviewers concluded that the potential impacts for electric shock 

during the renewal term were minimal. SCE&G and Santee Cooper would have to build three 

new 230-kV transmission lines for Unit 2 and three new 230-kV lines for Unit 3, along with a 

new switchyard (SCE&G 2010a). All new structures would be designed and built to comply with 

all NESC provisions that limit the induced current due to electrostatic effects to 5 mA 

(SCE&G 2010a).

Considering SCE&G’s and Santee Cooper’s commitment to designing new transmission lines to 

conform with the present NESC criteria, the review team concludes that the impact on the public 

from acute effects of EMFs would be negligible, and further mitigation would not be warranted.

5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Operating power transmission lines in the United States produce EMFs of nonionizing radiation 

at 60 Hz, which is considered to be an extremely low frequency (ELF) EMF. Research on the 

potential for chronic effects of EMFs from energized transmission lines was reviewed and 

addressed by the NRC in 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 (NIEHS 1999) contains the 

following conclusion:

The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF 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.

The review team reviewed available scientific literature on chronic effects to human health from 

ELF-EMF published since the NIEHS report, and found that several other organizations reached 

the same conclusions (AGNIR 2006; WHO 2007). Additional work under the auspices of the 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-60 April 2011

World Health Organization (WHO) updated the assessments of a number of scientific groups 

reflecting the potential for transmission-line EMF to cause adverse health impacts in humans. 

The monograph summarized the potential for ELF-EMF to cause disease such as cancers in 

children and adults, depression, suicide, reproductive dysfunction, developmental disorders, 

immunological modifications, and neurological disease. The results of the review by WHO 

(2007) found that the extent of scientific evidence linking these diseases to EMF exposure is 

not conclusive.

The review team reviewed available scientific literature on chronic effects of EMF on human 

health and found that the scientific evidence regarding the chronic effects of ELF-EMF on 

human health does not conclusively link ELF-EMF to adverse health impacts.

5.8.5 Occupational Health

In general, occupational health risks for new units are expected to be mostly attributable to

occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electric shock, asphyxiation) to workers engaged in activities 

such as maintenance, testing, and plant modifications. The annual incidence rates (the number 

of injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers) for the State of South Carolina and the United 

States for electrical power production workers are approximately 1.7 and 1.9, respectively (BLS 

2008b). Historically, actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower 

than the average U.S. industrial rates, with a 2007 average incidence rate of approximately 

1.5 per 100 workers (BLS 2008a).

Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict adherence to NRC and 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 review team expects 

SCE&G to adhere to NRC, OSHA, and State safety standards, practices and procedures during 

operation of the new units.

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. SCE&G (SCE&G 2010a) reports that it maintains a health and safety program to 

protect workers from industrial safety risks at existing Unit 1 and would implement the program 

for the proposed new units. Health impacts on workers from nonradiological emissions, noise, 

and EMFs would be monitored and controlled in accordance with the applicable OSHA 

regulations and would be minimal. Additional mitigation would not be warranted.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-61 NUREG-1939

5.8.6 Impacts of Transporting Operations Personnel to and from the VCSNS 

Site and Alternative Sites

The general approach used to calculate the 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 VCSNS site and alternative sites. 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 in the ER (SCE&G 2010a) as 

800 (two units), so each Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site requires about 

400 operating personnel). An additional 1000 temporary workers are estimated to be needed 

annually for refueling outages (SCE&G 2010a). 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 20 mi 

one way.

• To develop representative commuter traffic impacts, a source was located that provides 

South Carolina-specific fatality rates for all traffic for the years 2003 to 2007 (DOT 2009a). 

The average fatality rate for the 2003 to 2007 period in South Carolina was used as the basis 

for estimating South Carolina-specific injury and accident rates. Adjustment factors were 

developed using national-level traffic accident statistics in the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) 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 South Carolina-specific fatality rate to approximate the injury and 

accident rates for commuters in the State of South Carolina.

The estimated impacts of transporting operations and outage workers to and from the VCSNS 

site are listed in Table 5-8. The total annual traffic fatalities during operations, including both 

operations and outage personnel, represent about a 0.8-percent increase above the 19 traffic 

fatalities that occurred in Fairfield County, South Carolina, in 2007 (DOT 2009b). This 

represents a small increase relative to the current traffic fatality risk in the area surrounding the 

proposed VCSNS site. The impacts of transporting operations workers to and from the 

alternative sites range from about a 0.3-percent (at the Savannah River alternative site) to a 

2-percent (at the Saluda alternative site) increase in traffic fatalities in the counties in which the 

alternative sites are located (DOT 2009c, d, e, f). These differences are solely because of 

differences in the average State-specific fatality rates used for operations workers and the 

county-specific baseline annual fatalities. Because these increases are small relative to the 

baseline traffic fatalities (that is, before the new units are constructed) in the counties where 

SCE&G has proposed to build the new units, the review team concludes that the impacts of 

transporting construction materials and personnel to the proposed VCSNS site and alternative 

sites would be minimal, and mitigation would not be warranted.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-62 April 2011

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

VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites for a Single AP1000 Reactor

Worker Type

Accidents per Year 

per Unit

Injuries per Year 

per Unit

Fatalities per Year 

per Unit

Permanent workers 1.2 × 101 5.6 × 100 8.4 × 10−2

Outage workers 3.7 × 100 1.7 × 100 2.5 × 10−2

5.8.7 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

The review team evaluated health impacts on the public and the workers from the cooling 

systems, noise generated by unit operations, acute and chronic impacts of EMFs at the higher 

power levels, and transporting operations and outage workers to and 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 on the public and workers from 

thermophilic microorganisms, noise generated by operations, and acute impacts of EMFs would 

be minimal. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent 

evaluation, the review team concludes that the potential impacts of nonradiological effects 

resulting from the operation of two proposed additional units would be SMALL, and mitigation 

would not be warranted. The staff is not able to come to conclusions on the chronic impacts of 

EMFs on public health.

5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

This section addresses the radiological impacts of normal operations of proposed VCSNS Units 

2 and 3, including a discussion of the estimated radiation dose to a member of the public and to 

the biota inhabiting the area around the VCSNS 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 3.4.3).

Revision 15 of the AP1000 design (Westinghouse 2005) is a certified design as set forth in 

10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D. Subsequently, Westinghouse submitted Revisions 16 and 17 of 

the AP1000 design. Revision 2 of SCE&G’s ER incorporates Revision 17 of the Design Control 

Document (DCD); therefore, the COL application and evaluation of radiological impacts of 

normal operations presented here are based on Revision 17 of the DCD (Westinghouse 2008).

5.9.1 Exposure Pathways

The public and biota would receive radiation dose from a nuclear unit via the liquid effluent, 

gaseous effluent, and direct radiation pathways. SCE&G estimated the potential exposures to 

the public and biota by evaluating exposure pathways typical of those surrounding a nuclear unit 

at the VCSNS site. SCE&G considered pathways that could cause the highest calculated 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-63 NUREG-1939

radiological dose based on the use of the environment by the residents located around the site 

(SCE&G 2010a). 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, SCE&G considered the following exposure pathways in 

evaluating the dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI): ingestion of aquatic food 

(i.e., commercial and sport fish); ingestion of drinking water; ingestion of meats, vegetables, and 

milk (assuming irrigation downstream of the plant using water from Parr Reservoir or the Broad 

River); and direct radiation exposure from shoreline activities, swimming, and boating (see 

Figure 5-3). The analysis for population dose considered the following exposure pathways: 

ingestion of aquatic food, ingestion of drinking water, and direct radiation exposure from 

shoreline, swimming, and boating activities. Liquid effluents were assumed to be released via 

the planned discharge structure into Parr Reservoir, which is part of the Broad River.

As discussed in the FSAR, the design of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 includes a number of 

features to prevent and mitigate leakage from system components such as pipes and tanks that 

may contain radioactive material (SCE&G 2010d). In addition, SCE&G committed to use the 

guidance of NEI 08-08A, "Generic FSAR Template Guidance for Life-Cycle Minimization of 

Contamination," to the extent practicable in the development of operating programs and 

procedures (SCE&G 2010d). However, the potential still exists for leaks of radioactive material, 

such as tritium, into the ground, similar to those that have been reported at currently operating 

power plants. Based on the discussion above, the NRC staff expects that the impacts from 

such potential leakage for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be small.

For the gaseous effluent release pathway, SCE&G (2010a) considered the following exposure 

pathways in evaluating the dose to the MEI: immersion in the radioactive plume, direct radiation 

exposure from deposited radioactivity, inhalation, ingestion of garden fruit and vegetables, 

ingestion of goat and cow milk, and ingestion of meat animals.

For population doses from the gaseous effluents, SCE&G (2010a) used the same exposure 

pathways as those used for the individual dose assessment (see Figure 5-3). All agricultural 

products grown within 50 mi of proposed Unit 3 were assumed to be consumed by the 

population dose within 50 mi of proposed new units at the VCSNS site.

SCE&G (2010a) stated that direct radiation from the reactor buildings and planned independent 

spent-fuel storage installation would be the primary sources of direct radiation exposure to the 

public from the VCSNS site. However, SCE&G assumes that contained sources of radiation at 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be shielded and would not contribute to the external 

dose of the MEI or the population. The assumption of negligible contribution from direct 

radiation beyond the site boundary is supported by the DCD (Westinghouse 2008). The 

containment and other plant buildings would be shielded and direct radiation from them would 

be negligible. The AP1000 design also provides for the storage of refueling water inside the 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-64 April 2011

Figure 5-3. Exposure Pathways to Man (adapted from Soldat et al. 1974)
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-65 NUREG-1939

containment building instead of an outside storage tank. Storing refueling water inside the 

containment building eliminates it as a source of significant direct radiation to offsite receptors.

Exposure pathways considered in evaluating dose to the biota are shown in Figure 5-4 and 

include the following:

• 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

• surface exposure from deposition of iodine and particulates from gaseous effluents 

(NRC 1977).

The staff reviewed the exposure pathways for the public and biota identified by SCE&G (2010a)

and found them to be appropriate, based on a documentation review, a tour of the environs, and 

interviews with SCE&G staff and contractors during the site visit in March 2009.

5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public

SCE&G calculated the dose to the MEI and the population living within a 50-mi radius of the site 

from the liquid and gaseous effluent release pathways (SCE&G 2010a). As discussed in 

Section 5.9.1, direct radiation exposure to the MEI from sources of radiation at proposed 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 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 following activities were considered in the dose calculations: (1) consumption of 

drinking water contaminated by liquid effluents, (2) consumption of fish from water sources 

contaminated by liquid effluents, (3) consumption of crops, milk, and meat produced on land 

irrigated with water contaminated by liquid effluents, and (4) direct radiation from waterbodies 

contaminated by liquid effluents during swimming, boating, and recreation along the shoreline. 

The liquid effluent releases used in the estimates of dose are found in Table 3.5-1 of the ER 

(SCE&G 2010a) and listed in Table G-1 of Appendix G of this EIS. 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 (SCE&G 

2010a).
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-66 April 2011

Figure 5-4. Exposure Pathways to Biota Other Than Man (adapted from Soldat et al. 1974)
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-67 NUREG-1939

SCE&G calculated liquid pathway doses to the MEI as shown in Table 5-9 (SCE&G 2009k). 

The MEI was an adult with the majority of the dose from consumption of fish and other 

organisms. The maximally exposed organ was the gastrointestinal tract of an adult.

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

from a New Unit

Pathway Age Group

Total Body

(mrem/yr)

Maximum Organ

(GI-LLI)

(mrem/yr)

Thyroid 

(mrem/yr)

Drinking water Adult 0.029 0.035 0.041

Teen 0.020 0.025 0.031

Child 0.038 0.042 0.064

Fish and other organisms Adult 0.058 0.006 0.006

Teen 0.033 0.005 0.005

Child 0.013 0.002 0.006

Irrigated land Adult 0.052 0.456 0.058

Teen 0.056 0.330 0.071

Child 0.078 0.252 0.122

Direct radiation Adult 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Teen 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003

Child 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

total Adult 0.139 0.497 0.104

Teen 0.110 0.360 0.108

Child 0.129 0.296 0.192

Source: SCE&G 2009k (LADTAP output attached to NND-09-0203)

GI-LLI = gastrointestinal-lower large intestine

The staff recognizes the LADTAP II computer program as an appropriate method for calculating 

dose to the MEI for liquid effluent releases. All input parameters used in SCE&G calculations 

were judged by the NRC staff to be appropriate.

The staff performed an independent evaluation of liquid pathway doses and found similar 

results. The results of the NRC staff’s independent review are found in Appendix G.

5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway 

Gaseous pathway doses to the MEI were calculated by SCE&G 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 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-68 April 2011

gases and particulates, (3) ingestion of meat from animals eating contaminated grass, 

(4) ingestion of milk from animals eating contaminated grass, and (5) ingestion of garden 

vegetables contaminated by gases and particulates. The gaseous effluent releases used in the 

estimate of dose to the MEI and population are found in Table 3.5-2 of the ER (SCE&G 2010a)

and Table G-4 of Appendix G. 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 2.5-1, 2.7-19 through 2.7-25, and 5.4-3 

through 5.4-5 of the ER (SCE&G 2010a). Gaseous pathway doses to the MEI calculated by 

SCE&G are found in Table 5-10. These values are a few percent lower than the doses reported 

in the draft EIS because Revision 2 of the ER used 2 years of meteorological data, while 

Revision 1 of the ER used only 1 year of meteorological data.

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

Releases for a New Unit(a)

Pathway

Age 

Group

Total Body 

Dose

(mrem/yr)

Max Organ

(mrem/yr)

Skin Dose

(mrem/yr)

Thyroid Dose

(mrem/yr)

Plume (1.68 mi. SE) All 0.058 0.062 (lung) 0.31 0.058

Ground (1.68 mi. SE) All 0.02930 0.029 (lung) 0.034 0.029

Inhalation (1.68 mi. SE) Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

0.0071

0.0072

0.0064

0.0037

0.0091 (lung)

0.010 (lung)

0.0089 (lung)

0.0055 (lung)

0.0069

0.0070

0.0062

0.0036

0.064

0.080

0.094

0.084

Vegetable (1.68 mi. SE) Adult

Teen

Child

0.054

0.080

0.17

0.28 (bone)

0.43 (bone)

1.0 (bone)

0.046

0.071

0.16

0.64

0.86

1.7

Meat (1.68 mi. SE) Adult

Teen

Child

0.016

0.013

0.023

0.069 (bone)

0.059 (bone)

0.11 (bone)

0.015

0.013

0.023

0.039

0.029

0.048

Cow milk (1.68 mi. SE) Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

0.024

0.038

0.082

0.16

0.083(bone)

0.15(bone)

0.37(bone)

0.71(bone)

0.019

0.033

0.076

0.15

0.67

1.1

2.1

5.2

Goat milk (1.68 mi. SE) Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

0.036

0.052

0.098

0.18

0.096(bone)

0.17(bone)

0.42(bone)

0.78(bone)

0.023

0.039

0.085

0.17

0.90

1.4

2.8

6.8

Source: SCE&G 2010a

(a) Maximally exposed total body individual is the child of resident gardener at 1.68 mi southeast of VCSNS Units 2 

and 3. Adult, teen, and infant doses are presented as additional information. Ground-level releases were 

assumed. Doses are based on 2 years of meteorological data.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-69 NUREG-1939

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 reviewed the input 

parameters and values used by SCE&G (SCE&G 2010a) for appropriateness, including 

references made to the AP1000 DCD (Westinghouse 2008). The staff concluded that the 

assumed input parameters and values used by SCE&G were appropriate. The staff performed 

an independent evaluation of the gaseous pathway doses and obtained similar results for the 

MEI (see Appendix G for details).

5.9.3 Impacts on a Member of the Public

This section describes the staff’s evaluation of the estimated impacts from radiological releases 

and direct radiation of two units at the VCSNS site. The evaluation addresses dose from 

operations to the MEI located at the VCSNS site and the population dose (collective dose to the 

population within 50 mi) around the VCSNS site.

5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual

SCE&G stated that total body and organ dose estimates to the MEI from liquid and gaseous 

effluents from each new unit would be within the dose design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I (SCE&G 2010a). Doses from liquid effluents from the use of Parr Reservoir to the 

total body and maximum organ at the nearest residence from liquid effluents would be well 

within the respective 3-mrem/yr and 10 mrem/yr Appendix I dose design objectives. Doses at 

the exclusion area boundary from gaseous effluents would be well within the Appendix I dose 

design objectives of 10 mrad/yr air dose from gamma radiation, 20 mrad/yr air dose from beta 

radiation, 5 mrem/yr to the total body, and 15 mrem/yr to the skin. In addition, dose to the 

thyroid from gaseous effluents would be within the 15 mrem/yr Appendix I dose design 

objective. A comparison of dose estimates for each of two new units to the Appendix I dose 

design objectives is found in Table 5-11. The staff completed an independent evaluation of 

compliance with Appendix I dose design objectives and found similar results, as shown in 

Appendix G.

SCE&G compared the combined dose estimates from direct radiation and gaseous and liquid 

effluents from existing Unit 1 and proposed Units 2 and 3 with the 40 CFR Part 190 standards 

(Table 5-12) (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G stated that the total body and organ dose estimates to 

the MEI from liquid and gaseous effluents for VCSNS Unit 1 would be less than the estimates 

from Units 2 and 3 and well within the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Direct 

radiation doses from the existing VCSNS Unit 1 at the site boundary do not vary significantly 

from background radiation levels (SCE&G 2009m). As stated in Section 5.9.1, exposure at the 

site boundary from direct radiation sources at the proposed new Units 2 and 3 would be 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-70 April 2011

negligible and would not contribute significantly to the MEI dose. Table 5-12 shows SCE&G’s 

assessment that the total doses to the MEI from liquid and gaseous effluent as well as direct 

radiation at the VCSNS site would be well below the 40 CFR Part 190 standards. The staff 

completed an independent evaluation of compliance with 40 CFR Part 190 standards and found 

similar results, as shown in Appendix G.

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

Single New Nuclear Unit to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Dose Design Objectives

Radionuclide

Releases/Dose

SCE&G

Dose Estimates

Appendix I

Design Objectives 

Liquid effluents(a)

 Total body dose 0.14 mrem 3 mrem

 Maximum organ dose 0.50 mrem 10 mrem

Gaseous effluents(b) (noble gases only)

 Gamma air dose 0.71 mrad 10 mrad

 Beta air dose 3.0 mrad 20 mrad

 Total body dose 0.58 mrem 5 mrem

 Skin dose 2.4 mrem 15 mrem

Gaseous effluents(c) (radioiodines and particulates)

 Maximum organ dose (thyroid) 7.0 mrem(d) 15 mrem

Source: SCE&G 2010a

(a) Total body and GI-LLI doses are for an adult using the Parr Reservoir.

(b) Southeast Site Boundary; ground-level releases assumed.

(c) Includes tritium, carbon-14, food chain, and inhalation doses.

(d) Infant drinking home-produced goat milk.

Table 5-12. Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Rates with 40 CFR Part 190(a) 

Criteria

Target Organ

Unit 1 Units 2 and 3

Site Total

(mrem/yr)

40 CFR Part 

190 Dose 

Standards

(mrem/yr)

Combined Liquid 

and Gaseous

(mrem/yr)

Liquid

(mrem/yr)

Gaseous

(mrem/yr)

Combined

(mrem/yr)

Whole body dose 1.2 0.28 0.78 1.1 2.2 25

Thyroid 0.043 0.38 (infant, 

goat milk)

14 (infant, 

goat milk)

14 14 75

Other organ 0.043 (bone) 0.23 (child bone) 3.2 (child bone) 3.5 3.5 25

Source: SCE&G 2010a
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-71 NUREG-1939

5.9.3.2 Population Dose

SCE&G estimated the collective total body dose within the 50-mi radius of the proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 to be 29 person-rem/yr from liquid effluents and 5.5 person-rem/yr from gaseous 

effluents (SCE&G 2010a). The staff estimated the collective dose to the same population from 

background radiation to be 663,000 person-rem/yr (NCRP 2009). The dose from background 

radiation was calculated by multiplying the 50-mi population estimate for 2060 of 2,131,394 

people by the annual background dose rate of 311 mrem/yr (NCRP 2009). SCE&G calculated a 

higher dose from background because it included radiation from medical practice.

Collective dose from the gaseous and liquid effluent pathways was estimated using the 

GASPAR II and LADTAP II computer codes, respectively. The staff performed an independent 

evaluation of population doses and obtained similar results (see Appendix G).

Radiation protection experts 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 Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report, uses the 

linear, no-threshold dose response model as a basis for estimating the risks from low doses. 

This approach is accepted by the NRC as a conservative method for estimating health risks from 

radiation exposure, recognizing that the model may overestimate those risks. Based on this 

method, the staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the nominal 

probability coefficient for total detriment. This coefficient has the value of 570 fatal cancers, 

nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects per 1,000,000 person-rem (10,000 person-Sv), 

equal to 0.00057 effect per person-rem. The coefficient is taken from Publication 103 of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP 2007). 

Both the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and ICRP 

suggest that when the collective effective dose is smaller than the reciprocal of the relevant risk 

detriment (in other words, less than 1/0.00057, which is less than 1754 person-rem), the risk 

assessment should note that the most likely number of excess health effects is zero (NCRP

1995; ICRP 2007). The estimated collective whole body dose to the population living within 

50 mi of the proposed new units at the VCSNS site is 29 person-rem/yr (SCE&G 2010a), which 

is less than the value of 1754 person-rem/yr that ICRP and NCRP suggest would most likely 

result in zero excess health effects (NCRP 1995; ICRP 2007). 

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 (Jablon 

1990). The NCI report included an evaluation of health statistics around all nuclear power 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-72 April 2011

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” (Jablon 1990).

5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts on Members of the Public

The staff evaluated the health impacts from routine gaseous and liquid radiological effluent 

releases from the new units at the VCSNS site. Based on the information provided by SCE&G 

and NRC’s independent evaluation, the staff concludes there would be no observable health 

impacts on the public from normal operation of the new units, the health impacts would be 

SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be warranted.

5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers

At the VCSNS site, the annual occupational collective dose for 2005 through 2008 averaged 

43 person-rem for the existing VCSNS Unit 1 (SCE&G 2006b, 2007a, 2008a, 2009n). The 

collective occupational dose for a single AP1000 reactor was estimated at 67.1 person-rem/yr in 

the DCD (Westinghouse 2008). This collective dose was based on an 18-month fuel cycle and 

would be bounding for a 24-month fuel cycle.

The licensee of a new plant would be required to maintain individual doses to workers to within 

5 rem annually as specified in 10 CFR 20.1201 and incorporate provisions to maintain doses as 

low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).

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 light water 

reactors. Additional mitigation would not be warranted because the operating plant would be 

required to maintain doses ALARA. 

5.9.5 Impacts on Biota Other Than Humans

SCE&G estimated doses to biota in the VCSNS site environs using surrogate species. 

Surrogate species used in the ER are well-defined and provide an acceptable method for 

evaluating doses to the biota. Surrogate species analysis was performed for aquatic species 

such as fish, invertebrates, and algae, and for terrestrial species such as muskrats, raccoons, 

herons, and ducks (SCE&G 2010a). Aquatic species on the VCSNS site are represented by the 

freshwater fish, invertebrates, and algae surrogates. Although there is no significant harvesting 

of freshwater invertebrates, Asian clams in Monticello Reservoir have been monitored in the 

past and found to be free of radioactive contamination (SCE&G 2008b). Terrestrial species are 

represented by the muskrat and raccoon surrogates; birds are represented by the heron and 

duck surrogates. SCE&G performed no species-specific dose calculations. Exposure pathways 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-73 NUREG-1939

considered in evaluating dose to the biota are discussed in Section 5.9.1 and shown in 

Figure 5-4. The NRC staff reviewed SCE&G’s calculations (SCE&G 2010a) and performed an 

independent evaluation (see Appendix G) of the fish, invertebrates, algae, muskrat, raccoon, 

heron, and duck, and found similar results.

5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway

SCE&G 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 Parr Reservoir 

(Broad River), SCE&G assumed there would be no additional dilution in the reservoir. The biota 

dose estimates for the proposed units are also conservative because they do not consider 

radioactive decay during transit; therefore, actual doses to the biota are likely to be much less 

than estimated (SCE&G 2010a). All parameters used as input to LADTAP are shown in 

Table G-1 of Appendix G. Liquid pathway doses were higher for biota compared with man 

because of considerations for bioaccumulation of radionuclides, ingestion of aquatic plants, 

ingestion of invertebrates, and increased time spent in water and shoreline compared with man. 

The liquid effluent releases used in estimating biota dose are found in Table 3.5-1 of the ER 

(SCE&G 2010a). Table 5-13 presents SCE&G’s estimates of the doses to biota from the liquid 

and gaseous pathways from proposed new Units 2 and 3. 

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

SCE&G Biota Dose Estimates

Biota

Liquid Pathway

(mrad/yr)

Gaseous Pathway

(mrad/yr)

Total Body Biota 

Dose All 

Pathways

(mrad/yr)

Fish 0.82 0 0.82

Invertebrate 2.3 0 2.3

Algae 6.66 0 6.7

Muskrat 2.44 5.04 7.5

Raccoon 0.956 7.4 8.4

Heron 11.14 5.04 16

Duck 2.34 7.4 9.7

Source: SCE&G 2010a

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. SCE&G used the 

calculation methods of dose to the MEI from gaseous effluent releases described in Section 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-74 April 2011

5.9.2 to calculate dose to terrestrial surrogate species, with two modifications (SCE&G 2010a). 

One modification increased the ground deposition factors by a factor of two to account for the 

closer proximity of terrestrial animals to the ground compared with the MEI. The second 

modification was to disable the vegetation intake pathway for muskrat and heron because they 

are not known to consume vegetation. In addition, SCE&G assumed that biota could be inside 

the exclusion area boundary at a distance of 0.25 mi southeast of the powerblock area circle to 

estimate these doses (SCE&G 2010a). This assumption is conservative because it results in an 

overestimation of the doses for almost all of the terrestrial biota. The gaseous effluent releases 

used in estimating dose are found in Table 3.5-2 of the ER (SCE&G 2010a). Table 5-13

presents SCE&G’s estimates of the doses to biota from the liquid and gaseous pathways from 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2010a).

5.9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Biota Doses

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992) and the NCRP (1991) reported that a 

chronic dose rate of no greater than 10 mGy/d (1000 mrad/d) to the maximally exposed 

organism 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 5-14 compares estimated total body dose rates to surrogate biota species that would be 

produced by releases from Units 2 and 3 to the IAEA/NCRP biota dose guidelines (IAEA 1992; 

NCRP 1991). 

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

Guidelines for Biota Protection

Biota

SCE&G Estimate of Dose to 

Biota (mrad/d)(a)

IAEA/NCRP Guidelines for Protection 

of Biota Populations (mrad/d)(b)

Fish 2.2 × 10-3 1000

Invertebrate 6.3 × 10-3 1000

Algae 1.8 × 10-2 1000

Muskrat 2.0 × 10-2 100

Raccoon 2.3 × 10-2 100

Heron 4.4 × 10-2 100

Duck 2.7 × 10-2 100

(a) Total dose from liquid and gaseous effluents in Table 5-13 converted to mrad/d.

(b) Guidelines in NCRP and IAEA reports expressed in Gy/d (1 mGy/d equals 100 mrad/d).

The maximum total dose from both liquid and gaseous pathways from the bounding calculation 

is about 16 mrad/yr, or about 0.044 mrad/d. Thus doses to biota calculated by SCE&G are far 

below the 100-mrad/d (0.1-rad/d) IAEA guidelines (IAEA 1992) for terrestrial biota and the 1000-

mrad/d (1-rad/d) IAEA guideline (IAEA 1992) for aquatic biota. Daily dose rates would not 

exceed the IAEA guidelines for any surrogate species.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-75 NUREG-1939

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the NRC’s independent evaluation, the staff 

concludes that the radiological impact on biota from the routine operation of the proposed 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not 

be warranted.

5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring

A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been in place for the VCSNS Unit 

1 site since its operation began in 1984, with preoperational sample collection activities 

beginning in 1982 (SCE&G 2010a). The REMP includes monitoring of the airborne-exposure 

pathway, direct-exposure pathway, water-exposure pathway, aquatic-exposure pathway from 

Monticello Reservoir, and the ingestion-exposure pathway within a 5-mi radius of the station, 

with indicator locations near the plant perimeter and control locations at distances greater than 

10 mi. 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 (SCE&G 2006c, 

2007b, 2008b, 2009q). 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 Unit 1 began operation. The preoperational 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 VCSNS Unit 1 

began in 1984, 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 (SCE&G 2006c, 2007b, 

2008b, 2009m, 2010c) and the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (SCE&G 2006d, 

2007c, 2008c, 2009o). The limits for all radiological releases are specified in the VCSNS Offsite 

Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) (SCE&G 2007d). No additional monitoring program has 

been established for the proposed units. To the greatest extent practical, the REMP for the 

VCSNS program would use the procedures and sampling locations used by the existing VCSNS 

site. The staff reviewed the documentation for the existing REMP, the VCSNS ODCM, and 

recent monitoring reports from VCSNS, 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 VCSNS site.

In 2009, tritium concentrations less than 1000 pCi/L were found in Monticello and Parr 

Reservoirs, at the Columbia Water Works, and in one groundwater well (SCE&G 2010c). These 

concentrations are well below the EPA drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L (40 CFR Part 

141) and would result in doses well below the VCSNS effluent dose limits. In addition, cobalt-60 

concentrations ranging from 14-31 pCi/Kg were found in sediments at two locations; these 

concentrations are right around the minimum detectable level (SCE&G 2010c). 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-76 April 2011

The annual radioactive effluent release reports for, 2007, and 2008 (SCE&G 2008c, 2009o) 

summarized results of groundwater sampling performed by SCE&G in various onsite locations, 

which may be a source of groundwater contamination. Tritium concentrations in the range 

2000-3000 pCi/L were found in an onsite well located where condensate polisher resins were 

disposed in 1994; these concentrations are well below the EPA drinking water standard of 

20,000 pCi/L (40 CFR Part 141).

5.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts

This section describes the potential impacts on the environment that could result from the 

generation, handling, and disposal of nonradioactive waste and mixed waste during the 

operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Section 3.4.4 of this EIS describes the 

nonradioactive waste systems. Types of nonradioactive waste that would be generated, 

handled, and disposed of during operational activities include solid wastes, liquid effluents, and 

air emissions. Solid wastes include municipal waste, sewage-treatment sludge, and industrial 

wastes. Liquid waste includes NPDES-permitted discharges such as effluents containing 

chemicals or biocides, wastewater effluents, site stormwater runoff, and other liquid wastes 

such as used oils, paints, and solvents that require offsite disposal. Air emissions would 

primarily be generated by vehicles and diesel generators. In addition, small quantities of 

hazardous waste, and mixed waste, which is waste that has both hazardous and radioactive 

characteristics, may be generated during plant operations. The assessment of potential impacts 

resulting from these types of wastes is presented in the following sections.

5.10.1 Impacts on Land 

SCE&G has developed a Solid Waste Management and Waste Minimization Plan for Virgil C. 

Summer Nuclear Station (SCE&G 1996). The current practices for waste-management and 

waste-minimization practices used at Unit 1 would also be implemented for proposed Units 2 

and 3 (SCE&G 2010a). Operational solid wastes such as office waste, cardboard, wood, or 

metal will be recycled or reused (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G plans to dispose of municipal solid 

waste and resins from plant operations in a SCDHEC-approved disposal facility. In addition, a 

new sanitary wastewater-treatment plant would be installed to serve the operational needs of 

the new units; plant sludge would be applied at an SCDHEC-approved location onsite or 

shipped offsite for disposal at a permitted facility (SCE&G 2010a). Debris from trash racks and 

screens on the water-intake structure would be periodically collected and disposed at an onsite 

location. SCE&G would follow all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements and 

standards for handling, transporting, and disposing of solid waste (SCE&G 2010a).

Based on the plans to manage solid and liquid wastes in accordance with all applicable Federal, 

State, and local requirements and standards, and the effective practices for reusing, recycling, 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-77 NUREG-1939

and minimizing waste, the review team expects that impacts on land from nonradioactive 

wastes generated during the operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minimal, and no 

further mitigation would be warranted.

5.10.2 Impacts on Water

Water withdrawn from the Monticello Reservoir for cooling and other operational purposes for 

the proposed Units 2 and 3 would be discharged to the Parr Reservoir. These discharges 

would contain both chemicals and biocides and be controlled by the NPDES permit. Other 

potential nonradioactive liquid effluent from proposed Units 2 and 3 operations are stormwater 

runoff and sanitary wastewater discharges (SCE&G 2010a). In all cases, the NPDES permit 

would limit the volume and constituents concentrations. Sections 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 of this EIS 

discuss impacts on surface and groundwater quality from operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3.

Based on the regulated practices for managing liquid discharges containing chemicals or 

biocides, wastewater, and the plans for managing stormwater, the review team expects that 

impacts on water from nonradioactive effluents during the operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

5.10.3 Impacts on Air

Operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would result in gaseous emission from operation 

of diesel generators. Impacts on air quality are discussed in Section 5.7.2 of this EIS. In 

addition, vehicular traffic associated with personnel necessary to operate Units 2 and 3 would 

increase vehicle emissions in the area. Increases in air emissions from the operation of Units 2 

and 3 would require compliance with the Federal and State air quality control laws and 

regulations (SCE&G 2010a). 

Based on the regulated practices for managing air emissions, the review team expects that 

impacts on air from nonradioactive emissions during the operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted.

5.10.4 Mixed-Waste Impacts

Mixed waste contains both low-level radioactive waste and hazardous waste. The generation, 

storage, treatment, or disposal of mixed waste is regulated by the Atomic Energy Act, the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended by the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) in 1976, and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (which amended RCRA in 

1984). Each new reactor at the VCSNS site can be expected to produce approximately 17 ft3

/yr 

of liquid and 7.5 ft3

/yr of solid mixed waste. In addition, SCE&G has implemented a wasteminimization plan to reduce the amount of mixed waste produced onsite by chemical inventory 

control, use of less hazardous alternatives, and careful separation of radioactive wastes
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-78 April 2011

(SCE&G 1996, 2010a). SCE&G stated that the treatment, storage, and disposal of mixed 

wastes generated by the proposed Units 2 and 3 would be managed as the existing Unit 1 

mixed wastes is managed (SCE&G 2010a). Mixed waste would be placed in appropriate 

containers, collected in the radwaste building, and shipped offsite. Mixed waste would be 

handled by designated personnel trained in proper waste management, including spill 

prevention and emergency response (SCE&G 2010a).

Based on the practices for minimizing waste currently in place for VCSNS Unit 1 and the plans 

to manage mixed wastes in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local 

requirements and standards, the review team expects that impacts from the generation of mixed 

waste at VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted.

5.10.5 Summary of Nonradioactive Waste Impacts 

Solid, liquid, gaseous, and mixed wastes generated during operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

would be handled according to county, State, and Federal regulations. County and State 

permits and regulations for handling and disposal of solid waste would be obtained and 

implemented. Discharges to the Parr Reservoir of liquid effluents used for operations, including 

wastewater and stormwater, would be controlled and limited via an NPDES permit. Air 

emissions from Units 2 and 3 operations would be compliant with local, State, and Federal air 

quality standards and regulations. Mixed waste generation, storage, and disposal impacts 

during operation of proposed Units 2 and 3 would be compliant with requirements and 

standards.

Based on the information provided by SCE&G, the effective practices for recycling, minimizing, 

managing, and waste disposal planned to be used at the VCSNS site, the expectation that 

regulatory approvals will be obtained to regulate the additional waste that would be generated 

from proposed Units 2 and 3, and the independent evaluations as discussed in the referenced 

sections of this EIS, the review team concludes that the potential impacts from nonradioactive 

waste resulting from the operation of the proposed additional units at the VCSNS site would be 

SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

Cumulative impacts on water and air from nonradiological effluents and emissions are 

discussed in Sections 7.2 and 7.6, respectively. For the purposes of Chapter 9, the review team 

expects that there would be no substantive differences between the impacts of nonradiological 

waste for the proposed Units 2 and 3 and the alternative sites and no substantive cumulative 

impacts that warrant further discussion beyond those discussed for the alternative sites in 

Section 9.3.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-79 NUREG-1939

5.11 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

The NRC staff considered the radiological consequences on the environment of potential 

accidents at proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. SCE&G based its COL application on the 

proposed installation of AP1000 reactors for proposed Units 2 and 3. Revision 15 of the AP1000 

design (Westinghouse 2005) is a certified design as set forth in the 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D. 

Subsequently, Westinghouse submitted Revision 17 of the AP1000 design (Westinghouse 

2008). The SCE&G application references Revision 17 of the AP1000 DCD. The NRC staff is 

reviewing the Westinghouse application to amend the design certification rule for the AP1000.

The term “accident,” as used in this section, refers to any off-normal event not addressed in 

Section 5.9 that results in the 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 compose 

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 ALARA are specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Additional

measures are designed to mitigate the consequences of failures in the first line of defense. 

These measures include the NRC’s reactor siting 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 NUREG0654/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 that may be released, (2) the 

potential paths for their release 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. 

Most of the material in the fuel is in the form of nonvolatile solids. However, after operation, a 

significant fraction of the material 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 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-80 April 2011

have a high potential for release. Radioactive forms of iodine, which are created in substantial 

quantities, 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 isotopes of iodine.

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.

Radiation protection experts 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, uses the linear, no-threshold dose response 

model as a basis for estimating the risks from low doses. This approach is accepted by the NRC 

as a conservative method for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that 

the model may overestimate those risks.

Physiological effects are clinically detectable if individuals receive radiation exposure resulting in 

a dose greater than about 25 rem over a short period of time (hours). Untreated doses of about 

250 to 500 rem received over a relatively short period (hours to a few days) can be expected to 

cause some fatalities.

5.11.1 Design Basis Accidents

SCE&G evaluated the potential consequences of postulated accidents to demonstrate that a 

AP1000 reactor could be constructed and operated at the VCSNS site without undue risk to the 

health and safety of the public (SCE&G 2010a). These evaluations used a set of DBAs that are 

representative for the reactor design being considered for the VCSNS 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 AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS 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 reactor design certification process. Potential consequences of DBAs are 

evaluated by 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 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-81 NUREG-1939

for the AP1000 reactor and methods for evaluating potential accidents are based on guidance in 

Regulatory Guide 1.183 (NRC 2000a).

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 relative concentration (χ/Q; units of 

s/m3

). Acceptable methods of calculating χ/Q for DBAs from meteorological data are set forth in 

Regulatory Guide 1.145 (NRC 1983).

Table 5-15 lists χ/Q values pertinent to the environmental review of DBAs for the proposed 

VCSNS site. Smaller χ/Q values are associated with greater dilution capability. The first 

column lists the time periods and boundaries for which χ/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 period (i.e., 2 hours), and for the low-population zone, they are 

calculated for the course of the accident (i.e., 30 days composed of four time periods). The 

second column lists the χ/Q values for the SCE&G’s site (SCE&G 2010a); these values are 

calculated at the exclusion area boundary and low-population zone using 2 years of 

meteorological data (January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2008) for the SCE&G site. A 

ground-level release was defined to occur at any point on the periphery of a circular area that 

encompassed the shield buildings for proposed Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2009p). Building wake 

effects were not taken into account (SCE&G 2010a), thereby resulting in more conservative 

(higher) estimates of χ/Q.

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

Time Period and Boundary χ/Q (s/m3

)

0 to 2 hr, exclusion area boundary 9.46 × 10-5

0 to 8 hr, low-population zone 1.07 × 10-5

8 to 24 hr, low-population zone 8.67 × 10-6

1 to 4 d, low-population zone 5.52 × 10-6

4 to 30 d, low-population zone 2.89 × 10-6

Source: SCE&G 2010a

The NRC staff reviewed the meteorological data used by SCE&G and the method used to 

calculate the atmospheric dispersion factors. Based on these reviews, the NRC staff concludes 

that the atmospheric dispersion factors for the VCSNS site are acceptable for use in evaluating 

potential environmental consequences of postulated DBAs for the AP1000 reactor design at the 

VCSNS site.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-82 April 2011

Table 5-16 lists the set of DBAs considered by SCE&G and presents NRC staff estimates of the 

environmental consequences of each accident in terms of total effective dose equivalent 

(TEDE). TEDE is estimated by the sum of the committed effective dose equivalent from 

inhalation and the effective 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 effective dose equivalent.

The NRC staff reviewed SCE&G’s selection of DBAs by comparing the accidents listed in the 

COL application with the DBAs considered in Revision 17 of the AP1000 DCD, which is 

currently in the design-certification process. The DBAs in the ER are the same set as those 

considered in this design certification, therefore the NRC staff concludes that the set of DBAs is

appropriate. 

There are no environmental criteria related to the potential consequences of DBAs. 

Consequently, the review criteria used in the NRC staff’s safety review of DBA doses are 

included in Table 5-16 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.

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

Accident

Standard 

Review Plan 

Section(b)

TEDE in rem(a)

EAB(c) LPZ(d)

Review 

Criterion

Main steam line break 15.1.5

 Pre-existing iodine spike 9.5 × 10-2 1.9 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+1(e)

 Accident-initiated iodine spike 1.0 × 10-1 5.2 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+0(f)

Steam generator tube rupture 15.6.3

 Pre-existing iodine spike 2.1 × 10-1 2.7 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+1(e)

 Accident-initiated iodine spike 1.0 × 10-1 1.8 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+0(f)

Loss-of-coolant accident 15.6.5 4.6 × 10+0 1.1 × 10+0 2.5 × 10+1(e)

Rod ejection 15.4.8 3.4 × 10-1 1.2 × 10-1 6.25 × 10+0(f)

Reactor coolant pump rotor seizure (locked rotor) 15.3.3

 No feedwater 7.6 × 10-2 8.3 × 10-3 2.5 × 10+0(f)

 Feedwater available 5.7 × 10-2 1.7 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+0(f)

Failure of small lines carrying primary coolant outside 

containment

15.6.2 2.0 × 10-1 2.2 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+0(f)

Fuel handling 15.7.4 4.9 × 10-1 5.5 × 10-2 6.25 × 10+0(f)

(a) To convert rem to Sv, divide by 100.

(b) NUREG-0800 (NRC 2007)

(c) EAB = exclusion area boundary.

(d) LPZ = low-population zone.

(e) 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1) and 10 CFR 100.21 criteria.

(f) Standard Review Plan criterion.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-83 NUREG-1939

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 AP1000 reactor design with adjustment for VCSNS site-specific 

characteristics. The NRC staff also performed its own independent DBA analysis. The results 

of the SCE&G and the NRC staff analyses indicate that the environmental consequences 

associated with DBAs, if an AP1000 reactor were to be located at the VCSNS site, would be 

small. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences of DBAs at 

the VCSNS site would be SMALL for an AP1000 reactor.

5.11.2 Severe Accidents

In its ER, SCE&G considers the potential consequences of severe accidents for an AP1000 

reactor at the VCSNS 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.

SCE&G’s consequence assessment is based on the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) for 

Revision 15 of the AP1000 design (Westinghouse 2005), which is certified in 10 CFR Part 52, 

Appendix D. Westinghouse subsequently upgraded and updated the PRA model; however, 

Westinghouse reviewed the AP1000 PRA report submitted with Revision 15 of the DCD and 

concluded that the reported results and insights remain valid for proposed revisions of the DCD 

(Westinghouse 2010). The NRC staff evaluated the current PRA model and its results using 

“Probabilistic Risk Assessment Information to Support Design Certification and Combined 

License Applications” (DC/COL-ISG-3; NRC 2008a), and concluded that the Revision 15 results 

remain conservative and are an acceptable basis for evaluating severe accidents and strategies 

for mitigating them. SCE&G is required by regulation to upgrade and update the PRA prior to 

fuel loading. At that time, the NRC staff expects the PRA to be site-specific and that it will no 

longer use the bounding assumptions of the design-specific PRA.

The SCE&G evaluation (SCE&G 2010a) of the potential environmental consequences for the 

atmospheric and surface-water pathways incorporates the results of the Melcor Accident 

Consequence Code System (MACCS2) computer code Version 1.13 (Chanin and Young 1997) 

using AP1000 reactor source-term information and site-specific meteorological, population, and 

land-use data. SCE&G provided the NRC with copies of the input and output files for the 

MACCS2 computer code runs (SCE&G 2009q). The NRC staff reviewed the input and output 

files, ran confirmatory calculations, and determined that SCE&G’s results are reasonable.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-84 April 2011

The MACCS computer code was developed to evaluate the potential offsite consequences of 

severe accidents for the sites covered by NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). The MACCS2 code 

evaluates 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 and skin, inhalation of material in the passing plume and resuspended from the 

ground, and ingestion of contaminated food and surface water.

Three types of severe accident consequences were assessed in the MACCS2 analysis: 

(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 healthrisk estimates are based on the population distribution within a 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. Farmland 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 0.5 rem/yr if not reduced by decontamination 

and that would have a dose rate following decontamination of less than 0.5 rem/yr. 

Decontaminated land is not necessarily suitable for farming.

Risk is the product of the probability and the consequences of an accident. For example, the 

probability of a severe accident without loss of containment for an AP1000 reactor at the 

VCSNS site is estimated to be 2.2 × 10-7

/Ryr, and the cumulative population dose associated 

with a severe accident without loss of containment at the VCSNS site is calculated to be 

5.91 × 10+3 person-rem. The population dose risk for this class of accidents is the product of 

2.2 × 10-7

/Ryr and 5.91 × 10+3 person-rem, or 1.30 × 10-3 person-rem/Ryr. 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. SCE&G 

plans to build two AP1000 reactors on the VCSNS site. The consequences of a severe 

accident would be the same regardless of whether one or two AP1000 reactors were built at the 

VCSNS site. However, if two AP1000 reactors were built, the risks would apply to each reactor, 

and the total risk for the two new reactors at the site would be double the risk for a single 

reactor. A discussion of these risks is presented in the following sections.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-85 NUREG-1939

5.11.2.1 Estimated Risks of Releases to the Air Pathway

The MACCS2 code directly estimates consequences associated with releases to the air 

pathway. The risks calculated from the results of the MACCS2 runs are presented in 

Table 5-17 (SCE&G 2010a). The core damage frequencies (CDFs) 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 CDFs for externally initiated events and during shutdown 

are discussed later.

Table 5-17 shows that the risks of severe accidents for an AP1000 reactor located on the 

VCSNS site are small for all risk categories considered. For perspective, Table 5-18 and 

Table 5-19 compare the health risks from severe accidents for an AP1000 reactor at the 

VCSNS site with the risks for current-generation reactors at various sites and with an AP1000 

reactor at the North Anna, Clinton, Grand Gulf, and Vogtle Early Site Permit sites. Table 5-19

also provides the CDFs and population dose risk for the existing Unit 1 reactor at the VCSNS 

site.

In Table 5-18, the health risks estimated for an AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site are 

compared with health-risk estimates for the five reactors considered in NUREG-1150 

(NRC 1990). Although risks associated with both internally and externally initiated events were 

considered for the Peach Bottom and Surry reactors in NUREG-1150, only risks associated with 

internally initiated events are presented in Table 5-18. Table 5-18 also compares health risks of 

an AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site with health risks for an AP1000 reactor at four Early Site 

Permit sites (NRC 2006a, b, c, 2008b).

The last two columns of Table 5-18 provide average individual fatality risk estimates. To put 

these estimates into context for the environmental analysis, the NRC 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 do 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 (51 FR 30028):

• 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-1939

5-86 April 2011

Table 5-17. Mean Environmental Risks from an AP1000 Reactor Severe Accident at the VCSN

Release Category Description

(Accident Class)

Core Damage 

Frequency 

(per Ryr)

Environmental Risk

Population Dose 

(personrem/Ryr)(a)

Fatalities (per Ryr) Cost(d)

($/Ryr)

Farm Land 

Decontamination(e)

(ac/Ryr)

(p

Early(b) Latent(c)

IC Intact containment 2.2 × 10-7 1.3 × 10-3 0.0 × 10+0 7.8 × 10-7 1.5 × 10-1 2.5 × 10-6 

BP Containment bypass, fission 

products released directly to 

environment 

1.1 × 10-8 8.1 × 10-2 2.2 × 10-8 5.0 × 10-5 2.2 × 10+2 2.5 × 10-3

CI Containment isolation failure 

occurs prior to onset of core 

damage

1.3 × 10-9 3.0 × 10-3 1.7 × 10-10 1.8 × 10-6 7.1 × 10+0 1.1 × 10-4

CFE Early containment failure, after 

onset of core damage but before 

core relocation

7.5 × 10-9 1.8 × 10-2 1.4 × 10-9 1.1 × 10-5 4.4 × 10+1 6.1 × 10-4

CFI Intermediate containment failure, 

after core relocation but before 24 

hours

1.9 × 10-10 6.1 × 10-4 1.0 × 10-11 3.7 × 10-7 1.7 × 10+0 3.1 × 10-5

CFL Late containment failure occurring 

after 24 hours

3.5 × 10-13 1.6 × 10-6 0.0 × 10+0 9.7 × 10-10 5.6 × 10-3 7.4 × 10-8

Total 2.4 × 10-7 1.0 × 10-1 2.4 × 10-8 6.4 × 10-5 2.7 × 10+2 3.2 × 10-3

Source: SCE&G 2010a

(a) To convert person-rem to person-Sv, divide by 100.

(b) Early fatalities are fatalities related to high doses or dose rates that generally can be expected to occur within a year of the exposure (Jow 

(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) year

(d) Cost risk includes costs associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination, interdiction, and condemnation. It does not incl

associated with health effects (Jow et al. 1990).

(e) Land risk is the area where the average whole body dose rate for the 4-year period following the accident exceeds 0.5 rem/yr but can be r

0.5 rem/yr by decontamination.
April 2011

5-87 NUREG-1939

Table 5-18. Comparison of Environmental Risks for an AP1000 Reactor at the VCSNS Site with Risks f

Generation Reactors at Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG-1150(a) and the AP1000 at Four Ea

Sites

Site

Core Damage 

Frequency 

(per Ryr)

50-mi Population 

Dose Risk (personrem/Ryr)(b)

Fatalities (per Ryr)

Average Ind

Risk 

Early Latent Early 

Grand Gulf(c) 4.0 × 10-6 5 × 10+1 8 × 10-9 9 × 10-4 3 × 10-11 

Peach Bottom(c) 4.5 × 10-6 7 × 10+2 2 × 10-8 5 × 10-3 5 × 10-11 

Sequoyah(c) 5.7 × 10-5 1 × 10+3 3 × 10-5 1 × 10-2 1 × 10-8 

Surry(c) 4.0 × 10-5 5 × 10+2 2 × 10-6 5 × 10-3 2 × 10-8 

Zion(c) 3.4 × 10-4 5 × 10+3 4 × 10-5 2 × 10-2 9 × 10-9 

AP1000(d) Reactor at the VCSNS site 2.4 × 10-7 1.0 × 10-1 2.4 × 10-8 6.4 × 10-5 1.4 × 10-10 

AP1000(e) Reactor at North Anna 2.4 × 10-7 8.3 × 10-2 1.2 x10-10 4.0 × 10-5 2.6 × 10-13 

AP1000(f) Reactor at Clinton 2.4 × 10-7 2.2 × 10-2 1.4 × 10-8 1.2 × 10-5 6.4 × 10-13 

AP1000(g) Reactor at Grand Gulf 2.4 × 10-7 1.4 × 10-2 < 1.0 × 10-12 6.9 × 10-6 <1.0 × 10-14 

AP1000(h) Reactor at Vogtle 2.4 × 10-7 2.8 × 10-2 1.9 × 10-10 1.9 × 10-5 1.6 × 10-12 

(a) NRC (1990)

(b) To convert person-rem to person-Sv, divide by 100.

(c) Risks were calculated using the MACCS code and presented in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990).

(d) ER (SCE&G 2010a)

(e) NUREG-1811 (NRC 2006a)

(f) NUREG-1815 (NRC 2006b)

(g) NUREG-1817 (NRC 2006c) 

(h) NUREG-1872 (NRC 2008b) 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-88 April 2011

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

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

Events for Current Plants Undergoing Operating License Renewal Review and 

Environmental Risks of the AP1000 Reactor at Other Sites

Core Damage Frequency 

(per year)

50-mi Population Dose Risk 

(person-rem/Ryr)(a)

Current reactor maximum(b) 2.4 × 10-4 6.9 × 10+1

Current reactor mean(b) 2.7 × 10-5 1.6 × 10+1

Current reactor median(b) 1.6 × 10-5 1.3 × 10+1

Current reactor minimum(b) 1.9 × 10-6 3.4 × 10-1

VCSNS Unit 1 (Existing Reactor)(c) 5.6 × 10-5 1.0 × 10+0

AP1000(d) reactor at VCSNS 2.4 × 10-7 1.0 × 10-1

AP1000(e) reactor at North Anna 2.4 × 10-7 8.3 × 10-2

AP1000(f) reactor at Clinton 2.4 × 10-7 2.2 × 10-2

AP1000(g) reactor at Grand Gulf 2.4 × 10-7 1.4 × 10-2

AP1000(h) reactor at Vogtle 2.4 × 10-7 2.8 × 10-2

(a) To convert person-rem to person-Sv, divide by 100.

(b) Based on MACCS and MACCS2 calculations for 76 current-generation plants at 44 sites.

(c) NUREG-1437 Supplement 15 (NRC 2004a)

(d) Calculated with MACCS2 code using VCSNS site-specific input.

(e) NUREG-1811 (NRC 2006a)

(f) NUREG-1815 (NRC 2006b)

(g) NUREG-1817 (NRC 2006c)

(h) NUREG-1872 (NRC 2008b) 

The following quantitative health objectives are used when 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 4.0 × 10-4

/yr, including a 1.6 × 10-4/yr risk 

associated with transportation accidents (NSC 2006). One-tenth of 1 percent of these 

figures implies that the individual risk of prompt fatality from a reactor accident should be 

less than 4 × 10-7

/Ryr. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-89 NUREG-1939

• “The sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes” for an individual is taken to 

be the cancer fatality rate in the United States, which is about 1 in 500 or 2 × 10-3/yr (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 × 10-6

/Ryr.

MACCS2 calculates average individual early and latent cancer fatality risks. The average 

individual early fatality risk is calculated using the population distribution within 1 mi of the plant 

boundary. The average individual latent cancer fatality risk is calculated using the population 

distribution within 10 mi of the plant. For the plants considered in NUREG-1150, these risks 

were well below the Commission’s safety goals. Risks calculated by SCE&G for the AP1000 

reactor design at the VCSNS site are also well below the Commission’s safety goals.

The NRC staff compared the CDF and population dose risk estimate for an AP1000 reactor at 

the VCSNS site with statistics summarizing the results of severe accident analyses performed 

for 76 current-generation reactors at 44 sites. The results of these analyses are included in the 

final site-specific Supplements 1 through 30 to the NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), and in the ERs 

included with license renewal applications for the plants for which supplements have not been 

published. All of the analyses were completed after publication of NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990) 

and the analyses for 72 of the reactors used MACCS2, which was released in 1997. Table 5-17

shows that the CDF estimated for the AP1000 reactor is significantly lower than those of 

current-generation reactors. Similarly, the population doses estimated for a Westinghouse 

AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site are well below the mean and median values for currentgeneration reactors undergoing license renewal and an order of magnitude lower than the 

existing VCSNS Unit 1 reactor. 

Finally, the population dose risk from a severe accident for an AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS 

site, 1.0 × 10-1 person-rem/Ryr, may be compared with the dose risk for normal operation of a 

single AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site, 5.8 × 100 person-rem/Ryr (SCE&G 2010a); 

comparatively, the population dose risk for a severe accident is small.

5.11.2.2 Estimated Risks of Releases to Surface-Water Pathways

Surface-water dose pathways are an extension of the air pathway. These pathways cover the 

effects of radioactive material deposited on open bodies of water and include ingestion of water 

and aquatic foods as well as water submersion and activities occurring near the water. Of these 

surface-water pathways, the MACCS2 code evaluates the ingestion of contaminated water. 

The risks associated with this pathway were calculated for the VCSNS site and are included in 

the last column of Table 5-17. The water-ingestion dose risk of about 6.4 × 10-3 person-rem/Ryr 

is small compared with the total dose risk of 1.0 × 10-1 person-rem/Ryr.

The Broad River and Monticello Reservoir are used for fishing as well as other general 

recreational activities, such as swimming and boating. Doses from these surface-water 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-90 April 2011

pathways are not modeled in MACCS2. Population exposure risk from aquatic food ingestion 

was considered in NUREG-1437 for license renewals of current-generation reactors (NRC 

1996). In the analysis, nuclear plants were categorized as being sited on an estuary, one of the 

Great Lakes, a small river, or a large river. Exposure risk was then compared with that of the 

Fermi plant, located on Lake Erie, for which an analysis of an uninterdicted dose had been 

completed (NRC 1981). For the purpose of evaluating the surface-water pathway, the existing 

VCSNS site was classified as being on a small river (NRC 1996). For small river sites, the 

population dose from the aquatic food pathway was well below the population dose from the air 

pathway. 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 food pathway. If a severe accident occurred at an AP1000 reactor located at the 

VCSNS site, Federal, State, and local officials would likely restrict access to affected water 

areas. These interdiction actions would further reduce potential surface-water pathway 

exposures. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the population dose risk from surface-water 

pathways at the VCSNS site likely would be a small fraction of the air pathway risk.

5.11.2.3 Estimated Risks of Releases to the Groundwater Pathway

The groundwater pathway involves a reactor core melt, reactor vessel failure, and penetration of 

the floor (basemat) below the reactor vessel. Ultimately, core debris reaches groundwater 

where soluble radionuclides are transported with the groundwater. In the NUREG-1437 

(NRC 1996), the NRC staff assumed that the probability of a severe accident with basemat 

penetration was 1 × 10-4

/Ryr and concluded that the groundwater contribution to risk is generally 

a small fraction of the risk attributable to the atmospheric pathway. The SCE&G ER 

(SCE&G 2010a) summarizes the discussion in NUREG-1437 and reaches the same conclusion.

The NRC staff has re-evaluated its assumption of a 1 × 10-4 Ryr-1 probability of a basemat meltthrough. The NRC staff believes that the 1 × 10-4 probability is too large for new power stations. 

Design elements have been included in the AP1000 design to minimize the potential for reactor 

core debris to reach groundwater. These elements include external reactor vessel cooling and 

ex-vessel core debris cooling. Furthermore, the probability of core melt with basemat meltthrough should be no larger than the total CDF estimate for the reactor. Table 5-17 gives a total 

CDF estimate of 2.4 × 10-7 Ryr-1 for an AP1000 reactor. NUREG-1150 indicates that the 

conditional probability of a basemat melt-through ranges from 0.05 to 0.25 for currentgeneration reactors. If the CDF for AP1000 severe accidents in which containment remains 

intact are subtracted from the total AP1000 CDF to get the CDF for severe accidents in which 

basemat melt-through is a possibility, the CDF is on the order of 2 × 10-8

/Ryr. On this basis, the 

NRC staff believes that a basemat melt-through probability of 2 × 10-8

/Ryr is reasonable and 

still conservative.

The groundwater pathway is more tortuous and affords more time for implementing protective 

actions than the atmospheric pathway and, therefore, results in a lower risk to the public. As a 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-91 NUREG-1939

result, the NRC staff concludes that the risks associated with releases to groundwater are low 

and that they would not have a significant effect on the overall plant risk.

5.11.2.4 Estimated Risks of Releases Related to External Events

The analyses described above are specifically for internally initiated events. The AP1000 

reactor vendor and the NRC staff have addressed three externally initiated events during design 

certification of the AP1000 reactor: seismic, internal fire, and internal flooding events. The 

analyses are described Section 19.1.5 of the Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER) for the 

AP1000 reactor (NRC 2004b).

With respect to seismic events, the AP1000 reactor vendor performed a PRA-based seismic 

margin analysis. This analysis indicated that there is a high confidence (95 percent) that safety 

systems and components would survive a 0.5-g peak acceleration during a seismic event. The 

safe-shutdown earthquake for the AP1000 reactor design is 0.3 g. Consequently, the NRC staff 

concluded in the FSER that the AP1000 reactor design is acceptable (NRC 2004b).

With respect to internal fires, the AP1000 reactor vendor estimated the fire-induced CDFs to be 

about 5.6 × 10-8

/yr during power operation and about 8 × 10-8/yr during shutdown, and the 

vendor considers these estimates to be conservative. While the staff believes that such a 

conclusion is not possible without a detailed PRA, the NRC staff, in its safety review, did 

conclude that the 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 (NRC 2004b). 

With respect to internal flooding, the 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, where detailed information was not 

available, made conservative assumptions to bound the flooding analysis. In its safety review, 

the NRC staff found that this analysis was adequate to identify potential vulnerabilities and to 

provide insight into the design that 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 × 10-9

/yr. The CDF from internal floods when the plant is shutdown is 

estimated to be about 3.2 × 10-9

/yr. The vendor considers these estimates to be conservative. 

While the staff believes that such a conclusion is not possible without a detailed PRA, the NRC 

staff, in its safety review, did conclude that the AP1000 reactor design is capable of 

withstanding severe accident challenges from internal floods in a manner superior to operating 

plants and is consistent with the conclusions from the vendor’s internal flood risk analysis (NRC 

2004b). 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-92 April 2011

5.11.3 Summary of Severe Accident Impacts

The SCE&G application refers to proposed Revision 17 of the AP1000 reactor certified design 

(10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D). The consequence assessment is based on the PRA for 

Revision 15 of the AP1000 design (Westinghouse 2005), which is certified in 10 CFR Part 52, 

Appendix D. Westinghouse subsequently upgraded and updated the PRA; however, 

Westinghouse reviewed the AP1000 PRA report submitted with Revision 15 of the DCD and 

concluded that the reported results and insights remain valid for proposed revisions of the DCD 

(Westinghouse 2010). The NRC staff evaluated the current PRA model and its results using 

DC/COL-ISG-3 (NRC 2008a), “Probabilistic Risk Assessment Information to Support Design 

Certification and Combined License Applications,” and concluded that the Revision 15 results 

remain conservative and are an acceptable basis for evaluating severe accidents and strategies 

for mitigating them. SCE&G is required by regulation to upgrade and update the PRA prior to 

fuel loading. At that time, the NRC staff expects the PRA to be site-specific and that it will no 

longer use the bounding assumptions of the design-specific PRA. The NRC staff concludes it is 

unlikely that the PRA would change sufficiently to cause the staff to materially change its 

conclusions related to severe accident risks. 

The NRC staff reviewed the risk analysis in the ER and conducted a confirmatory analysis of the 

probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

using the MACCS2 code. The results of both the SCE&G analysis and the NRC analysis 

indicate that the environmental risks associated with severe accidents if an AP1000 reactor 

were to be located at the VCSNS site would be small compared with risks associated with 

operation of the current-generation reactors at the VCSNS site and other sites. These risks are 

within the Commission’s safety goals. On these bases, the NRC staff concludes that the 

probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents at the VCSNS site would be SMALL for 

an AP1000 reactor.

5.11.4 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

The purpose of the evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) is to 

determine whether there are severe accident mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs), 

procedural modifications, or training activities that can be justified to further reduce the risks of 

severe accidents (NRC 2000a). SCE&G based its COL application on the AP1000 reactor 

design (see Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 52, Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design), 

which incorporates many features intended to reduce severe accident CDFs and the risks 

associated with severe accidents. The effectiveness of the AP1000 reactor design features is 

evident in Table 5-18 and Table 5-19, which compare CDFs and severe-accident risks for the 

AP1000 reactor with CDFs and risks for current-generation reactors. The CDFs and risks have 

been reduced considerably when compared with current-generation reactors.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-93 NUREG-1939

Consistent with the direction from the Commission to consider the SAMDAs at the time of 

certification, the AP1000 reactor vendor (Westinghouse 2005) and the NRC staff (NRC 2004b, 

2005a) considered a number of design alternatives for an AP1000 reactor at a generic site. The 

conclusion of the NRC staff’s review was

...that none of the potential design modifications evaluated are justified on the 

basis of benefit-cost considerations. The NRC further concludes that it is unlikely 

that any other design changes would be justified in the future on the basis of 

person–rem exposure because the estimated CDFs are very low on an absolute 

scale.

Westinghouse reviewed the AP1000 PRA for Revision 15 and concluded that the PRA remains 

valid for a proposed revision of the DCD (Westinghouse 2010); this is unchanged for Revision 

17. Furthermore, the NRC staff evaluated the current PRA using DC/COL-ISG-3 (NRC 2008a), 

“Probabilistic Risk Assessment Information to Support Design Certification and Combined 

License Applications,” and concluded that the PRA submitted with Revision 15 is a conservative 

and acceptable basis for evaluating severe accidents and strategies for mitigating them. 

Therefore, the NRC staff considers the PRA for DCD Revision 15 to be an adequate basis for a 

SAMDA analysis for an application referencing DCD Revision 17. Consequently, the NRC staff 

incorporates by reference the environmental assessment accompanying the design certification 

rulemaking for Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 52 (NRC 2005b).

Section 5.11.2 of this chapter presents the environmental risks from various classes of severe 

accidents for the VCSNS site. Site-specific information appears in SAMDA evaluations as 

population dose risk (person-rem/Ryr) and offsite economic costs ($/Ryr). The NRC staff 

considers these two elements to be the appropriate metrics to use to determine if the site 

characteristics are bounded by the site parameters in the DCD because they are calculated 

from site-specific meteorology, population distribution, and land-use data. Appendix 1B of the 

AP1000 DCD lists the population dose risk (person-rem/Ryr) used in the DCD generic SAMDA 

review. While it does not specifically list the offsite economic costs, it does include a maximum 

attainable benefit that considers offsite economic costs, onsite exposure costs, onsite cleanup 

costs, and replacement power costs in addition to the cost associated with the offsite population 

dose risk. To perform a like-kind comparison, the NRC staff used the maximum attainable 

benefit cost for the VCSNS site characteristic. The probability-weighted, mean population dose 

risks derived from Table 1B-1 and the base case maximum attainable benefit listed in 

Table 1B-4 are the metrics used by the NRC staff to determine whether the VCSNS site 

characteristics are within the site parameters specified in Appendix 1B of the AP1000 DCD.

Table 5-20 presents the comparison of the VCSNS site-specific values (SCE&G 2010a) with the 

generic values from Appendix 1B of the AP1000 DCD (Westinghouse 2008). Table 5-20 shows 

that the population dose risk for the proposed VCSNS site is about 2.3 times larger than that 

listed in DCD Appendix 1B, while the maximum attainable benefit for the VCSNS site is roughly 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-94 April 2011

1.5 times greater than the DCD Appendix 1B value. Potential design modifications were 

examined further to determine if they would be cost beneficial in reducing risk at the VCSNS site.

Table 5-20. Comparison of VCSNS SAMDA Site Characteristics with Site Parameters 

Specified in AP1000 DCD, Appendix 1B 

Population Dose 

Risk, 

person-rem/Ryr

Maximum 

Attainable

Benefit

DCD Appendix 1B (internal events)(a) 4.3 × 10-2 $21,000

VCSNS site (internal events)(b) 1.0 × 10-1 $32,000

Ratio of VCSNS site-specific value to DCD value 2.3 1.52

(a) AP1000 DCD Appendix 1B (Westinghouse 2008)

(b) ER (SCE&G 2010a)

The generic AP1000 SAMDA analysis is presented in Appendix 1B of the DCD (Westinghouse 

2008, Appendix 1B). Design alternatives considered by Westinghouse and their estimated 

implementation costs are presented in Table 5-21 (Westinghouse 2008). In the base-case 

analysis, the benefit-cost methodology of NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997) is used to calculate the 

maximum attainable benefit. The analysis assumes that the implementation of the design 

alternative completely eliminates all potential for core damage. For the AP1000, the maximum 

attainable benefit was valued at $21,000 (Westinghouse 2008). Only one design alternative in 

Table 5-21 – the self-actuating containment isolation valves – has a cost ($33,000) that is 

comparable to the maximum attainable benefit. To evaluate the benefit of this SAMDA, the 

design change was assumed to eliminate the Containment Isolation severe accident release 

category, which is only a small contributor to the total CDF. Therefore, this design alternative 

provides almost no benefit in reducing the AP1000 CDF.

The SCE&G ER (SCE&G 2010a) updates the SAMDA analysis conducted for AP1000 design 

certification using the results of the VCSNS site-specific consequence analysis (MACCS2) that 

are discussed in Section 5.11.2. The results of the SCE&G analysis indicate that the maximum 

attainable benefit, if the total risk for internal events for the VCSNS site could be reduced to 

zero, has a value of approximately $32,000 (SCE&G 2010a). Similar to the finding in the 

AP1000 DCD SAMDA analysis, only the self-actuating containment isolation valves design 

alternative (Table 5-21) has a value comparable to the maximum attainable benefit for the 

VCSNS site. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-95 NUREG-1939

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

No. Design Alternative Cost ($)

1 Upgrade chemical, volume, and control system for small loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 1,500,000

2 Containment filtered vent 5,000,000

3 Self-actuating containment isolation valves 33,000

4 Safety grade passive containment spray 3,900,000

6 Steam generator shell-side heat removal 1,300,000

7 Steam generator relief flow to in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) 620,000

8 Increased steam generator pressure capability 8,200,000

9 Secondary containment ventilation with filtration 2,200,000

10 Diverse IRWST injection valves 570,000

12 Ex-vessel core catcher 1,660,000

13 High-pressure containment design 50,000,000

14 More reliable diverse actuation system 470,000

Source: Westinghouse 2008

Table 5-17, which lists the mean environmental risks from an AP1000 reactor severe accident at 

the VCSNS site, shows that the containment isolation severe accident category only contributes 

a small fraction to the total population dose and cost risk (approximately 3 percent each) at the 

VCSNS site. Assuming that implementation of the self-actuating containment isolation valves 

completely eliminates the risks associated with this release category, then the value of the 

reduction in risk would only be about $960. Thus, the site-specific SAMDA review conducted by 

SCE&G confirms the results of the design certification SAMDA review. Although the dose risk 

for the VCSNS site exceeds the DCD value, the site-specific SAMDA analysis for the VCSNS 

site shows that the resulting design alternative (self-actuating containment isolation valves) 

would only reduce this total risk by a small fraction. The next lowest cost design alternative has 

more than an order-of-magnitude higher cost than the self-actuating containment isolation 

valves. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that, in fact, there are no potential design 

modifications that are justified on the basis of benefit-cost considerations, and it is unlikely that 

any other design changes would be justified in the future on the basis of person-rem exposure 

because the estimated CDFs are very low on an absolute scale.

The PRA upon which the AP1000 and SCE&G severe accident reviews are based was 

conducted for Revision 15 of the AP1000 design. Westinghouse subsequently upgraded and 

updated the PRA; however, Westinghouse reviewed the AP1000 PRA report submitted with 

Revision 15 of the DCD and concluded that the reported results and insights remain valid for 

proposed revisions of the DCD (Westinghouse 2010). The NRC staff evaluated the current 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-96 April 2011

PRA model and its results using DC/COL-ISG-3 (NRC 2008a), “Probabilistic Risk Assessment 

Information to Support Design Certification and Combined License Applications,” and concluded 

that the Revision 15 results remain conservative and are an acceptable basis for evaluating 

severe accidents and strategies for mitigating them. SCE&G is required by regulation to update 

the PRA prior to fuel loading. The NRC staff expects the PRA to be site-specific rather than use 

the bounding assumptions used for the design-specific PRA. The NRC staff considers it 

unlikely that the PRA would change sufficiently to cause the NRC staff to conclude that any 

SAMDA considered in the design-certification process would become cost beneficial.

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 yet been addressed by 

SCE&G. However, SCE&G has stated (SCE&G 2010a) that risk insights would be considered 

in the development of plant procedures and training. Because the maximum attainable benefit 

is so low, a SAMA based on procedures or training for an AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site

would have to reduce the CDF or risk to near zero to become cost beneficial. Based on its 

evaluation, the staff concludes that it is unlikely that any of the SAMAs based on procedures or 

training would reduce the CDF or risk that much. Therefore, the staff further concludes it is 

unlikely that these SAMAs would be cost effective. Additionally, based on statements by 

SCE&G in the ER (SCE&G 2010a), the staff expects that SCE&G will consider risk insights in 

the development of procedures and training. However, this expectation is not crucial to the 

staff’s conclusions because the staff already concluded procedural and training SAMAs would 

be unlikely to be cost effective. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that SAMAs have been 

appropriately considered.

5.11.5 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts

The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts from DBAs and severe accidents for an 

AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the 

NRC’s own independent review, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental 

impacts (risks) from a postulated accident from the operation of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 

and 3 would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted.

5.12 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts 

During Operation

In its evaluation of environmental impacts during operation of proposed Units 2 and 3 at the 

VCSNS site, the review team relied on SCE&G’s compliance with the following measures and 

controls that 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 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-97 NUREG-1939

management, erosion and sediment control, air emissions, noise control, stormwater 

management, spill response and cleanup, hazardous material management)

• compliance with applicable requirements of permits or licenses required for operation of the 

new unit (e.g., USACE’s Section 404 Permit, NPDES)

• compliance with existing VCSNS Unit 1 processes and/or procedures applicable to proposed 

Units 2 and 3 environmental compliance activities for the VCSNS site (e.g., solid waste 

management, hazardous waste management, and spill prevention and response)

• incorporation of environmental requirements into construction contracts

• implementation of BMPs.

The review team considered these measures and controls in its evaluation of the impacts of 

plant operation. Table 5-22 lists a summary of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts 

during operation proposed by SCE&G.

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

Impacts During Operation of Proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS Site

Impact Category Specific Measures and Control

Land-Use Impacts

The site and vicinity SCE&G did not propose any additional measures or controls

Transmission-line corridors and offsite 

areas

• Vegetation maintenance practices within affected corridors 

would protect sensitive habitats and protected species, 

including wetlands and water crossings.

Historic properties and cultural resources • Before site disturbance, conduct archaeological surveys.

• Continue to have a fence barrier around Pearson Cemetery.

• Continue any applicable mitigation measures for any 

National Register-eligible sites

• USACE management agreement with SHPO and 

applicants.

• Conduct earth-disturbing activities under existing 

procedures that prescribe actions to be taken in the event 

that significant archaeological or paleontological artifacts 

are encountered.

• Conduct awareness training for procedures associated with 

inadvertent discoveries.

Water-related impacts

Water-use impacts • Monitor hydrologic impacts as required by NPDES permit.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-98 April 2011

Table 5-22. (contd)

Impact Category Specific Measures and Control

Water-quality impacts • Monitor constituent emissions as required by NPDES 

permit.

• Implement SCE&G’s Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Plan.

• Conduct stormwater monitoring as required by stormwater 

permit.

Future water use SCE&G did not propose any additional measures or controls

Cooling system impacts

Intake system:

Hydrodynamic descriptions and physical 

impacts

• Design and operate intake structures based on best 

available technology.

Aquatic ecosystems • Continue voluntary monitoring program for water quality in 

Monticello Reservoir.

Discharge system:

Thermal description and other physical 

impacts

• Implement planned design that alternates discharge 

orientation.

Aquatic ecosystems SCE&G did not propose any additional measures or controls

Terrestrial ecosystems SCE&G did not propose any additional measures or controls

Impacts on members of the public • No mitigation for noise will be required.

• Control personnel and public access to the cooling towers 

by administrative controls and security patrols. Implement 

procedure to reduce the risk associated with exposure to 

thermophilic microorganisms by providing work practices 

and personal protective equipment to eliminate routes of 

exposure to thermophilic microorganisms that may 

produce illnesses.

Radiological impacts of normal operation

Exposure pathways • Implement radiological monitoring program as required.

Radiation doses to members of the 

public

• Conduct radiological monitoring program as required.

Impacts on members of the public • Conduct meteorological monitoring.

Impacts on biota other than members of 

the public

• Conduct radiological monitoring program as required.

Environmental impact of waste

Nonradioactive waste system impacts • All discharges would comply with NPDES permit and 

applicable water-quality standards.

• Implement existing VCSNS waste-minimization program at 

new units.

Mixed waste impacts • Implement existing VCSNS waste-minimization program at 

new units.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-99 NUREG-1939

Table 5-22. (contd)

Impact Category Specific Measures and Control

Waste minimization • Implement existing VCSNS waste-minimization program at 

new units.

Radioactive waste • Implement existing VCSNS waste-minimization program at 

new units.

Terrestrial ecosystems • Train personnel in the handling of fuel and lubricants and 

the cleanup and reporting of any incidental spills.

• Have adequate spill response equipment on hand during 

maintenance activities in the corridors.

• Maintenance practices would protect sensitive habitats and 

protected species, including wetland and water crossings.

Aquatic ecosystems • Implement existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper procedures 

intended to prevent impacts on water quality and be 

protective of wetlands and stream crossings, including 

restriction of heavy equipment to prevent erosion, use of 

approved herbicides only, and spill-prevention practices 

when fueling or lubricating equipment.

Impacts on members of the public • Build new transmission lines to national electrical standards 

to limit shock from induced currents.

Socioeconomic impacts

Physical impacts of proposed units • Pave access roads and set speed limits for vehicle traffic to 

minimize noise impacts.

Social and economic impacts of 

proposed units

• Stagger outage schedules to minimize traffic congestion.

• Before the start of Unit 2 operation, develop an operations 

management traffic plan.

• Minimize the visual impact of the structures through use of 

topography, design, materials, and color.

Environmental justice • No mitigation would be required.

Decommissioning

Decommissioning • Continue applicable mitigation measures used during the 

operations period for decommissioning activities or for 

transportation of waste and materials to disposal sites.

• SCE&G would assure that adequate funding for 

decommissioning would be available.

Transportation of radioactive waste

Transportation of radioactive waste • No mitigation would be required.

Nonradiological health impacts

Nonradiological health impacts • Implement existing SCE&G industrial safety program at 

Units 2 and 3.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-100 April 2011

5.13 Summary of Operational Impacts 

The review team’s evaluation of the environment impacts of operations is summarized in 

Table 5-23. Impact level categories are denoted in the table 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. 

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

Category Comments Impact Level

Land-use impacts SMALL

The site and vicinity Operational activities would have minimal 

impact on land use on the site.

SMALL

Transmission-line corridors Operational activities would have minimal 

impact on land use on or along transmissionline corridors.

SMALL

Water-related impacts SMALL

Water use Operational activities would have negligible 

impacts on groundwater availability and small 

impacts on surface-water availability.

SMALL

Water quality Operational activities would have negligible 

impacts on surface and groundwater quality.

SMALL

Ecological impacts SMALL

Terrestrial and wetland

ecosystems

Operational activities would have minimal 

impact on terrestrial and wetland ecological 

resources and habitat.

SMALL

Aquatic ecosystems Operational activities would have minimal 

impact on aquatic ecological resources and 

habitat.

SMALL

Socioeconomic impacts SMALL to 

LARGE 

(beneficial)

Physical impacts Operational activities would have negligible 

physical impacts.

SMALL

Demography Operational activities would have minimal 

demographic characteristics of the vicinity and 

region.

SMALL

Economic impacts on the

community

Operational activities would have substantial 

tax revenue impacts in Fairfield County.

LARGE 

(beneficial)
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-101 NUREG-1939

Table 5-23. (contd)

Category Comments Impact Level

Infrastructure and community

service

Operational activities would have negligible 

impacts on local and regional transportation 

networks, recreation resources, housing, public 

services, or education.

SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL

Health and physical impacts No disproportionate and adverse health or 

physical impacts to low-income and minority 

populations would be expected from 

operations

SMALL

Socioeconomic No disproportionate and adverse impacts on 

any minority or low-income population would 

be expected from operations

SMALL

Subsistence and special

conditions

No disproportionate and adverse impacts on 

any minority or low-income population would 

be expected from operations

SMALL

Historic and cultural resources Operational activities would have minimal 

impact on historic and cultural resources. 

SMALL.

Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts SMALL

Cooling towers Operational activities would not have a 

significant meteorological or air quality impacts

SMALL

Air quality Operational activities would not have a 

significant meteorological or air quality impacts

SMALL

Transmission lines Operational activities would not have a 

significant meteorological or air quality impacts

SMALL

Nonradiological health impacts Operational activities would not have 

significant nonradiological health impacts to 

the public

SMALL

Radiological health impacts SMALL

Members of public Operational activities would result in no 

observable radiological health impacts to the 

public

SMALL

VCSNS workers Occupational doses to workers would be within 

regulatory limits

SMALL

Biota other than humans Doses to terrestrial and aquatic biota would be 

far below IAEA guidelines

SMALL

Nonradioactive waste impacts Solid, liquid, gaseous, and mixed wastes 

generated during operations would be handled 

according to county, State, and Federal 

regulations.

SMALL
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-102 April 2011

Table 5-23. (contd)

Category Comments Impact Level

Impacts of postulated accidents SMALL

Design basis accidents The environmental consequences of DBAs 

would not be significant

SMALL

Severe accidents The environmental risks of severe accidents 

are well below the NRC safety criteria

SMALL

5.14 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 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 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, 

“Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.”

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants; 

Policy Statement Correction and Republication.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-103 NUREG-1939

67 FR 44502. July 2, 2002. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

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.

Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR). 2006. Power Frequency Electromagnetic 

Fields, Melatonin and the Risk of Breast Cancer. RCE-1, Health Protection Agency, Oxford, 

UK. Available at http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1204286180274 

Accession No. ML093210326.

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

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 16 USC 668, et seq.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1997. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

United States 1996.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 45 (53):1-88. October 31, 1997.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1998. “Surveillance for WaterborneDisease Outbreaks – United States, 1995–1996.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC 

Surveillance Summaries, 47(SS-5):1-34. December 11, 1998. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases. 

United States. 1998.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47(53):1-94. December 31, 1999. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2001. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

United States 1999.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48(53):1-16. April 6, 2001. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002. “Surveillance for WaterborneDisease Outbreaks – United States, 1999-2000.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 

51(SS-8):1-48. November 22, 2002. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2003. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases –

United States, 2001.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 50(53):1-22. May 2, 2003.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2004. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases –

United States, 2002.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51 (53):1:77. April 30, 2004.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-104 April 2011

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2005. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases –

United States, 2003.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 52(54):1-85. April 22, 2005.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2006. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases –

United States, 2004.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 53(53):1-79. June 16, 2006. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases –

United States, 2005.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54(53):2-92. March 30, 2007.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2008. “Primary Amebic 

Meningoencephalitis – Arizona, Florida, and Texas, 2007.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 

Report, 57(21):573-577. May 30, 2008. 

Chanin D.I. and M.L. Young. 1997. Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume 1, User’s Guide. 

NUREG/CR-6613, Vol. 1, SAND97-0594. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

D.C. 

Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1996. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

IV July 1, 1995 – June 30, 1996. Annual Progress Report F-63-1-4. South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300698.

Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1997. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

IV July 1, 1996 – June 30, 1997. Annual Progress Report F-63-3-4, South Carolina Department 

of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300700. 

Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1998. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

IV. Annual Progress Report F-63, July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300704.

Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1999. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

IV. July 1. 1998 through June 30, 1999. Annual Progress Report F-63-4-4, South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300706.

Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401, et seq.

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act [FWPCA]).

Coutant, C.C. 1976. “Thermal Effects on Fish Ecology.” In Encyclopedia of Environmental 

Science and Engineering Vol 2. W. & G. Baird, Ltd., Northern Ireland.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-105 NUREG-1939

Dames and Moore 1985. 316(b) Demonstration for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. Job No. 5182-108-09. Accession No. ML090630369.

Eckerman, K.F., A.B. Wolbarst, and A.C.B. Richardson. 1988. Limiting Values of Radionuclide 

Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors For Inhalation, Submersion, and 

Ingestion, Federal Guidance Report No. 11. EPA-520/1-880020. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML052290105.

Eckerman, K.F. and J.C. Ryman. 1993. Federal Guidance Report No. 12, External Exposure to 

Radionuclides in Air, Water and Soil. EPA-402-R—93-081, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). 16 USC 1531, et. seq.

Facilities Planning & Siting, PLLC (FP&S). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 

Transmission Line Siting Study SCE&G. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas 

(SCE&G). Accession No. ML082680277.

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. “Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects.” Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231.

Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec). 2005. Final Report Comprehensive 316(b) 

Demonstration Study Proposal for Information Collection, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. 

Prepared for SCE&G, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML091890159.

Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec). 2007. Preliminary Report of Fish Impingement Mortality 

at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Prepared for SCE&G, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML091890160.

Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S.Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data 

Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. 42 USC 6901.

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). 2007. The 2007 

Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP 

Publication No. 103. Annals of the ICRP 37(2-4). Accession No. ML080790301. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-106 April 2011

Jablon, S., Z. Hrubec, J.D. Boice Jr., and B.J. Stone. 1990. Cancer in Populations Living near 

Nuclear Facilities. NIH Pub. No. 90-874, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 

Washington, D.C.

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; SAND-86-1562, 

Vol. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Kellog, R.L. and J.J. Gift. 1983. “Relationship Between Optimum Temperatures for Growth and 

Preferred Temperatures for the Young of Four Fish Species.” Transactions of the America 

Fisheries Society 112:424-430.

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper. Prepared for Santee Cooper. 

Raleigh, North Carolina. Accession No. ML082680275.

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2009. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper—Revision #1. Prepared for 

Santee Cooper. Raleigh, North Carolina. Accession No. ML102160577. 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2010. Summary of Federally Protected 

Species Survey V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 New Santee Cooper Transmissions 

Lines. Accession No. ML103220140. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. 16 USC 703, et seq.

Moulder, J.E.M. 2003. Powerlines & Cancer FAQS. Accessed June 23, 2009 at 

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/powerlines-cancer-faq/. Accession No. ML093280522.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1991. Effects of Ionizing 

Radiation on Aquatic Organisms: Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation 

Protection and Measurements. NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1995. Principles and 

Application of Collective Dose in Radiation Protection. NCRP Report No. 121, Bethesda, 

Maryland.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 2009. Ionizing Radiation 

Exposure of the Population of the United States: Recommendations of the National Council on 

Radiation Protection and Measurements. NCRP Report No. 160, Bethesda, Maryland.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-107 NUREG-1939

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health 

Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication No. 99-4493, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Available at 

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/niehs-report.pdf. Accession No. ML073240014.

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, The National Academies Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

National Safety Council (NSC). 2006. Odds of Dying. Washington, D.C. Accessed September 

21, 2009 at 

http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/Odds%20of%20Dyi

ng.pdf.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2007. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

Surveys: Draft Final Report. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. Aiken, South Carolina.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2008. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

Surveys: Summer Report Final. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. Aiken, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML091050699.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2009a. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

Surveys: Winter Report Final. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. Aiken, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML092050189.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2009b. Monticello Reservoir Ichthyoplankton 

Studies, September 2008 Through August 2009. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. Aiken, 

South Carolina. Accession No. ML092750409.

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2007. Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative – Final 

Guidance Document. NEI 07-07, Washington, DC. Accession No. ML072610036.

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2008. Generic FSAR Template Guidance for Life Cycle 

Minimization of Contamination. NEI 08-08A, Washington, DC. Accession No. ML082660100.

Palmetto Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Palmetto). 2010. Summary of Federally Protected 

Species Assessments, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 Transmission Lines, Various 

Counties, South Carolina. Lexington, South Carolina. Accession No. ML103220140. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-108 April 2011

Pike Energy Solutions LLC (Pike). 2010. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 

Transmission Line Siting Study Addendum Number 1. Prepared for South Carolina Electric & 

Gas Company. Charlotte, North Carolina. Accession No. ML102980200. 

Reed, E. 2007. Preventing and Controlling Cancer, the Nation’s Second Leading Cause of

Death, 2007. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Available at http://www.toiholliday.com/files/cancer.pdf.

Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South 

Carolina. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.

SC Code Ann. 48-1. 2009. “Pollution Control Act.” South Carolina Code Annotated.

SC Code Ann. 49-4. 2010. “South Carolina Surface Water Withdrawal and Reporting Act.” 

South Carolina Code Annotated.

Schubel, J.R., C.F. Smith, and T.S.Y. Koo. 1977. “Thermal effects of power plant entrainment 

on survival of larval fishes: a laboratory assessment.” Chesapeake Science 18(3): 290-298.

Soldat, J.K., N.M. Robinson, and D.A. Baker. 1974. Models and Computer Codes for 

Evaluating Environmental Radiation Doses. BNWL–1754, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 

Richland, Washington. Available at 

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0&osti_id=4334422/.

Solid Waste Disposal Act. 42 USC 6901, et seq.

Sott, K.R. 2006. Santee Cooper - Transmission Vegetation Management Program. Santee 

Cooper, Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090641089.

South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2010. Letter from Rebekah 

Dobrasko (State Historic Preservation Office, Review and Compliance Coordinator) to the NRC

dated May 25, 2010, “Re: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement Fairfield County, South Carolina.” Accession No. ML101540528.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2002. South 

Carolina Water Use Report 1999 and 2000 Summary Data Compilation. Bureau of Water, 

Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML093270551. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2003a. South 

Carolina Water Use Report 2001 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML093270551. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-109 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2003b. South 

Carolina Water Use Report 2002 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML093270551.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2004. South 

Carolina Water Use Report 2003 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML093270551.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2005a. South 

Carolina Water Use Report 2004 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML093270551.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2005b. Whole 

Effluent Toxicity (WET) Implementation Guidance as Relates to the South Carolina Aquatic Life 

Protection Act of 2005. Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090640972.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2006a. South 

Carolina Water Use Report 2005 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML093270551. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2006b. Part 70 

Air Quality Permit, SCE&G – Parr Combustion Facility, Parr Road, Jenkinsville, SC. South 

Carolina.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007. South 

Carolina Water Use Report 2006 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML093270551.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008. R.61-68,

Water Classifications & Standards. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/reg.htm#top.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2010. Letter from Robert D. Perry 

(SCDNR, Director, Office of Environmental Programs) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

dated July 6, 2010. “Subject: COMMENTS - Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Virgil C, 

Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3. Federal Register Notice April 23, 2010, page 21368-

21369.” Accession No. ML101960466.

South Carolina Department of Revenue (SCDOR). 2009. South Carolina Counties by Zip 

Code: Important Information About Changes to Myrtle Beach Municipal Tax Rate. ST-439 (Rev. 

8/5/09). Columbia, South Carolina. Available at http://www.sctax.org/cgibin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&EXTRA_ARG=&CFGNAME=MssFind.cfg&host_id=42&page_id=46

41&query=ST439. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-110 April 2011

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 1996. Solid Waste Management and Waste 

Minimization Plan for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Revision 2, Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina. Accession No. ML102870121. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2006a. 230kV Electric Transmission Right-of-Way 

Vegetation Management Program. Revision 2, January 3, 2006, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML090641089.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2006b. Letter from Jeffrey B. Archie, (SCE&G Vice 

President, Nuclear Operations) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated March 31, 2006, 

“Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. 

NPF-12, Annual Operating Report.” Accession No. ML060940276.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2006c. Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the Operating Period January 1, 2005 - December 

31, 2005. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML062770462. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2006d. Virgil C. Summer Jenkinsville South 

Carolina, Annual Effluent Radioactive Report for the Virgil C. Summer Station for the Operating 

Period January 1, 2005-December 31, 2005. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. 

ML061220346.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007a. Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 2006 

Annual Operating Report. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML070860335.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007b. Annual Radiological Environmental 

Operating Report, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the Operating Period January 1, 2006-

December 31, 2006. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML083020046. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007c. Annual Effluent Radioactive Release 

Report, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, for the Operating Period January 1, 2006 - December 

31, 2006. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML071100299.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007d. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual for South 

Carolina Electric and Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Rev. 26, Jenkinsville, 

South Carolina. Accession Nos. ML081280582 and ML072910571.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008a. Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 2007 

Annual Operating Report.” Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML080920137. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-111 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008b. Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the Operating Period January 1, 2007-December 

31, 2007. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML092960482. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008c. Virgil C. Summer Jenkinsville South 

Carolina, Annual Effluent Radioactive Report for the Virgil C. Summer Station for the Operating 

Period January 1, 2007-December 31, 2007. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. 

ML081280581. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 

1, 2009 in response to letters from Manny Comar (NRC) dated March 1, 2009, “Subject: Virgil 

C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined License Application (COLA) –

Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Response to NRC Request for Additional Information 

(RAI) Letter No. 041.” NND-09-0109. Accession No. ML091270890.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 

11, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: ACC-11, ALT-3, AQ-5, AQ-6, GW-11, LU-3, and SW-12.” NND-09-0126. 

Accession No. ML091350104.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

June 15, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: ALT-2 Part 2, AQ-1 Part B, GW-11 Parts 2 and 3, and LU-5.” NND-09-

0160. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-112 April 2011

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009e. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

August 17, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B, Clary dated February 13, 2009 and 

Patricia J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009. “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) requests for Additional Information (RAI): Met-3.” NND-09-0247. 

Accession No. ML092310682.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009f. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

July 13, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): Alt-3, AqEco-7, CR-3, 

GW-6, Met-1, SEcon-6, and SW-2.” NND-09-0184. Accession No. ML092010266.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009g. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

May 7, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: CR-17, 23, 24, 25, 26, GW-7 (Parts 1 and 5), SW-2, 4, 6, 10, SW-3 (Part 1), 

and T-3.” NND-09-0121. Accession No. ML091310563.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009h. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

August 7, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and 

Patricia J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): BenCost-1 and SEcon4.” NND-09-0237. Accession No. ML092230779.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009i. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

July 21, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): CR-4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10,

and TLine-1.” NND-09-0204. Accession No. ML092040676.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-113 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009j. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

July 30, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): CR-2 and 6, LU-1 and 

AqEco-1.” NND-09-0209. Accession No. ML092160247.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009k. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

July 20, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): GW-1, 2, 3, and 9 and 

HP-1 and 2, Met-2, TerEco-1, and SEcon-3.” NND-09-0203. Accession No. ML100660021.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009l. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

July 20, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): TLine-2 and 3.” NND-09-

0198. Accession No. ML092030443.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009m. Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the Operating Period January 1, 2008-December 

31, 2008. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML092860167

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009n. Letter from Jeffrey B. Archie, (SCE&G Vice 

President, Nuclear Operations) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated March 25, 2009, 

“Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. 

NPF-12, Annual Operating Report.” Accession No. ML090890289.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009o. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated 

April 29, 2009, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating 

License No. NPF-12, Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.” Accession No. 

ML091260302.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-114 April 2011

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009p. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated, 

September 16, 2009 in response to letter from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, 

“Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, 

Combined License Application- revision to ER Section 2.7 to Incorporate Two Years of 

Meteorological Data.” NND-09-0270. Accession No. ML092670578.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009q. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

April 29, 2009 in response to letter from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008, “Subject: V.C. 

Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined 

License Application – Environmental Report Audit Information Needs.” NND-09-0104. 

Accession No. ML091270517.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 2, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML101930231.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010b. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 2, Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina. Accession No. ML100360598.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010c. Letter from George A. Lippard to USNRC 

Document Control Desk, dated April 26, 2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. NPF-12, Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report.” Accession No. ML101200057. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010d. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated October 6, 2010 referencing R.B. Clary letter dated 

October 2, 2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined 

License Application – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 – Voluntary Submittal for the 

Environmental Report to Update Transmission Line Information.” NND-10-0361. Accession No. 

ML102850211. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2011. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated February 8, 2011 referencing R.B. Clary letter 

dated July 2, 2010 and email clarification from NRC dated February 1, 2011, “Subject: Virgil C. 

Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined License Application (COLA) –

Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 – Response to NRC Clarification Request Concerning 

Request for Additional Information (RAI) SW-11.” NND-11-0045. Accession No. 

ML110410190. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-115 NUREG-1939

Strenge D.L., R.A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II - Technical Reference and User 

Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Strenge D.L., T.J. Bander, and J.K. Soldat. 1987. GASPAR II - Technical Reference and User 

Guide. NUREG/CR-4653 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Toblin, R.S. 2007. Temperature Distribution in Parr Reservoir on the Broad River as a Result 

of Blowdown from Proposed 2-Unit AP1000 Operation at V.C. Summer Stations. Prepared by 

Tetra Tech NUS Inc., for South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011a. Letter from Tina Hadden (Chief, Regulatory 

Division) to Ronald B. Clary (Vice President SCE&G New Nuclear Deployment) dated January 

21, 2011, transmitting signed cultural resources management plan and agreement among the 

South Carolina Department of Archives & History, State Historic Preservation Office; the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers; and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) regarding the 

VC Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 & 3 Site and Associated New 230 KV SCE&G 

Transmission Lines. Accession No. ML110310829.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011b. Letter from Tina Hadden (Chief, Regulatory 

Division) to Ken Johnson (Supervisor Transmission Design, Santee Cooper) dated January 21, 

2011, transmitting signed Cultural Resources Management Plan For Two New Transmission 

Lines Serving The Proposed New Units at the VC Summer Nuclear Station Accession No. 

ML110310858.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008a. Table 1. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal 

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2007. Available at 

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb2071.pdf. Accession No. ML100481291.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008b. Table 6. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal 

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2007, South Carolina. 

Available at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/pr076sc.pdf.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2007. National Transportation Statistics 2007.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics. Accession No. 

ML100481244.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009a. Traffic Safety Facts, South Carolina, 2003-

2007. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. Accessed March 16, 

2009, at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd30/ncsa/STSI/45_SC/2007/45_SC_2007.htm. Accession No. ML093360621.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-116 April 2011

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009b. Traffic Safety Facts, Fairfield County, South 

Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009, at http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Fairfield%20County_2007.htm. 

Accession No. ML093360600.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009c. Traffic Safety Facts, Aiken County, South 

Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009, at http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Aiken%20County_2007.htm. 

Accession No. ML093360588.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009d. Traffic Safety Facts, Barnwell County, South 

Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009, at http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Barnwell%20County_2007.htm. 

Accession No. ML093360596.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009e. Traffic Safety Facts, Orangeburg County, 

South Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009, at http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd3...nties/South%20Carolina_Orangeburg%20County_2007.htm. Accession No. ML093360609.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009f. Traffic Safety Facts, Saluda County, South 

Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009, at http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Saluda%20County_2007.htm. 

Accession No. ML093360617.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Global Greenhouse Gas Data. Accessed 

December 15, 2009, at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html. 

Accession Nos. ML100221499 and ML100600781.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage 

Restoration Plan. Available at

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12197642.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. Charleston Ecological Services Office – Listed 

Endangered Species in South Carolina – Counties. Accessed November 25, 2008, at 

http://www.fws.gov/charleston/listedEndangeredSpecies.html. Accession No. ML100210568. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010. South Carolina List of Endangered, Threatened, 

and Candidate Species March 2010. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/endangeredSpeciescountylist.pdf.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-117 NUREG-1939

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Letter from T.D. Feaster (USGS) to S. Summer 

(SCE&G) dated March 6, 2007, providing calculation of the 7Q10 flow for Station 02161000, 

Broad River at Alston, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090630368.

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, 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 

Plants. NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Related to the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit No. 2, Docket No. 50-341, 

Addendum No. 1. NUREG-0769, Addendum No. 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for 

Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 

1.145 Rev. 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment 

for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150 Vol. 1, 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, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997 Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

Handbook, Final Report. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington D.C. Accession No. ML092870631.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000a. Alternative Radiological Source Terms 

for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.183, 

Washington, D.C.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

NUREG-1939 5-118 April 2011

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000b. Environmental Standard Review Plan–

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

Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

2002. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear 

Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, 

Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 15, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

Station, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to 

Certification of the AP1000 Standard Design. NUREG-1793, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. Final Rule – AP1000 Design Certification. 

SECY-05-0277, December 14, 2005, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. United States Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Relating to the 

Certification of the AP1000 Standard Plant Design Docket 52-006. Washington D.C. Accession 

No. ML053250292.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site Final Report, Main Report. NUREG-1811, 

Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Exelon ESP Site Final Report, Main Report. NUREG-1815, 

Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006c. Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf ESP Site Final Report, Main Report. NUREG-1817, 

Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Standard Review Plan for the Review of 

Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition. NUREG-0800, Washington, 

D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Interim Staff Guidance, Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment Information to Support Design Certification and Combined License Applications. 

DC/COL-ISG-3. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML081430675.
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site

April 2011 5-119 NUREG-1939

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Memorandum from Patricia Vokoun, 

(Project Manager) to Ryan Whited (Branch Chief) dated March 18, 2010, “Subject: Summary of

the Environmental Site Audit and Alternative Site Visit Related to the Review of the Combined 

License Application for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3.” Accession No. 

ML100480082.

Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). 2005. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 15, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

ML053480403.

Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

ML083230868.

Westinghouse Electric Company (Westinghouse). 2010. AP1000 Design Change Proposal 

Review for PRA and Severe Accident Impact. APP-PRA-GER-01, Revision 1, Technical Report 

135, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. ML093380308.

Williamson, K.L. and P.C. Nelson. 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream Flow 

Suitability Curves: Gizzard Shad. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.112). 

World Health Organization (WHO). 2007. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health. Exposure 

to Extremely Low Frequency Fields. Fact Sheet No. 322. Geneva, Switzerland. Available at 

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs322/en/print.html. Accession No. ML100481077.

April 2011 6-1 NUREG-1939

6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

This chapter addresses the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel cycle and solidwaste management, (2) the transportation of radioactive material, and (3) the decommissioning 

of two new nuclear units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site. In its evaluation 

of uranium fuel-cycle impacts from two new units at the VCSNS site, South Carolina Electric 

and Gas (SCE&G) used the Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced 

Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactor design. SCE&G’s assessment of fuel-cycle 

impacts is based on values in Table S–3 in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

51.51(b), which in turn assumes an 80-percent annual capacity factor referenced to a 

1000-MW(e) light water reactor (LWR), resulting in 800 MW of electrical output. SCE&G then 

assumed a 93-percent capacity factor for each of the two new 1200-MW(e) AP1000 reactors 

and scaled the impact values from Table S–3 by 34 percent (SCE&G 2010). The results 

reported here apply to the impacts from two AP1000 units, each with the capacity factor of 

93 percent assumed by SCE&G.

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 AP1000 reactor design. The environmental impacts of this design are 

evaluated against specific criteria for LWR designs at 10 CFR 51.51.

The regulations in 10 CFR 51.51(a) state the following: 

Under § 51.50, every environmental report prepared for the construction permit 

stage or Early Site Permit stage or combined license 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-level wastes and high-level 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. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-2 April 2011

The AP1000 reactors proposed for Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site are light-water-cooled 

reactors that use uranium dioxide fuel; therefore, Table S–3 (10 CFR 51.51(b)) can be used to 

assess the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle. Table S–3 values are normalized 

for a reference 1000-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.

Each AP1000 reactor unit is rated at 3400 MW(t) (Westinghouse 2008). Assuming that two 

AP1000 reactors would be located on the VCSNS site (SCE&G 2010), the power rating for the 

new units at the VCSNS site would be 6800 MW(t). Each AP1000 reactor unit is rated at 

1200 MW(e), of which 93 MW(e) are used for station and auxiliary loads, leaving 1107 MW(e) 

net electric output when the reactor is operating (Westinghouse 2008). With a capacity factor of 

93 percent (SCE&G 2010), each AP1000 unit produces an average of 1070 MW(e). For two 

AP1000 units, this corresponds to 2140 MW(e).

Specific categories of environmental considerations 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, high-level waste (HLW) and low-level waste (LLW), 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 irradiated (spent) fuel removed 

from a reactor. The “no-recycle” 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 for use in new fuel. 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 the operations and 

processes associated with provision, use, and ultimate disposition of fuel for nuclear power 

reactors.

Table 6-1. Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data(a)

Environmental Considerations Total

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

Natural resource use

Land (ac)

Temporarily committed(b) ........................... 100

Undisturbed area....................................... 79

Disturbed area........................................... 22 Equivalent to a 100-MW(e) coal-fired power plant.

Permanently committed............................. 13

Overburden moved (millions of MT) .......... 2.8 Equivalent to a 95-MW(e) coal-fired power plant.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-3 NUREG-1939

Table 6-1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

Water (millions of gallons)

Discharged to air ....................................... 160 =2 percent of model 1000-MW(e) LWR with cooling 

tower.

Discharged to waterbodies........................ 11,090

Discharged to ground ................................ 127

Total........................................................... 11,377 <4 percent of model 1000 MW(e) with once-through 

cooling.

Fossil Fuel

Electrical energy (thousands of MW-hr) .... 323 <5 percent of model 1000-MW(e) LWR output. 

Equivalent coal (thousands of MT)............ 118 Equivalent to the consumption of a 45-MW(e) coal-fired 

power plant.

Natural Gas (millions of standard cubic 

feet)

135 <0.4 percent of model 1000 MW(e) energy output.

Effluents – chemical (MT)

Gases (including entrainment)(c)

SOx

-1 .................................................... 4400

NOx

-1(d) .................................................... 1190 Equivalent to emissions from 45-MW(e) coal-fired plant 

for a year.

Hydrocarbons ............................................ 14

CO .................................................... 29.6

Particulates................................................ 1154

Other Gases 

F .................................................... 0.67 Principally from uranium hexafluoride (UF6) production, 

enrichment, and reprocessing. The concentration is 

within the range of state standards – below level that has 

effects on human health.

HCI .................................................... 0.014

Liquids

SO4

- .................................................... 9.9 From enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing 

steps. Components that constitute a potential for adverse 

environmental effect are present in dilute concentrations 

and receive additional dilution by receiving bodies of 

water to levels below permissible standards. The 

constituents that require dilution and the flow of dilution 

water are: NH3 – 600 cfs, NO3 – 20 cfs, Fluoride – 70 cfs.

NO3

- .................................................... 25.8

Fluoride .................................................... 12.9

Ca++ .................................................... 5.4

Cl− .................................................... 8.5

Na+ .................................................... 12.1

NH3 .................................................... 10

Fe .................................................... 0.4

Tailings solutions (thousands of MT)......... 240 From mills only – no significant effluents to environment.

Solids .................................................... 91,000 Principally from mills – no significant effluents to 

environment.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-4 April 2011

Table 6-1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

Effluents – radiological (curies)

Gases (including entrainment)

Rn-222 .................................................... Presently under reconsideration by the Commission.

Ra-226 .................................................... 0.02

Th-230 .................................................... 0.02

Uranium .................................................... 0.034

Tritium (thousands) ................................... 18.1

C-14 .................................................... 24

Kr-85 (thousands)...................................... 400

Ru-106 .................................................... 0.14 Principally from fuel-reprocessing plants.

I-129 .................................................... 1.3

I-131 .................................................... 0.83

Tc-99 .................................................... Presently under consideration by the Commission.

Fission products and transuranic............... 0.203

Liquids

Uranium and daughters............................. 2.1 Principally from milling – included tailings liquor and 

returned to ground – no effluents; therefore, no effect on 

environment.

Ra-226 .................................................... 0.0034 From UF6 production.

Th-230 .................................................... 0.0015

Th-234 .................................................... 0.01 From fuel fabrication plants – concentration 10 percent of 

10 CFR Part 20 for total processing 26 annual fuel 

requirements for model LWR.

Fission and activation products ................. 5.9 × 10−6

Solids (buried onsite) 

Other than high level (shallow).................. 11,300 9100 Ci comes from low-level reactor wastes and 1500 Ci 

comes from reactor decontamination and 

decommissioning – buried at land burial facilities. 600 Ci 

comes from mills – included in tailings returned to ground. 

Approximately 60 Ci comes from conversion and spentfuel storage. No significant effluent to the environment.

TRU and HLW (deep)................................ 1.1 × 107 Buried at Federal Repository.

Effluents – thermal (billions of British 

thermal units)

4063 <5 percent of model1000-MW(e) LWR.

Transportation (person-rem) 

Exposure of workers and general public.... 2.5

Occupational Exposure (person-rem)........ 22.6 From reprocessing and waste management.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-5 NUREG-1939

Table 6-1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

Source: Table S–3 from 10 CFR 51.51(b),

(a) In some cases where no entry appears, it is clear from the background documents that the matter was addressed and that, in 

effect, the table should be read as if a specific zero entry had been made. However, there are other areas that are not 

addressed at all in the table. Table S–3 does not include health effects from the effluents described in the table, or estimates 

of releases of radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle or estimates of technetium-99 released from waste management or 

reprocessing activities. These issues may be the subject of litigation in the individual licensing proceedings.

Data supporting this table are given in Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, WASH-1248 (AEC 1974); 

Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0116 (Supp.1 to 

WASH-1248) (NRC 1976); NUREG-0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248) (NRC 1977a); 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.

HLW = high-level waste; LWR = light water reactor; TRU = transuranic elements

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 (22 USC 3201, et seq.) significantly affected 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 in the United States provided little incentive for industry to resume reprocessing. 

During the 109th 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” (U3O8). 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 nonfissile isotope uranium-238. At a fuel-fabrication facility, the enriched uranium, which 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-6 April 2011

Figure 6-1. The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option (derived from NRC 1996)

is approximately 5 percent uranium-235, is then converted to uranium dioxide (UO2). The UO2

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 are 

transferred to a waste repository for interment. 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 (GEIS) 

(NRC 1996, 1999),(a

 

(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.

) 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 

renewal, the information is relevant to this review because the advanced LWR design 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-7 NUREG-1939

considered here uses the same type of fuel as considered in the staff’s evaluation in 

NUREG-1437. The staff’s 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). As explained 

above, the total net electric output for the proposed two new units at the VCSNS site is 

2140 MW(e), which is about 2.68 times (i.e., 2140 MW(e) divided by 800 MW(e) yields 2.68) the 

output value in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). For added conservatism in its review and 

evaluation of the environmental impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle, the staff multiplied the values 

in Table S–3 by a factor of 3, rather than a factor of 2.68, scaling the impacts upward to account 

for the increased electric generation of the two proposed AP1000 units. Scaling up by a factor 

of 3 is referred to as using the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model.

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. This is especially true in light of the following recent fuel cycle 

trends in the United States:

• Increasing use of in situ leach uranium mining, which does not produce mine tailings.

• Transitioning of U.S. uranium enrichment technology from gaseous diffusion to gas 

centrifuge. The centrifuge process uses only a small fraction of the electrical energy per 

separation unit compared to gaseous diffusion. (U.S. gaseous diffusion plants relied on 

electricity derived mainly from the burning of coal.)

• Current LWRs use nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher fuel burnup. Therefore, less 

uranium fuel per year of reactor operation is required than in the past to generate the same 

amount of electricity.

• Fewer spent-fuel assemblies per reactor-year are discharged, hence the waste 

storage/repository impact is lessened.

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 

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 make sure 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 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-8 April 2011

Table S–3, the staff defined the model reactor as a 1000-MW(e) LWR 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 NUREG-1437), but it has the same meaning. 

If approved, the combined construction permits and operating licenses (COLs) for the proposed 

two units would allow 40 years of operation. In NUREG-1437, the sum of the initial fuel loading 

plus all of the reloads for the lifetime of the reactor was divided by a 60-year lifetime (40-year 

initial license term and 20-year license renewal term) to obtain an average annual fuel 

requirement. This approach was followed in NUREG-1437 for both boiling water reactors and 

pressurized water reactors; the higher annual requirement, 35 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 1996). The average annual fuel requirement presented in NUREG-1437 would only be 

increased by 2 percent if a 40-year lifetime was evaluated. However, a number of fuelmanagement improvements have been adopted by nuclear power plants to achieve higher 

performance and to reduce fuel and separative-work (enrichment) requirements. Since the time 

when Table S–3 was promulgated, these improvements have reduced the annual fuel 

requirement, which means the Table S–3 assumptions remain bounding as applied to the 

proposed two units.

Another change supporting the bounding nature of the S–3 assumptions with respect to Units 2 

and 3 impacts is the elimination of the U.S. restrictions on the importation of foreign uranium. 

Until recently, the economic conditions of the uranium market favored use of foreign uranium at 

the expense of the domestic uranium industry. From the mid-1980s to 2004, the price of U3O8

remained below $20/lb. These market conditions resulted in the closing of most U.S. uranium 

mines and mills, thereby substantially reducing the environmental impacts in the United States 

from these activities. However, more recently the spot price of uranium has increased 

dramatically from $24/lb in April 2005 to $135/lb in July 2007 and has decreased to near $44/lb 

as of April 2009 (UxC 2009). As a result, there is a renewed interest in uranium mining and 

milling in the United States and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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 remain bounding as applied to the proposed two units.

In summation, these reasons highlight why Table S–3 is likely to overestimate impacts from the 

proposed two units and therefore remains a bounding approach for this analysis.

Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 discusses in greater detail the sensitivity to changes in the fuel 

cycle since issuance of Table S–3 on the environmental impacts.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-9 NUREG-1939

6.1.1 Land Use

The total annual land requirement for the fuel cycle supporting the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled 

model is about 339 ac. Approximately 39 ac are permanently committed land, and 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). After 

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 the 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 300 ac of temporarily committed land, 66 ac are assumed to be disturbed. In comparison, a 

coal-fired power plant using the same megawatt electric output as the LWR-scaled model and 

using strip-mined coal requires the disturbance of about 528 ac/yr for fuel alone. The staff 

concludes that the impacts on land use to support the 1000-MW(e) 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 

3.41 × 1010 gal, about 3.33 × 1010 gal are required for the removal of waste heat. Also, scaling 

from Table S–3, other water uses involve the discharge to air (e.g., evaporation losses in 

process cooling) of about 4.80 × 108 gal/yr and discharge to the ground (e.g., mine drainage) of 

about 3.81 × 108 gal/yr.

On a thermal-effluent basis, annual discharges from the nuclear fuel cycle are about 4 percent 

of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model using once-through cooling. The consumptive water use 

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 4 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

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 use associated with the fuel cycle represents about 5 percent of the 

annual electric power production of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. Process heat is 

primarily generated by the combustion of natural gas. This gas consumption, if used to
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-10 April 2011

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.

The largest source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the fuel cycle is production of electric 

energy from combustion of fossil fuel in conventional power plants. This energy is used to 

power components of the fuel cycle such as enrichment. The CO2 emissions from the fuel cycle 

are about 5 percent of the CO2 emissions from an equivalent fossil fuel-fired plant. 

The largest use of electricity in the fuel cycle comes from the enrichment process. It appears 

that gas centrifuge (GC) technology is likely to eventually replace gaseous diffusion (GD) 

technology for uranium enrichment in the United States. The same amount of enrichment from 

a GC facility uses less electricity and therefore results in lower amounts of air emissions such as 

carbon dioxide than a GD facility. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the values for 

electricity use and air emissions in Table S–3 continue to be appropriately bounding values. 

In Appendix J, the staff estimates that the carbon footprint of the fuel cycle to support a 

reference 1000-MW(e) LWR for a 40-year plant life is on the order of 17,000,000 metric tons of 

CO2, including a very small contribution from other greenhouse gases. Scaling this footprint to 

the power level of the AP1000 reactor and two proposed units using the scaling factor of 3 

discussed earlier, the NRC staff estimates the carbon footprint for 40 years of fuel-cycle 

emissions to be approximately 51,000,000 metric tons (an emissions rate of about 1,300,000 

metric tons annually, averaged over the period of operation) of CO2, as compared to a total 

United States annual emissions rate of 6,000,000,000 metric tons (EPA 2010).

On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the fossil fuel impacts including greenhouse gas 

emissions from the direct and indirect consumption of electric energy for fuel cycle operations 

would be SMALL.

6.1.4 Chemical Effluents

The quantities of gaseous and particulate chemical effluents produced in fuel-cycle processes 

are given in Table S–3 (Table 6-1) for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR and, according to 

WASH-1248 (AEC 1974), result from the generation of electricity for fuel-cycle operations. The 

principal effluents are sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. Table S–3 states that the 

fuel cycle for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR requires 323,000 MWh of electricity. The fuel 

cycle for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model would therefore require 969,000 MWh of 

electricity, or less than 0.024 percent of the 4.1 billion MWh of electricity generated in the United 

States in 2008 (DOE 2009a). Therefore, the gaseous and particulate chemical effluents from 

fuel-cycle processes to support the operation of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model would add 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-11 NUREG-1939

less than 0.024 percent to the national gaseous and particulate chemical effluents for electricity 

generation.

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 facilities 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, but as Table S–3 

indicates, effluents are not released in quantities sufficient to have a significant impact on the 

environment.

Based on the above analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of these chemical 

effluents (gaseous, particulate and liquid) 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 listed in Table S–3 (Table 6-1). 

NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) provides the 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. 

population from fuel cycle activities for 1 year of operation of the model 1000-MW(e) LWR using 

the radioactive effluents in Table S–3. Excluding reactor releases and dose commitments 

because of exposure to radon-222 and technetium-99, the total overall whole body gaseous 

dose commitment and whole body liquid dose commitment from the fuel cycle were calculated 

to be approximately 400 person-rem and 200 person-rem, respectively. Scaling these dose 

commitments by a factor of about 3 for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model results in 

whole body dose commitment estimates of 1200 person-rem for gaseous releases and 

600 person-rem for liquid releases. Therefore, for both pathways, the estimated 100-year 

environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population would be approximately 1800 personrem 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. SCE&G provided an assessment of radon-222 and 

technetium-99 in its Environmental Report (ER) (SCE&G 2010). SCE&G’s evaluation relied on 

the information discussed in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996).
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-12 April 2011

In Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the staff estimated the radon-222 releases from 

mining and milling operations and from mill tailings for each year of operation of the reference 

1000-MW(e) LWR. The estimated release of radon-222 for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model 

is approximately 16,000 Ci. Of this total, about 78 percent would be from mining, 15 percent 

from milling operations, and 7 percent from inactive tailings before stabilization. For radon 

releases from stabilized tailings, the staff assumed that the LWR-scaled model would result in 

an emission of 3 Ci/Ryr, (i.e., about three times the NUREG-1437 [NRC 1996] 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 doseweighting 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 

reactor year (assuming the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model) would be approximately 

2800 person-rem to the whole body. From stabilized tailings piles, the estimated 100-year 

environmental dose commitment would be approximately 53 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 1996).

Also as discussed in NUREG-1437, the staff considered the potential doses associated with the 

releases of technetium-99. The estimated releases of technetium-99 for the reference reactor 

year for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model are 0.021 Ci from chemical processing of recycled 

uranium hexafluoride before it enters the isotope-enrichment cascade and 0.015 Ci into the 

groundwater from a HLW 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 dose-weighting factors from 10 CFR Part 20 to the 

gastrointestinal tract and kidney doses, the total-body 100-year dose commitment from 

technetium-99 to the whole body was estimated to be 300 person-rem for the 1000-MW(e) 

LWR-scaled model.

Radiation protection experts 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 Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII 

report, uses the linear, no-threshold dose response model as a basis for estimating the risks 

from low doses. This approach is accepted by the NRC as a conservative method for 

estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model may overestimate 

those risks. Based on this method, the staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation 

exposure using the nominal probability coefficient for total detriment. This coefficient has 

the value of 570 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects per 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-13 NUREG-1939

1,000,000 person-rem (10,000 person-Sv), equal to 0.00057 effect per person-rem. The 

coefficient is taken from Publication 103 of the International Commission on Radiological 

Protection (ICRP 2007).

The nominal probability 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 5000 person-rem/yr) to calculate that the U.S. population 

would incur a total of approximately 3 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary 

effects annually. 

Radon-222 releases from tailings are indistinguishable from background radiation levels at a 

few miles from the tailings pile (at less than 0.6 mi in some cases) (NRC 1996). The public 

dose limit in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) regulation, 40 CFR Part 190, 

is 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 1 mrem/yr (61 FR 65120).

In addition, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Cancer Institute conducted a study 

and published Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities in 1990 (Jablon et al. 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” 

(Jablon et al.1990). The contribution to the annual average dose received by an individual from 

fuel-cycle-related radiation and other sources as reported in a publication of the National 

Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 2009) is listed in Table 6-2. The 

contribution from the nuclear fuel cycle to an individual’s annual average radiation dose is 

extremely small (less than 0.01 mrem/yr) compared to the annual average background radiation 

dose (about 311 mrem/yr).

Based on the analyses presented above, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of 

radioactive effluents from the fuel cycle, including gaseous and liquid releases, are SMALL.

6.1.6 Radiological Wastes 

The estimated quantities of buried radioactive waste material (LLW, HLW, and transuranic 

wastes) generated by the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR are specified in Table S–3 (Table 6-1). 

For LLW disposal at land burial facilities, the Commission(a

 

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

regulations governing nuclear reactor and nuclear material safety, issues orders to licensees, and 

adjudicates legal matters.

) notes in Table S–3 that there would 

be no significant radioactive releases to the environment. The VCSNS site is in the State of 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-14 April 2011

South Carolina, and thus has continuing access to the LLW disposal facility at Barnwell, South 

Carolina, as long as it remains open.

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

Source Dose (mrem/yr)(a) Percent of Total

Ubiquitous 

background

Radon & thoron

Space

Terrestrial

Internal (body)

Total background sources 

228

33

21

29

311

37

5

3

5

50

Medical Computed tomography

Medical x-ray

Nuclear medicine

Total medical sources

147

76

77

300

24

12

12

48

Consumer Construction materials, smoking, 

air travel, mining, agriculture, 

fossil fuel combustion 13 2

Other Occupational

Nuclear fuel cycle

0.5(b)

0.05(c)

0.1

0.01

Total 624 100

Source: NCRP 2009

(a) NCRP Report 160 table expressed doses in mSv/yr (1 mSv/yr equals 100 mrem/yr).

(b) Occupational dose is regulated separately from public dose and is provided here for informational purposes.

(c) Calculated using 153 person-Sv/yr from Table 6-1 of NCRP 160 and a 2006 U.S. population of 300 million.

The Barnwell facility is expected to be closed to LLW in 2038, including LLW generated in South 

Carolina (Chem-Nuclear Systems 2005). At that time, SCE&G could enter into an agreement 

with another NRC-licensed facility that would accept LLW from VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

Alternatively, SCE&G could implement measures to reduce or eliminate the generation of Class 

B and C wastes, extending the capacity of the onsite solid waste storage system. SCE&G could 

also construct additional temporary storage facilities onsite. Finally, SCE&G could enter into an 

agreement with a third-party contractor to process, store, own, and ultimately dispose of LLW 

from VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Because SCE&G would likely have to choose one or a combination 

of these options, the staff considered the environmental impacts of each of these options.

Table S–3 addresses the environmental impacts if SCE&G enters into an agreement with an 

NRC-licensed facility for disposal of LLW, and Table S–4 addresses the environmental impacts 

from transportation of LLW as discussed in Section 6.2. The use of third-party contractors was 

not explicitly addressed in Tables S–3 and S–4; however, such third-party contractors are 

already licensed by the NRC and currently operate in the United States. Experience from the 

operation of these facilities shows that the additional environmental impacts are not significant 

compared to the impacts described in Tables S–3 and S–4.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-15 NUREG-1939

Measures to reduce the generation of Class B and C wastes, such as reducing the service run 

length of resin beds, could increase the volume of LLW, but would not increase the total activity 

(in curies) of radioactive material in the waste. The volume of waste would still be bounded by 

or very similar to the estimates in Table S–3, and the environmental impacts would not be 

significantly different. 

In most circumstances, the NRC’s regulations (10 CFR 50.59) allow licensees operating nuclear 

power plants to construct and operate additional onsite LLW storage facilities without seeking

approval from the NRC. Licensees are required to evaluate the safety and environmental 

impacts before constructing the facility and make those evaluations available to NRC 

inspectors. A number of nuclear power plant licensees have constructed and operate such 

facilities in the United States. Typically, these additional facilities are constructed near the 

powerblock inside the security fence on land that has already been disturbed during initial plant 

construction. Therefore, the impacts on environmental resources (e.g., land use and aquatic 

and terrestrial biota) would be very small. All of the NRC (10 CFR Part 20) and EPA 

(40 CFR Part 190) dose limitations would apply both for public and occupational radiation 

exposure. The radiological environmental monitoring programs around nuclear power plants 

that operate such facilities show that the increase in radiation dose at the site boundary is not 

significant; the radiation doses continue to be below 25 mrem/yr, the dose limit of 40 CFR Part 

190. The NRC staff concludes that doses to members of the public within the NRC and EPA 

regulations are a small impact. Therefore, the impacts from radiation would be SMALL.

In addition, NUREG-1437 assessed the impacts of LLW storage onsite at currently operating 

nuclear power plants and concluded that the radiation doses to offsite individuals from interim 

LLW storage are insignificant (NRC 1996). The types and amounts of LLW generated by the 

proposed reactors at VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be very similar to those generated by 

currently operating nuclear power plants and the construction and operation of these interim 

LLW storage facilities would be very similar to the construction and operation of the currently 

operating facilities.

Current national policy, as found in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (42 USC 10101, et seq.)

mandates that high-level and transuranic wastes are to be buried at a deep geologic repository, 

such as the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. No release to the environment is 

expected to be associated with deep geologic 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-0116 (NRC 1976), which provides 

background and context for the Table S–3 values established by the Commission, the staff 

indicates that these high-level and transuranic wastes will be buried and will not be released to 

the environment. 

As part of the Table S–3 rulemaking, the staff evaluated, along with more conservative 

assumptions, this zero-release assumption associated with waste burial in a repository, and the 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-16 April 2011

NRC reached an overall generic determination that fuel-cycle impacts would not be significant. 

In 1983, the Supreme Court affirmed the NRC’s position that the zero-release assumption was

reasonable in the context of the Table S–3 rulemaking to address generically the impacts of the 

uranium fuel cycle in individual reactor licensing proceedings (Baltimore Gas & Electric v. 

National Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87(1983)).

Further, in the Commission’s Waste Confidence Decision and rule (10 CFR 51.23(a)) (75 FR 

81032), the Commission has made the generic determination that “if necessary, spent fuel 

generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for 

at least 60 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised 

or renewed license) of that reactor in a combination of storage in its spent fuel storage basin 

and at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations. Further, the 

Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mined geologic repository 

capacity will be available to dispose of the commercial high-level radioactive waste and spent 

fuel generated in any reactor when necessary.” In addition, 10 CFR 51.23(b) applies the 

generic determination in Section 51.23(a) to provide that “no discussion of any environmental 

impact of spent fuel storage in reactor facility storage pools or independent spent fuel storage 

installations (ISFSI) for the period following the term of the . . . reactor combined license or 

amendment . . . is required in any . . . environmental impact statement . . . prepared in 

connection with . . . the issuance or amendment of a combined license for a nuclear power 

reactors under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter.”

In the context of operating license renewal, Sections 6.2 and 6.4 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) 

provide additional description of the generation, storage, and ultimate disposal of LLW, mixed 

waste, and HLW including spent fuel from power reactors, concluding that environmental 

impacts from these activities are small. For the reasons stated above, the staff concludes that 

the environmental impacts of radioactive waste storage and disposal associated with proposed 

Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL.

6.1.7 Occupational Dose 

The annual occupational dose attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the 1000-MW(e) 

LWR-scaled model is about 1800 person-rem. This is based on the NUREG-1437 occupational 

dose estimate of 600 person-rem attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the model 

1000-MW(e) LWR (NRC 1996). The environmental impact from this occupational dose is 

considered SMALL because the dose to any individual worker would be maintained within the 

limits of 10 CFR Part 20, which is 5 rem/yr.

6.1.8 Transportation 

The transportation dose to workers and the public related to the uranium fuel cycle is

approximately 2.5 person-rem annually for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR in accordance with 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-17 NUREG-1939

Table S–3 (Table 6-1). This corresponds to a dose of 7.5 person-rem for the 1000-MW(e) 

LWR-scaled model. For purposes of comparison, in the year 2010 the population within 50 mi 

of the VCSNS site is estimated to be 1.15 million people (SCE&G 2010). Using 0.311 rem/yr as 

the average dose to a U.S. resident from natural background radiation (NCRP 2009), the 

collective dose to that population is estimated to be 358,000 person-rem/yr. On the basis of this 

comparison, the staff concludes that the 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 of the uranium fuel cycle would be SMALL.

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 

VCSNS site and alternative sites, (2) shipment of irradiated (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. Alternative sites evaluated in this 

environmental impact statement (EIS) include the existing VCSNS site (proposed), Cope 

Generating Station (CGS) site, Saluda County site, and the Savannah River (SR) project site. 

Note that the transportation impacts for the Fairfield 1 (FA-1) site are not explicitly analyzed in 

this EIS. This is because the FA-1 site is less than 10 mi from the existing VCSNS site and the 

transportation impacts would be approximately equal to those for the VCSNS site.

The NRC performed a generic analysis of the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and 

waste to and from LWRs in the Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials 

to and from Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) and in a supplement to 

WASH-1238, 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 1100-MW(e) LWR. The transportation impacts associated 

with the VCSNS site and alternative sites were normalized for a reference 1100-MW(e) LWR at 

an 80-percent capacity factor for comparison with Table S–4.(a

 

(a) Note that the basis for Table S–4 is an 1100-MW(e) LWR at an 80-percent capacity factor (AEC 

1972; NRC 1975). The basis for Table S–3 in 10 CFR 51.51(b) that was discussed in Section 6.1 of 

this EIS is an 1000-MW(e) LWR with an 80-percent capacity factor (NRC 1976). However, because 

)

 Dose to transportation 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-18 April 2011

workers during normal transportation operations was estimated to result in a collective dose of 

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 3 person-rem per reference 

reactor year.

Environmental risks of radiological effects during accident conditions, as stated in Table S–4, 

are 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 1977b) and by 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 to be 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 UO2 pellets having a uranium-235 enrichment not exceeding 

4 percent by weight; and pellets are encapsulated in zircaloy-clad fuel rods.

• The 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, railroad, or barge; and radioactive waste other than irradiated fuel is 

shipped from the reactor by truck or railroad.

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 

required for initial licensing. The NRC may consider requests for licensed plants to operate at 

conditions beyond 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.

 

fuel cycle and transportation impacts are evaluated separately, this difference does not affect the 

results and conclusions in this EIS.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-19 NUREG-1939

In its application, SCE&G requested COLs for two additional reactors at its VCSNS site in 

Fairfield County, South Carolina. Each proposed new reactor would be an AP1000 unit, which 

has a thermal power rating of 3400 MW(t) and a net electrical output of 1107 MW(e). The 

thermal power rating is less than the 3800-MW(t) condition given in 10 CFR 51.52(a). 

Westinghouse AP1000 reactors are expected to operate with a 93-percent capacity factor, so 

the net electrical output (annualized) is about 1030 MW(e) (SCE&G 2010). Fuel for the reactors 

would be enriched up to about 4.54 weight percent uranium-235, which exceeds the 10 CFR 

51.52(a) condition. In addition, the expected irradiation level of about 50,533 MWd/MTU 

(SCE&G 2010) exceeds the 10 CFR 51.52(a) condition. Therefore, a full description and 

detailed analysis of transportation impacts is required.

In its ER (SCE&G 2010), SCE&G provided a full description and detailed analysis of 

transportation impacts. In the analysis, the radiological impacts of transporting fuel and waste 

to and from the VCSNS site were calculated using the RADTRAN 5.6 computer code (Weiner et 

al. 2008). RADTRAN 5.6 was used in this EIS and is the most commonly used transportation 

impact analysis software in the nuclear industry.

6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel

The NRC staff performed an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of transporting 

unirradiated (i.e., fresh) fuel to the VCSNS site and alternative sites. The 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. Because the specific fuel fabrication plant for VCSNS 

unirradiated fuel is not known at this time, the staff’s analysis assumes a “representative” route 

between the fuel fabrication facility and the VCSNS site or alternative sites. This means that 

one analysis was done using a “representative” route with one set of route characteristics 

(distances and population distributions), and that analysis was used to conclude that the impact 

from radiation dose would be small for the VCSNS site and each of the alternative sites. Once 

the location of the fuel fabrication site is known, there would likely be small differences in the 

route and dose estimates for the VCSNS site and the alternative sites. However, the radiation 

doses from transporting unirradiated fuel to the VCSNS site and alternative sites would still be

small.

6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions

Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as “incident-free” transportation, are transportation 

activities in which shipments reach their destinations without releasing any radioactive material 

to the environment. The impacts of these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation 

that penetrate the shipping containers of unirradiated fuel. Radiation exposures at some level 

would occur to the following populations: (1) persons residing along the transportation corridors 

between the fuel fabrication facility and the VCSNS site; (2) persons in vehicles traveling on the 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-20 April 2011

same route as a shipment of unirradiated fuel; (3) persons at vehicle stops for refueling, rest, 

and vehicle inspections; and (4) the transportation crew (including drivers).

Truck Shipments

Table 6-3 provides the NRC staff’s estimate of the number of truck shipments of unirradiated 

fuel for the Westinghouse AP1000 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 to electric generation capacity, the number of truck shipments 

of unirradiated fuel to the VCSNS site and alternative sites is fewer than the number of truck 

shipments of unirradiated fuel estimated for the reference LWR in WASH-1238.

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

Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor

Reactor Type

Number of Shipments 

per Reactor

Unit Electric 

Generation, 

MW(e)(b)

Capacity 

Factor(b)

Normalized, 

Shipments per 

1100 MW(e)(c) Total(a)

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 252 1100 0.8 252

VCSNS Westinghouse AP1000 233 1107 0.93 199

(a) Total shipments of unirradiated fuel over a 40-year plant lifetime (i.e., initial core load plus 39 years of average 

annual reload quantities).

(b) Unit capacities and capacity factors were taken from WASH-1238 for the reference light water reactor (LWR) 

and the ER (SCE&G 2010) for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor.

(c) Normalized to net electric output for WASH-1238 reference LWR (i.e., 1100-MW(e) plant at 80 percent or net 

electrical output of 880 MW(e)).

Shipping Mode and Weight Limits

In 10 CFR 51.52, one identified condition is that all unirradiated fuel is to be shipped to the 

reactor by truck; SCE&G specifies that unirradiated fuel would be shipped to the proposed 

reactor site by truck (SCE&G 2010). Table S–4 in 10 CFR 51.52 includes a condition that the 

truck shipments not exceed 73,000 lb as governed by Federal or State gross vehicle-weight 

restrictions; SCE&G states in its ER that the unirradiated fuel shipments to the proposed 

VCSNS site and alternative sites would comply with applicable weight restrictions 

(SCE&G 2010).

Radiological Doses to Transport Workers and the Public

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 individuals exposed and their locations relative to the shipment, the time in transit 

(including travel and stop times), and the number of shipments to which the individuals are 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-21 NUREG-1939

exposed. For this EIS, the NRC staff independently calculated the radiological dose impacts to 

transport workers and the public from the transportation of unirradiated fuel using the 

RADTRAN 5.6 computer code (Weiner et al. 2008).

One of the key assumptions in WASH-1238 (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 

0.1 mrem/hr, which is one percent of the regulatory limit. This assumption was also used in the 

NRC staff’s analysis of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor unirradiated fuel shipments. This 

assumption is reasonable because the AP1000 reactor fuel material would be low-dose-rate 

uranium radionuclides and would be packaged similarly to the practice 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 reactor 

operation. Other key input parameters used in the radiation-dose analysis for unirradiated fuel 

are shown in Table 6-4.

The RADTRAN 5.6 results for this “generic” unirradiated fuel shipment are as follows:

• worker dose: 1.71 × 10-3 person-rem/shipment

• general public dose (onlookers/persons at stops and sharing the highway): 

3.62 × 10-3 person-rem/shipment)

• general public dose (along route/persons living near a highway or truck stop): 5.12 × 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 doses calculated by the NRC staff to workers, public onlookers 

(persons at stops and sharing the road), and members of the public along the route (i.e., 

residents within 0.5 mi of the highway) for transportation of unirradiated fuel to the VCSNS site 

and alternative sites. The cumulative annual dose estimates in Table 6-5 were normalized to 

1100 MW(e) (880 MW(e) of net electrical output). The NRC staff performed an independent 

review and determined that all dose estimates calculated by the staff are bounded by the 

Table S–4 conditions of 4 person-rem/yr to transportation workers, 3 person-rem/yr to 

onlookers, and 3 person-rem/yr to members of the public along the route.

Radiation protection experts 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 report by the 

National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, uses the linear, no-threshold dose 

response model as a basis for estimating the risks from low doses. This approach is accepted 

by the NRC as a conservative method for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, 

recognizing that the model may overestimate those risks. Based on this method, the NRC staff 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-22 April 2011

estimated the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the nominal probability coefficient 

for total detriment. This coefficient has the value of 570 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and 

severe hereditary effects per 1,000,000 person-rem (10,000 person-Sv), equal to 0.00057 effect 

per person-rem. The coefficient is taken from ICRP Publication 103 (ICRP 2007).

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

Parameter

RADTRAN 5.6 

Input Value Source

Shipping distance, km 3200 AEC (1972)(a)

Travel fraction – rural 0.90 NRC (1977b)

Travel fraction – suburban 0.05

Travel fraction – urban 0.05

Population density – rural, persons/km2 10 DOE (2002a)

Population density – suburban, persons/km2 349

Population density – urban, persons/km2 2260

Vehicle speed – km/hr 88.5 Conservative in-transit speed of 

88.5 km/hr (55 mph) assumed; 

predominantly interstate highways 

used.

Traffic count – rural, vehicles/hr 530 DOE (2002a)

Traffic count – suburban, vehicles/hr 760

Traffic count – urban, vehicles/hr 2400

Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle, mrem/hr 0.1 AEC (1972)

Packaging length, m 9.1 Approximate length of two AP1000 fuel 

assemblies placed end to end 

(Westinghouse 2007).

Number of truck crew 2 AEC (1972), NRC (1977b), and DOE 

(2002a)

Stop time, hr/trip 4 Based on one 30-minute stop per 

400 km (Johnson and Michelhaugh 

2003).

Population density at stops, persons/km2 See Table 6-8 for truck stop parameters

(a) AEC (1972) provides a range of shipping distances between 25 mi and 3000 mi for shipments of fresh fuel. 

A 3200-km (2000-mi) “representative” shipping distance was assumed here.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-23 NUREG-1939

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

the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites

Plant Type

Normalized 

Average 

Annual 

Shipments

Cumulative Annual Dose, person-rem/yr per 

1100 MW(e)(a) (880 MW(e) net)

Transportation 

Workers

Public –

Onlookers

Public – Along 

Route

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 6.3 1.1 × 10-2 2.3 × 10-2 3.2 × 10-4

VCSNS and alternative sites AP1000 5.0 8.5 × 10-3 1.8 × 10-2 2.5 × 10-4

10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4 condition <1 per day 4 3 3

(a) Multiply person-rem/yr times 0.01 to obtain doses in person-Sv/yr.

LWR = light water reactor

Both the NCRP and ICRP suggest that when the collective effective dose is smaller than the 

reciprocal of the relevant risk detriment (in other words, less than 1/0.00057, which is less than 

1754 person-rem), the risk assessment should note that the most likely number of excess health 

effects is zero (NCRP 1995; ICRP 2007). The largest annual collective dose estimate for 

transporting unirradiated fuel to the VCSNS site and alternative sites was 0.018 person-rem, 

which is less than the value of 1754 person-rem that NCRP and ICRP suggest would most likely 

result in zero excess health effects. 

To place these impacts in perspective, the average U.S. resident receives about 311 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 2009). Using this average effective dose, the collective 

population dose from natural background radiation to the population along this representative 

route would be about 2.2 × 105 person-rem. Therefore, the radiation doses from transporting 

unirradiated fuel to the VCSNS site and alternative sites are small compared to the collective 

population dose to the same population from exposure to natural sources of radiation.

MEIs Under Normal Transport Conditions

The NRC staff conducted a scenario-based analysis to develop estimates of incident-free 

radiation doses to MEIs for fuel and waste shipments to and from the VCSNS site and 

alternative sites. An MEI is a person who may receive the highest radiation dose from a 

shipment to and/or from the VCSNS site and alternative sites. The following discussion applies 

to shipments of unirradiated fuel to, and spent fuel and radioactive waste shipments from, any of 

the alternative sites. The analysis is based on data in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS (DOE 

2002b) and incorporates data 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 normalized fuel and waste shipments addressed in this EIS. In all cases, the NRC 

staff assumed that the dose rate emitted from the shipping containers is 10 mrem/hr at 2 m 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-24 April 2011

(6.6 ft) from the side of the transport vehicle. This is conservative in that the assumed dose rate 

is the maximum dose rate allowed by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations 

(see 49 CFR 173.441). Most unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste shipments would have 

much lower dose rates than the regulations allow (AEC 1972; DOE 2002a). The analysis is 

described below.

Truck crew member

The DOT does not regulate annual occupational exposures. It does recognize that air crews 

are exposed to elevated cosmic radiation levels and recommends dose limits to air-crew 

members from cosmic radiation (DOT 2003). Air passengers are less of a concern because 

they do not fly as frequently as air crews. The recommended limits are a 5-year effective dose 

of 2 rem/yr with no more than 5 rem in a single year (DOT 2003). As a result, a 2-rem/yr MEI 

dose to truck crews is a reasonable estimate to apply to shipments of fuel and waste from the 

VCSNS site and alternative sites.

. 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. The NRC staff’s analysis assumed that crew-member doses are limited to 

2 rem/yr, which is the DOE administrative control level presented in DOE-STD-1098-99, DOE 

Standard, Radiological Control, Chapter 2, Article 211 (DOE 2009b). This limit is anticipated to 

apply to shipments of spent nuclear fuel to a disposal facility, because DOE would take title to 

the spent fuel at the reactor site. There would be more shipments of spent nuclear fuel from the 

VCSNS site (or alternative sites) than there would be shipments of unirradiated fuel to, and 

radioactive waste other than spent fuel from, these sites. This is because the capacities of 

spent-fuel shipping casks are limited due to their substantial radiation shielding and accident 

resistance requirements. Spent-fuel shipments would also have significantly higher radiation 

dose rates than unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste (DOE 2002a). As a result, crew doses 

from shipments of unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste would be lower than the doses from 

shipments of spent nuclear fuel. The DOE administrative limit of 2 rem/yr (see DOE 2009b) is 

less than the NRC limit for occupational exposures of 5 rem/yr (see 10 CFR Part 20).

Inspectors. Radioactive shipments are inspected by Federal or State vehicle inspectors, for 

example, at State ports of entry. The Yucca Mountain Final EIS (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 conservatively assumed to be at the regulatory limit, 

or equivalent to about 14 mrem/hr; therefore, the dose per shipment is about 14 mrem. This is 

independent of the location of the reactor site. Based on this conservative value and the 

assumption that the same person inspects all shipments of fuel and waste to and from the 

VCSNS site and alternative sites, the NRC staff calculated the annual doses to vehicle 

inspectors to be about 0.9 rem/yr, based on a combined total of 66 shipments of unirradiated 

fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste per year. This value is less than one-half of the 2-rem/yr 

DOE administrative control level on individual doses (DOE 2009b) and one-fifth of the 5-rem/yr 

NRC occupational dose limit.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-25 NUREG-1939

Resident. The analysis assumed that residents living adjacent to a highway where a shipment 

would pass would be exposed to all shipments along that particular route. Exposures to 

residents on a per-shipment basis were obtained from the NRC staff’s RADTRAN 5.6 output 

files developed for this EIS. These dose estimates are based on an individual located 100 ft 

from shipments that are traveling 15 mph. The potential radiation dose to the maximally 

exposed resident is about 0.04 mrem/yr for shipments of fuel and waste to and from the site.

Individual stuck in traffic. This scenario addresses potential traffic interruptions that could lead 

to a person being exposed to a loaded shipment for 1 hour at a distance of 4 ft. The NRC staff’s 

analysis assumed that this exposure scenario would occur only one time to any individual, and 

that the dose rate was at the regulatory limit of 10 mrem/hr at 6.6 ft from the shipment, so the 

dose rate will be higher at the assumed exposure distance of 4 ft. The dose to the MEI was 

calculated to be 16 mrem in DOE’s Yucca Mountain EIS (DOE 2002b).

Person at a truck service station

6.2.1.2 Radiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents

. This scenario estimates doses to an employee at a service 

station where all truck shipments to and from the VCSNS site and alternative sites are assumed 

to stop. The NRC staff’s analysis assumed that this person is exposed for 49 minutes at a 

distance of 52 ft from the loaded shipping container (DOE 2002b). The exposure time and 

distance were based on the observations discussed by Griego et al. (1996). This results in a 

dose of about 0.34 mrem/shipment and an annual dose of about 22 mrem/yr for the VCSNS site 

and alternative sites, assuming that a single individual services all shipments of unirradiated 

fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste to and from the VCSNS site and alternative sites.

Accident risks are a combination of accident frequency and consequence. Accident frequencies 

for transportation of unirradiated fuel to the VCSNS site and alternative sites 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 between the Westinghouse AP1000 and current-generation 

LWRs in consequences of transportation accidents severe enough to result in a release of 

unirradiated fuel particles to the environment because the fuel form, cladding, and packaging 

are similar to those analyzed in WASH-1238. Consequently, consistent with the conclusions of 

WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), the impacts of accidents during transport of unirradiated fuel for the 

Westinghouse AP1000 at the VCSNS site and alternative sites are expected to be negligible.

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 VCSNS site and alternative sites; that is, the 

analysis does not consider the radiological or hazardous characteristics of the cargo. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-26 April 2011

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.

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 as follows:

Impacts = (unit rate) × (round-trip shipping distance) × (annual number of shipments)

In this formula, impacts are presented in terms 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 State-Level Accident Rates for 

Surface Freight Transportation: A Reexamination (Saricks and Tompkins 1999). Nationwide 

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 VCSNS site and proposed alternative sites. 

In addition, the DOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration evaluated the data underlying 

the Saricks and Tompkins (1999) rates, which were taken from the Motor Carrier Management 

Information System, and determined that the rates were under-reported. Therefore, the 

accident, injury, and fatality rates reported by Saricks and Tompkins (1999) were adjusted using 

factors derived from data provided by the University of Michigan Transportation Research 

Institute (UMTRI 2003). The UMTRI data indicate that accident rates for 1994 to 1996, the 

same data used by Saricks and Tompkins (1999), were under-reported by about 39 percent. 

Injury and fatality rates were under-reported by 16 and 36 percent, respectively. As a result, the 

accident, injury, and fatality rates were increased by factors of 1.64, 1.20, and 1.57, 

respectively, to account for the under-reporting.

The nonradiological accident impacts calculated by the NRC staff for transporting unirradiated 

fuel to (and empty shipping containers from) the VCSNS site and alternative sites 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 a Westinghouse AP1000 at the VCSNS site and alternative sites and the 

reference LWR in WASH-1238 due entirely to the smaller number of shipments. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-27 NUREG-1939

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

Alternative Sites, Normalized to the Reference LWR

Plant Type

Annual 

Shipments 

Normalized to 

Reference LWR

One-Way 

Shipping 

Distance, 

km

Round-trip 

Distance, km 

per Year

Annual Impacts

Accidents 

per Year

Injuries 

per Year

Fatalities 

per Year

Reference LWR 

(WASH-1238)

6.3 3200 4.0 × 104 1.9 × 10-2 9.3 × 10-3 5.8 × 10-4

VCSNS and 

alternative sites 

AP1000 reactors

5.0 3200 3.2 × 104 1.5 × 10-2 7.4 × 10-3 4.6 × 10-4

LWR = light water reactor

6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel

The NRC staff performed an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of transporting 

spent fuel from the proposed VCSNS site and alternative sites to a spent-fuel disposal 

repository. For the purposes of these analyses, the staff considered the proposed geologic 

HLW repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a surrogate destination. Currently, the NRC 

has not made a decision about the DOE application for the proposed geologic repository at 

Yucca Mountain. However, the NRC staff considers 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 transportation impacts on 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 

impacts of normal operating conditions and transportation accidents, as well as nonradiological 

impacts of accidents, are discussed in this section.

The NRC staff’s analysis is based on shipment of spent fuel by legal-weight trucks in shipping 

casks with characteristics similar to currently available casks (i.e., massive, heavily shielded, 

cylindrical metal pressure vessels). Due to the large size and weight of spent-fuel shipping 

casks, each shipment is assumed to consist of a single shipping cask loaded on a modified 

trailer. These assumptions are consistent with those made in the evaluation of the 

environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel in Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 

(NRC 1996). Because the alternative transportation methods involve railroad transportation or 

heavy-haul trucks, which would reduce the overall number of spent-fuel shipments (NRC 1996), 

thereby reducing impacts, these assumptions are conservative. Also, the use of current 

shipping-cask designs for this analysis 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 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-28 April 2011

limitations. Therefore, future shipping casks are expected to have higher cargo capacities, 

thereby reducing the numbers of shipments and associated impacts.

The NRC staff calculated the radiological impacts of transportation of spent fuel using the 

RADTRAN 5.6 computer code (Weiner et al. 2008). Routing and population data used in 

RADTRAN 5.6 for truck shipments were obtained from the Transportation Routing Analysis 

Geographic Information System (TRAGIS) 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 (Johnson and Michelhaugh 

2003). Traffic accident rates used the RADTRAN 5.6 and nonradiological impact calculations 

were adjusted to account for under-reporting, as discussed in Section 4.8.3.

6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions

Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as “incident-free” conditions, are transportation 

activities in which shipments reach their destination without an accident occurring en route. 

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 the following 

populations: (1) persons residing along the transportation corridors between the VCSNS site (or 

alternative sites) 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) the transportation crew (drivers). For the purposes of this analysis, the 

NRC staff assumed that the destination for the spent-fuel shipments is the proposed geologic 

HLW repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. This assumption is conservative because it 

tends to maximize the shipping distance from the VCSNS site and alternative sites.

Shipping casks have not been designed for the spent fuel from advanced reactor designs such 

as the Westinghouse AP1000. Information in Early Site Permit Environmental Report Sections 

and Supporting Documentation (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 

NRC staff assumed that the capacity of a truck shipment of Westinghouse AP1000 reactor 

spent fuel was 0.5 MTU/shipment, the same capacity as that used in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). 

In its ER (SCE&G 2010), SCE&G assumed a shipping-cask capacity of 1.8 MTU/shipment, 

representative of future shipping-cask designs.

Input to RADTRAN 5.6 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 highway routes from 

the proposed VCSNS site and alternative sites to the proposed geologic HLW repository at

Yucca Mountain. The resulting route-characteristics information, generated by the NRC staff, is 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-29 NUREG-1939

listed in Table 6-7. Note that for truck shipments, all of the spent fuel is assumed to be shipped 

to the proposed geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain over designated highway- route 

controlled-quantity routes. In addition, TRAGIS data were loaded into RADTRAN 5.6 on a 

state-by-state basis, which increases precision and allows the results to be presented for each 

state along the route between the VCSNS site and alternative sites and the proposed geologic 

HLW repository at 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. The values for these and other parameters that were used in the NRC staff’s analysis

and the sources of the information are listed in Table 6-8.

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

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

Nevada 

Advanced

Reactor Site(a)

One-Way Shipping Distance, km Population Density, persons/km2 Stop 

Time per 

Total Rural Suburban Urban Rural Suburban Urban Trip, hr

VCSNS Site 4096 3284 735 77 9.5 311.4 2209.8 5

CGS 4202 3331 790 81 9.6 315.5 2213.1 5

Saluda 4077 3271 729 77 9.4 312.8 2209.8 5

SR 4094 3232 754 107 9.3 335.0 2272.1 5

Source: Johnson and Michelhaugh (2003)

Note: This table presents aggregated route characteristics generated by TRAGIS (Johnson and Michelhaugh 2003), 

including estimated distances from the alternative sites to the nearest TRAGIS highway node. Input to the 

RADTRAN 5.6 computer code was disaggregated to a state-by-state level.

(a) The transportation impacts for the FA-1 site are not explicitly analyzed in this EIS. Shipping distances and 

population distributions are approximately the same as those for the VCSNS Site.

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

Parameter

RADTRAN 5.6 

Input Value Source

Vehicle speed, km/hr 88.49 Based on average speed in rural areas given 

in DOE (2002a). Conservative in-transit speed 

of 55 mph assumed; predominantly interstate 

highways used.

Traffic count – rural, vehicles/hr State-specific State-specific rural, suburban, and urban traffic 

counts are taken from Weiner et al. (2008). Traffic count – suburban, vehicles/hr

Traffic count – urban, vehicles/hr
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-30 April 2011

Table 6-8. (contd)

Parameter

RADTRAN 5.6 

Input Value Source

Vehicle occupancy, persons/vehicle 1.5 DOE (2002a)

Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle, mrem/hr 14 DOE (2002a, b) – approximate dose rate at 

1 m that is equivalent to maximum dose rate 

allowed by Federal regulations 

(i.e., 10 mrem/hr at 2 m from the side of a 

transport vehicle).

Packaging dimensions, m Length – 5.2 

Diameter – 1.0

DOE (2002b)

Number of truck crew 2 AEC (1972), NRC (1977b), and 

DOE (2002a, b)

Stop time, hr/trip Route-specific See Table 6-4

Population density at stops, 

persons/km2

30,000 Sprung et al. (2000). Equivalent to nine 

persons within 10 m of vehicle. See Figure 6-2

Min/max radii of annular area around 

vehicle at stops, m

1 to 10 Sprung et al. (2000)

Dimensionless shielding factor applied 

to annular area surrounding vehicle at 

stops

1

(no shielding)

Sprung et al. (2000)

Population density surrounding truck 

stops, persons/km2

340 Sprung et al. (2000)

Min/max radius of annular area 

surrounding truck stop, m

10 to 800 Sprung et al. (2000)

Dimensionless shielding factor applied 

to annular area surrounding truck stop

0.2 Sprung et al. (2000)

For the purposes of this analysis, the transportation crew for spent-fuel shipments delivered by 

truck is assumed to consist of two drivers. Escort vehicles and drivers were considered, but 

they were not included in the analysis because their distance from the shipping cask would 

reduce the dose rates to levels well below the dose rates experienced by the drivers and would 

be negligible. Stop times for refueling and rest were assumed to accrue at the rate of 

30 minutes per 4 hours of driving time. TRAGIS outputs were used to estimate the number of 

stops. For this analysis, doses to the public at refueling and rest stops (“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 by 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).
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-31 NUREG-1939

The results calculated by the NRC staff for these normal (incident-free) exposure conditions are 

shown in Table 6-9 for the proposed VCSNS site and alternative sites. Population dose 

estimates are given for workers (i.e., truck crew members), onlookers (doses to persons at 

stops and persons on highways exposed to the spent-fuel shipment), and persons along the 

route (persons living near the highway). Shipping schedules for spent fuel generated by the

proposed new unit have not been determined. The NRC staff concluded it is reasonable to 

calculate annual doses assuming that the annual number of spent-fuel shipments is equivalent 

to the annual refueling requirements. Population doses were normalized to the reference LWR 

in WASH-1238 (880 net MW(e)). This corresponds to an 1100-MW(e) LWR operating at 

80-percent capacity.

Figure 6-2. Illustration of Truck Stop Model

Not to Scale

1 m

10 m

800 m

Truck Stop

Region 1

Truck Stop

Region 2

Population Density = 340 persons/km2

Population Density = 

30,000 persons/km2

Shielding Factor = 0.2

(Dose rate reduced by 80% to account

for intervening structures, buildings, terrain)

Shielding Factor = 1

(No intervening shielding)

Not to Scale

1 m

10 m

800 m

Truck Stop

Region 1

Truck Stop

Region 2

Population Density = 340 persons/km2

Population Density = 

30,000 persons/km2

Shielding Factor = 0.2

(Dose rate reduced by 80% to account

for intervening structures, buildings, terrain)

Shielding Factor = 1

(No intervening shielding)
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-32 April 2011

There are only small differences in transportation impacts among the VCSNS site and the

alternative sites evaluated. The differences are due to the route characteristics (distance, 

population density) for shipments from the VCSNS site and alternative sites to the proposed 

geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain.

The bounding cumulative doses to the exposed population given in Table S–4 are

• 4 person-rem/reactor-year to transport workers

• 3 person-rem/reactor-year to general public (onlookers) and to members of the public along 

the route.

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

Shipping Spent Fuel from the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites to the Proposed 

Geologic HLW Repository at Yucca Mountain

Normalized Impacts (person-rem/yr)(a)

Worker (Crew) Along Route Onlookers

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 1.1 × 10+1 5.3 × 10-1 2.4 × 10+1

VCSNS COL normalized impacts(b) 7.4 × 100 3.5 × 10-1 1.5 × 10+1

CGS 7.5 × 100 3.9 × 10-1 1.6 × 10+1

Saluda 7.3 × 100 3.6 × 10-1 1.5 × 10+1

SR 7.3 × 100 3.9 × 10-1 1.6 × 10+1

Table S–4 condition 4 × 100 3 × 100 3 × 10-0

(a) To convert person-rem to person-Sv, divide by 100.

(b) The transportation impacts for the FA-1 site are not explicitly analyzed in this EIS. Shipping 

distances, population distributions, and transportation impacts are approximately the same 

as those for the VCSNS Site.

LWR = light water reactor

The calculated population doses to the crew and onlookers for the reference LWR and the 

VCSNS and alternative 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 COL 

analysis (i.e., to a proposed repository in Nevada) than the distance used in WASH-1238. 

WASH-1238 assumed that each spent-fuel shipment would travel a distance of 1000 mi, 

whereas the shipping distances used in this assessment were about 2500 to 2600 mi. If the 

shorter distance were used to calculate the impacts for the VCSNS spent-fuel shipments, the 

doses in Table 6-9 could be reduced by half or more. Other important differences are the model 

related to vehicle stops described above and the additional precision that results from 

incorporating state-specific route characteristics and vehicle densities on highways (vehicles 

per hour).
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-33 NUREG-1939

Where necessary, the NRC staff made conservative assumptions to calculate impacts 

associated with transportation of spent fuel. Some of the key conservative assumptions are as 

follows:

• Use of the regulatory maximum dose rate (10 mrem/hr at 2 m) in the RADTRAN 5.6 

calculations

Table 6-9

. The shipping casks assumed in the EIS prepared by DOE in support of the 

application for the proposed geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain (DOE 2002b) were 

designed to transport spent fuel that has cooled for a minimum of 5 years (see 10 CFR Part 

961, Subpart B). Most spent fuel would have cooled for much longer than 5 years before 

being shipped to a possible geologic repository. For this reason, shipments from the 

VCSNS site and alternative sites are also expected to be cooled for longer than 5 years. 

Consequently, the estimated population doses in 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

A sensitivity study was performed to demonstrate the effects of using more realistic dose rates 

and stop times on the incident-free population dose calculations. 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 5.6 input values were 

unchanged. The result is that the annual crew doses were reduced to 2.6 person-rem/yr or 

about 35 percent of the annual dose shown in 

. 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 by 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. 

Table 6-9. The annual onlooker doses were 

reduced to 4.0 person-rem/yr (26 percent) and the annual doses to persons along the route 

were reduced to 0.13 person-rem/yr (38 percent). The NRC concluded that using more realistic 

parameters for shipment capacities, stop times, and dose rates would reduce the annual doses 

in Table 6-9 to below the Table S–4 values.

In the ER, SCE&G described the results of a RADTRAN 5.6 analysis of the impacts of incidentfree transport of spent fuel to the proposed geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain 

(SCE&G 2010). Although the overall approaches are the same (e.g., use of TRAGIS and 

RADTRAN 5.6), there are some differences in the modeling details. For example, the NRC 

staff’s analysis used state-by-state route characteristics and a shipment capacity of 0.5 MTU, 

whereas SCE&G elected to use aggregated route information and a shipment capacity of 

1.8 MTU. After adjusting for these key differences, the results are similar to those calculated by 

the NRC staff in this EIS.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-34 April 2011

Using the linear no-threshold dose-response relationship discussed in Section 6.2.1.1, the 

annual public dose impacts for transporting spent fuel from the VCSNS site and alternative sites 

to the proposed geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain are less than the value of 

1754 person-rem that ICRP (ICRP 2007) and NCRP (NCRP 1995) suggest would most likely 

result in zero excess health effects. This risk is very small compared to the estimated 

2.1 × 105 person-rem that the same population along the route from the proposed VCSNS site 

to Yucca Mountain would incur annually from exposure to natural background radiation. Note 

that the estimated dose to persons along the Summer-to-Yucca-Mountain route from natural 

background radiation is different than the natural background dose calculated by the NRC staff 

for unirradiated fuel shipments in Section 6.2.1.1 of this EIS because the route characteristics 

are different. A generic route was used in Section 6.2.1.1 for unirradiated fuel shipments and an 

actual highway route was used in this section for spent-fuel shipments.

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 NRC staff used the RADTRAN 5.6 computer code to estimate the 

impacts of transportation accidents involving spent-fuel shipments. RADTRAN 5.6 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 taken from SCE&G’s ER (SCE&G 2010). 

Spent-fuel radionuclide inventories used in the NRC staff analysis are presented in Table 6-10. 

The radionuclides listed in the table include all of the radionuclides that were included in the 

analysis conducted by Sprung et al. (2000). The staff’s analysis also included the estimated 

inventory of “crud,” or radioactive material deposited on the external surfaces of LWR spent-fuel 

rods. 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 VCSNS Westinghouse AP1000 spent-fuel transportation accident 

impacts were calculated in this EIS and in SCE&G’s ER assuming that the cobalt-60 inventory 

in the form of crud is 4.09 Ci/MTU, based on information provided in the ER (SCE&G 

2010).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 be designed to withstand a series of 

severe postulated hypothetical accident conditions with essentially no loss of containment or 

shielding capability. These casks are also designed with fissile-material controls to verify that 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-35 NUREG-1939

the spent fuel remains subcritical under normal and accident conditions. According to Sprung 

et al. (2000), the probability of encountering accident conditions during transport 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 NRC staff 

assumed that shipping casks approved for transportation of spent fuel from an AP1000 reactor 

would provide equivalent mechanical and thermal protection of the spent-fuel cargo.

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

Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor(a)(b)

Radionuclide Ci/MTU Bq/MTU

PhysicalChemical Group

Am-241 7.27E+02 2.7E+13 Particulate

Am-242m 1.31E+01 4.9E+11 Particulate

Am-243 3.34E+01 1.2E+12 Particulate

Ce-144 8.87E+03 3.3E+14 Particulate

Cm-242 2.83E+01 1.0E+12 Particulate

Cm-243 3.07E+01 1.1E+12 Particulate

Cm-244 7.75E+03 2.9E+14 Particulate

Cm-245 1.21E+00 4.5E+10 Particulate

Co-60 4.09E+00 2.9E+12 Crud

Cs-134 4.80E+04 1.8E+15 Cesium

Cs-137 9.31E+04 3.4E+15 Cesium

Eu-154 9.13E+03 3.4E+14 Particulate

Eu-155 4.62E+03 1.7E+14 Particulate

I-129 4.65E-02 1.7E+09 Gas

Kr-85 8.90E+03 3.3E+14 Gas

Pm-147 1.76E+04 6.5E+14 Particulate

Pu-238 6.07E+03 2.2E+14 Particulate

Pu-239 2.55E+02 9.4E+12 Particulate

Pu-240 5.43E+02 2.0E+13 Particulate

Pu-241 6.96E+04 2.6E+15 Particulate

Pu-242 1.82E+00 6.7E+10 Particulate

Ru-106 1.55E+04 5.7E+14 Ruthenium

Sb-125 3.83E+03 1.4E+14 Particulate

Sr-90 6.19E+04 2.3E+15 Particulate

Y-90 6.19E+04 2.3E+15 Particulate

(a) Divide becquerel per metric ton uranium (Bq/MTU) by 3.7 × 1010 to 

obtain curies per MTU (Ci/MTU)

(b) The source of the spent-fuel inventories is SCE&G (2010).
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-36 April 2011

Accident frequencies are calculated in RADTRAN 5.6 using user-specified accident rates and 

conditional shipping-cask failure probabilities. State-specific accident rates were taken from 

Saricks and Tompkins (1999) and used in the RADTRAN 5.6 calculations. The state-specific 

accident rates were then adjusted to account for under-reporting, as described in 

Section 6.2.1.3. Conditional shipping-cask failure probabilities (i.e., the probability of cask 

failure as a function of the mechanical and thermal conditions applied in an accident) were 

taken from Sprung et al. (2000).

The RADTRAN 5.6 accident-risk calculations were performed using the radionuclide inventories 

given in Table 6-10. The resulting risk estimates were then multiplied by the assumed annual 

spent-fuel shipments to derive estimates of the annual accident risks associated with spent-fuel 

shipments from the VCSNS site and alternative sites to the proposed geologic HLW repository 

at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. As was done for normal transport exposures, the NRC staff 

assumed that the number of shipments of spent fuel per year is 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 of 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 5.6 to calculate the population dose from the released 

radioactive material from four of five possible exposure pathways.(a

• external dose from exposure to the passing cloud of radioactive material (cloudshine)

)

 These pathways are as 

follows:

• external dose from the radionuclides deposited on the ground by the passing plume 

(groundshine). The NRC staff's 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 staff's 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.

 

(a) Internal dose from ingestion of contaminated food was not considered because the staff assumed 

evacuation and subsequent interdiction of foodstuffs following a postulated transportation accident.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-37 NUREG-1939

Table 6-11 presents the environmental consequences calculated by the NRC staff for 

transportation accidents when shipping spent fuel from the VCSNS site and alternative sites to 

the proposed geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain. 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-1238 

reference reactor (880-MW(e) net electrical generation, 1100-MW(e) reactor operating at 

80-percent capacity) to provide a common basis for comparison to the impacts listed in 

Table S–4. Note that the impacts for all site alternatives are less than the reference LWR 

impacts. Also, although there are slight differences in impacts among the alternative sites, none 

of the alternative sites would be clearly favored over the VCSNS site.

Table 6-11. Annual Spent-Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for a Westinghouse AP1000 

Reactor at the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites, Normalized to the Reference 

1100-MW(e) LWR Net Electrical Generation

Normalized Population Impacts, 

person-rem/yr(a)

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 2.7 × 10-5

VCSNS Site(b) 1.8 × 10-5

CGS 2.0 × 10-5

Saluda 1.7 × 10-5

SR 3.9 × 10-5

(a) Multiply person-rem/yr times 0.01 to obtain person-Sv/yr.

(b) The transportation impacts for the FA-1 site are not explicitly analyzed in 

this EIS. Shipping distances, population distributions, and transportation 

impacts are approximately the same as those for the VCSNS Site.

LWR = light water reactor

Using the linear no-threshold dose-response relationship discussed in Section 6.2.1.1, the 

annual risk to the public from accidents during transportation of spent fuel from the VCSNS site 

and alternative sites to the proposed geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain is lower than 

the value of 1754 person-rem that ICRP (2007) and NCRP (1995) suggest would most likely 

result in zero excess health effects. This risk is very small compared to the estimated 

2.1 × 105 person-rem that the same population along the route from the proposed VCSNS site 

to the proposed geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain would incur annually from 

exposure to natural sources of radiation. Note that the estimated population dose to persons 

along the VCSNS-to-Yucca-Mountain route is different than the population dose calculated by 

the NRC staff for unirradiated fuel shipments in Section 6.2.1.1 because the route 

characteristics are different.

The NRC staff performed a confirmatory evaluation of SCE&G’s spent-fuel transportation 

accident risk analysis. It was noted that SCE&G used a different, though valid, methodology for 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-38 April 2011

the ER calculations. The primary difference was that SCE&G assumed aggregated route 

parameters, whereas in this EIS the NRC staff used state-by-state shipping distances and 

population densities. The staff concluded that SCE&G’s analysis was reasonable and 

comprehensive and thus was considered to meet the intent of 10 CFR 51.52(b).

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 from 

Saricks 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. In addition, the accident, injury, and fatality rates from Saricks and Tompkins (1999) 

were adjusted to account for under-reporting (see Section 6.2.1.3). The results calculated by 

the NRC staff are shown in Table 6-12.

Table 6-12. Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Spent Fuel from the VCSNS Site and 

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

Normalized to the Reference LWR 

Site

One-Way Shipping 

Distance, km

Nonradiological Impacts, per year

Accidents/yr Injuries/yr Fatalities/yr

VCSNS (preferred site)(a) 4096 1.1 × 10-1 7.1 × 10-2 5.6 × 10-3

CGS 4202 1.2 × 10-1 7.4 × 10-2 5.9 × 10-3

Saluda 4077 1.1 × 10-1 7.0 × 10-2 5.5 × 10-3

SR 4094 1.3 × 10-1 8.0 × 10-2 5.7 × 10-3

Note: The number of shipments of spent fuel assumed in the calculations is 46 shipments/yr after normalizing to the 

reference light water reactor.

(a) The transportation impacts for the FA-1 site are not explicitly analyzed in this EIS. Shipping distances, population 

distributions, and transportation impacts are approximately the same as those for the VCSNS Site.

6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste Other Than Spent Fuel

This section discusses the environmental effects of transporting radioactive waste other than 

spent fuel from the VCSNS site and alternative sites. 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 railroad.

• The weight limitation of 73,000 lb per truck and 100 tons per cask per railcar would be met.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-39 NUREG-1939

• Traffic density would be less than the one truck shipment per day or three railcars per month 

condition.

Radioactive waste other than spent fuel 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 the NRC staff’s estimates of annual waste volumes and annual waste-shipment 

numbers for a Westinghouse AP1000 reactor normalized to the reference 1100-MW(e) LWR

defined in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). The expected annual radioactive waste volumes for the 

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor, except for spent fuel, was estimated at 1964 ft3

/yr per unit, and 

the annual number of waste shipments was estimated at 21 shipments per year (SCE&G 2010). 

The expected annual waste volume is less than that for the 1100-MW(e) reference reactor that 

was the basis for Table S–4. Therefore, the number of radioactive waste shipments for the 

Table 6-13. Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the VCSNS Site and Alternative 

Sites

Reactor Type

Waste 

Generation 

Information

Annual 

Waste 

Volume, 

m3

/yr 

per Unit

Electrical 

Output, 

MW(e) 

per Unit

Normalized 

Rate, m3

/1100-

MW(e) Unit (880 

MW(e) Net)(a)

Shipments/

1100-MW(e) 

(880 MW(e) Net) 

Electrical 

Output(b)

Reference LWR 

(WASH-1238)

3800 ft3/yr 

per unit

108 1100 108 46(b)

VCSNS and alternative 

sites Westinghouse 

AP1000 reactor 

(expected)

1964 ft3/yr 

per unit(c)

56 1107 48 21(d)

VCSNS and alternative 

sites Westinghouse 

AP1000 reactor 

(maximum)

5717 ft3/yr 

per unit(c)

162 1107 138 60(d)

Conversions: 1 m3 = 35.31 ft3. Drum volume = 210 L (0.21 m3).

(a) Capacity factors used to normalize the waste generation rates to an equivalent electrical generation output are 

80 percent for the reference LWR (AEC 1972) and 93 percent for the Westinghouse AP1000 (SCE&G 2010). 

Waste generation for the Westinghouse AP1000 is normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical output (1100-MW(e) 

unit with an 80-percent capacity factor).

(b) The number of shipments per 1100 MW(e) was calculated assuming the WASH-1238 average waste-shipment 

capacity of 2.34 m3 (82.6 ft3

) per shipment.

(c) These values were taken from the ER (SCE&G 2010) and are the same as the waste-generation estimates in 

the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2007).

(d) This value was obtained by normalizing the SCE&G (2010) estimate (15 shipments/yr) to the reference-LWR 

electrical generation output. If the WASH-1238 shipment capacity is used (2.34 m3 per shipment) in lieu of the 

SCE&G (2010) annual shipment estimate, the normalized shipments from the Westinghouse AP1000 would be 

about 53 shipments per year.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-40 April 2011

Westinghouse AP1000 is smaller than the reference LWR. The NRC staff reviewed the 

radioactive waste generation and shipment data in the ER (SCE&G 2010) and concluded that 

the information is consistent with current LWR operating experience. Therefore, the number of 

shipments of radioactive waste, other than spent fuel, to disposal facilities is expected to be 

smaller than the reference LWR in WASH-1238.

The sum of the daily shipments of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste for a 

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor located at the VCSNS site and alternative sites is less than the 

one-truck-shipment-per-day condition given in 10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4. 

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.

Nonradiological impacts of radioactive waste shipments were calculated using the same general 

approach used for unirradiated and spent-fuel shipments. For this EIS, the shipping distance 

was assumed to be 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). These rates were adjusted to account for under-reporting, as described in 

Section 6.2.1.3. The results calculated by the NRC staff are presented in Table 6-14. As 

shown, the calculated nonradiological impacts for transportation of radioactive waste other than 

spent fuel from the VCSNS site and alternative sites to waste disposal facilities are less than the 

impacts calculated for the reference LWR in WASH-1238.

Table 6-14. Nonradiological Impacts of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the VCSNS Site

Normalized 

Shipments 

per Year

One-Way 

Distance, 

km

Accidents 

per Year

Injuries 

per Year

Fatalities 

per Year

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 46 800 3.4 × 10-2 1.7 × 10-2 1.1 × 10-3

VCSNS Westinghouse AP1000 

reactor (expected waste volume)

21 800 1.6 × 10-2 7.8 × 10-3 4.9 × 10-4

Note: The shipments and impacts have been normalized to the reference light water reactor (LWR); the expected 

waste volumes and shipments from the Westinghouse AP1000 (SCE&G 2010) were used.

6.2.4 Conclusions

The NRC staff conducted a confirmatory analysis and performed independent calculations of 

potential impacts under normal and accident conditions of transporting fuel and wastes to and 

from a Westinghouse AP1000 reactor proposed to be located at the VCSNS site and alternative 

sites. To make comparisons with Table S–4, the environmental impacts were adjusted (that is, 

normalized) to the environmental impacts associated with the reference LWR in WASH-1238 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-41 NUREG-1939

(AEC 1972) by multiplying the Westinghouse AP1000 impact estimates by the ratio of the total 

electric output for the reference reactor to the electric output of the proposed reactor.

Because of the conservative approaches and data used to calculate impacts, the actual 

environmental effects are not likely to exceed those calculated in this EIS. Thus, the NRC staff 

concludes that the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and 

from the VCSNS site and alternative sites 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.

The NRC staff notes that on March 3, 2010, DOE submitted a motion to the Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board to withdraw with prejudice its application for a permanent geologic repository at 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada (DOE 2010). Regardless of the outcome of this motion, the NRC staff 

concludes that transportation impacts are roughly proportional to the distance from the reactor 

site to the repository site, in this case South Carolina to Nevada. The distance from the VCSNS 

site or any of the alternate sites to any new planned repository in the contiguous United States 

would be no more than double the distance from the VCSNS site to Yucca Mountain. Doubling 

the environmental impact estimates from the transportation of spent reactor fuel, as presented 

in this section, would provide a reasonable bounding estimate for the impacts for NEPA 

purposes. The NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts of these doubled estimates 

would still be SMALL.

6.3 Decommissioning Impacts

At the end of the operating life of a power reactor, NRC regulations require that the facility be

decommissioned. The NRC defines decommissioning as the safe removal of a facility 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 and 10 CFR 50.82. The radiological criteria for termination of the NRC license are in 10 

CFR Part 20, Subpart E.

An applicant for a COL is required to certify that sufficient funds will be available for radiological 

decommissioning at the end of power-generation operations. As part of its COL application for 

the proposed Units 2 and 3 on the VCSNS site, SCE&G included a Decommissioning Funding 

Assurance Report (SCE&G 2008). SCE&G and Santee Cooper (the State-owned electric and 

water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority) would establish an 

external sinking-funds account to accumulate funds for decommissioning. 

Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any reactor 

before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement I, Regarding the 

Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors (GEIS-DECOM), NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-42 April 2011

(NRC 2002). Environmental impacts of the DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB 

decommissioning methods are evaluated in the GEIS-DECOM. A COL applicant is not required 

to identify a decommissioning method at the time of the COL application. The staff’s evaluation 

of the environmental impacts of decommissioning presented in the GEIS-DECOM identifies a 

range of impacts for each environmental issue for a range of different reactor designs. The 

NRC staff concludes that the construction methods that would be used for the AP1000 are not 

sufficiently different from the construction methods used for the current plants to significantly 

affect the impacts evaluated in the GEIS-DECOM. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

impacts discussed in the GEIS-DECOM remain bounding for reactors deployed after 2002, 

including the AP1000.

The GEIS-DECOM does not specifically address the carbon footprint of decommissioning 

activities. However, it does list the decommissioning activities and states that the 

decommissioning workforce would be expected to be smaller than the operational workforce 

and that the decontamination and demolition activities could take up to 10 years to complete. 

Finally, it discusses SAFSTOR, in which decontamination and dismantlement are delayed for a 

number of years. Given this information, the NRC staff estimated the CO2 footprint of 

decommissioning to be of the order of 70,000 MT without SAFSTOR. This footprint is about 

equally split between decommissioning workforce transportation and equipment usage. The 

details of the NRC staff’s estimate are presented in Appendix J. A 40-year SAFSTOR period 

would increase the footprint of decommissioning by about 40 percent. These CO2 footprints are 

roughly three orders of magnitude lower than the CO2 footprint presented in Section 6.1.3 for 

the uranium fuel cycle.

Therefore, the staff relies upon the bases established in the GEIS-DECOM, and concludes the 

following: 

1. Doses to the public would be well below applicable regulatory standards, regardless of 

which decommissioning method considered in the GEIS-DECOM is used.

2. Occupational doses would be well below applicable regulatory standards during the license 

term.

3. The quantities of Class C or greater-than Class C wastes generated would be comparable 

to or smaller than the amounts of solid waste generated by reactors licensed before 2002. 

4. The air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible at the end of the 

operating term.

5. Measures are readily available to avoid potential significant water-quality impacts from 

erosion or spills. The liquid radioactive-waste system design includes features to limit 

release of radioactive material to the environment, such as pipe chases and tank collection 

basins. These features will minimize the amount of radioactive material in spills and leakage 

that would have to be addressed at decommissioning.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-43 NUREG-1939

6. The ecological impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible.

7. The socioeconomic impacts would be short-term and could be offset by decreases in 

population and economic diversification.

On the basis of the GEIS-DECOM, and the evaluation of air quality impacts from greenhouse 

gas emissions above, the NRC staff concludes that, as long as the regulatory requirements on 

decommissioning activities to limit the impacts of decommissioning are met, the 

decommissioning activities would result in 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 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and 

Transportation of Radioactive Material.”

10 CFR Part 961. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 961, “Standard Contract 

for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste.”

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Protection of Environment, Part 173, 

“Shippers-General Requirements for Shipments and Packagings.”

61 FR 65120. December 10, 1996. “Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of 

Radioactive Materials; Clean Air Act.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

75 FR 81032. December 23, 2010. “Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary 

Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Inc. 1983. United 

States Reports.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-44 April 2011

Chem-Nuclear Systems. 2005. Interim Site Stabilization and Closure Plan for the Barnwell 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, 2005 Closure Plan. June 2005. PL-CNS-05-

001. Barnwell, South Carolina.Energy Policy Act of 2005. 42 USC 15801, et seq.

Griego N.R., J.D. Smith, and K.S. Neuhauser. 1996. “Investigation of RADTRAN Stop Model 

Input Parameters for Truck Stops.” In Waste Management ‘96: Proceedings of the Symposium 

on Waste Management: HLW, LLW, Mixed Wastes and Environmental Restoration – Working 

Towards a Cleaner Environment. Arizona Board of Regents, 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). 2007. The 2007 

Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP 

Publication 103. Annals of the ICRP 37(2-4), Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Jablon S., Z. Hrubec, J.D. Boice, Jr., and B.J. Stone. 1990. Cancer in Populations Living Near 

Nuclear Facilities. NIH Pub. No. 90-874, National Institutes of Health, 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). 1995. Principles and 

Application of Collective Dose in Radiation Protection. NCRP Report No. 121, NCRP 

Publications, Bethesda, Maryland.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 2009. Ionizing Radiation 

Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160, NCRP Publications, 

Bethesda, Maryland.

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.

Saricks, C.L. and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates for Surface Freight 

Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-150, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

Illinois.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-45 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G). 2008. Application for Combined License for V.C. 

Summer Nuclear Stations Units 2 and 3; Project Number 743. Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina. NND-08-0004. Accession No. ML081300460.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 

COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 2, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML101930231. 

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, Vol. 1, SAND2000-0234, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). 2003. Evaluation of the 

Motor Carrier Management Information System Crash File, Phase One. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Environmental Survey of Transportation of 

Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1238, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel 

Cycle. WASH-1248, Washington, D.C.

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 

at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009a. Electric Power Monthly, August 2009. DOE/EIA0226 (2009/08), Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and

Alternate Fuels, Washington, D.C. Accessed August 24, 2009, at 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/electricity/epm/02260908.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009b. DOE Standard, Radiological Control. DOE-STD1098-99, Change Notice 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2010. U.S. Department of Energy’s Motion to Withdraw. 

Docket No. 63-001, March 03, 2010. Accession No. ML100621397.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2003. What Aircrews Should Know About Their 

Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. DOT/FAA/AM-3/16, Federal Aviation 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1939 6-46 April 2011

Administration, Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0316.pdf.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1975. Environmental Survey of Transportation of 

Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1. WASH-1238, NUREG75/038, 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), Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977a. 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), Washington, 

D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977b. Final Environmental Statement on 

Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. NUREG-0170, Vol.1, 

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, Washington, D.C.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2, 

Washington, D.C.

The Ux Consulting Company, LLC (UxC). 2009. UxC Nuclear Fuel Price Indicators: Spot Price 

of Uranium. Accessed May 15, 2009 at http://www.vxc.com/review/vxc_prices.aspx. 

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2007. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 16, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

ML071580939.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

ML083230868.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

April 2011 6-47 NUREG-1939

Weiner R.F., D.M. Osborn, D. Hinojosa, T.L. Heames, J. Penisten and D.J. Orcutt. 2008. 

RadCat 2.3 User Guide. SAND2006-6315, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico.

April 2011 7-1 NUREG-1939

7.0 Cumulative Impacts

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), requires Federal agencies 

to consider the cumulative impacts of proposals under its review. Cumulative impacts may 

result when the environmental effects associated with the proposed action are overlaid or added 

to temporary or permanent effects associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over a period of time. When evaluating the potential impacts of 

two new units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site proposed by South 

Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) in its application for combined construction permits and 

operating licenses (COLs) (SCE&G 2008), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) staff considered potential cumulative impacts on 

resources that could be affected by the construction, preconstruction, and operation of two 

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) 

pressurized water reactors at the VCSNS site. Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an 

action are added to or interact with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

effects on the same resources. For the purposes of this analysis, past actions are those prior to 

the receipt of the COL application. Present actions are those related to resources from the time 

of the COL application until the start of NRC-authorized construction of the proposed new units. 

Future actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable through building and operating 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, including decommissioning. The geographic area over which 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions could contribute to cumulative impacts 

is dependent on the type of resource considered and is described below for each resource area. 

The review team considered, among other things, cumulative effects of proposed Units 2 and 3

with current operations at VCSNS Unit 1. 

The approach for evaluating cumulative impacts in this environmental impact statement (EIS) is 

outlined in the following discussion. To guide its assessment of environmental impacts of a 

proposed action or alternative actions, the NRC has established a standard of significance for 

impacts based on guidance developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

(Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.27). The three significance levels 

established by the NRC – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – are defined 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.
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-2 April 2011

The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Chapters 4 and 5, are combined with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions near the VCSNS site that would affect 

the same resources affected by proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. These combined impacts are 

defined by CEQ 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 cumulative impact when considered in 

combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource 

is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it 

contributes to or accelerates the overall resource decline. 

The description of the affected environment in Chapter 2 serves as the baseline for the 

cumulative impacts analysis, including the effects of past actions. The incremental impacts 

related to the construction activities requiring NRC authorization (10 CFR 50.10(a)) are 

described and characterized in Chapter 4 and those related to operations are described in 

Chapter 5. These impacts are summarized for each resource area in the sections that follow. 

The level of detail is commensurate with the significance of the impact for each resource area. 

This chapter includes an overall cumulative impact assessment for each resource area,

following guidance provided in NRC Staff Memorandum “Addressing Construction and

Preconstruction Activities, Greenhouse Gas Issues, General Conformity Determinations,

Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative Impact Analysis, and Cultural/Historical

Resources Analysis Issues In Environmental Impact Statements” (NRC 2010).

The specific resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects of the 

proposed action and other actions in the same geographic area were assessed. This 

assessment includes the impacts of construction and operation of the proposed new units as 

described in Chapters 4 and 5; impacts of preconstruction activities as described in Chapter 4; 

impacts of fuel cycle, transportation, and decommissioning as described in Chapter 6; and 

impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private 

actions that could affect the same resources affected by the proposed actions.

The review team visited the VCSNS site from March 8 through 13, 2009. The team then used 

the information provided in the Environmental Report, responses to Requests for Additional 

Information, information from other Federal and State agencies, and information gathered 

during the visits to the VCSNS site to evaluate the cumulative impacts of building and operating 

two new nuclear power plants at the site. To inform the cumulative analysis, the review team 

researched U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) databases for recent EISs, used an 

EPA database for permits for water discharges in the geographic area to identify water-use 

projects, and used the www.recovery.gov website to identify projects in the geographic area 

funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5). Other 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-3 NUREG-1939

actions and projects that were identified during this review and considered in the review team’s 

independent analysis of the potential cumulative effects are described in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions Considered 

in the Cumulative Analysis

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Energy Projects

VCSNS Unit 1 VCSNS Unit 1 consists of one 

996-MW(e) nuclear power 

generating plant.

<1 mi north of

proposed 

VCSNS Units 

2 and 3

VCSNS Unit 1 is currently 

operational and is licensed to 

continue operations through 

August 6, 2042(a)

Independent Spent 

Fuel Storage 

Installation

Dry spent-fuel storage Same general 

location as 

VCSNS Units 

2 and 3

Proposed(b)

Old Steam Generator 

Recycle Facility

Decommissioned steam 

generator storage

Same general 

location as 

VCSNS Unit 2 

and 3

Operational(c)

Carolinas-Virginia Tube 

Reactor (CVTR)

Experimental pressurized tube 

heavy water nuclear power 

reactor

About 2 miles 

south of 

VCSNS Unit 1

Decommissioned(v)

SCE&G Parr 

Hydroelectric 

Generating Station 

(Parr Hydroelectric 

Plant)

14-MW(e) hydroelectric plant <1 mi south of 

VCSNS on 

Broad River

Operational(d)

SCE&G Fairfield 

Pumped Storage 

Facility (FPSF)

511.2-MW(e) hydroelectric plant. 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would use 

water supply from this facility

<2 mi 

northwest of 

VCSNS on 

Parr Reservoir 

(Broad River)

Operational(b)

SCE&G Parr 

Combustion Facility

71-MW(e) natural gas electric 

generating plant 

About 2 mi 

south of 

VCSNS 

Operational(v)

Lee Nuclear Station Two 1199.5-MW(e) 

Westinghouse AP1000 

pressurized water reactors 

About 52 mi 

north

Proposed new nuclear plant. 

Operation would begin in 2021(e)

Catawba Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2

Two 1129-MW(e) Westinghouse 

reactors

About 54 mi 

northnortheast 

Operational(f)

H.B. Robinson Steam 

Electric Plant, Unit 2

Nuclear power generating plant 

with one 710-MW(e) unit

About 66 mi 

east 

Operational(g)

McGuire Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2

Two 1100-MW(e) Westinghouse 

reactors

About 80 mi 

northnortheast 

Operational(h)
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-4 April 2011

Table 7-1. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant 

(VEGP)

Nuclear power generating plant 

with 2 units, VEGP 1 

(1109 MW(e)) and VEGP 2 

(1127 MW(e))

Approx 80 mi 

southsouthwest

Operational(i)

VEGP Units 3 and 4 Nuclear power generating plant 

with two 1117-MW(e) 

Westinghouse AP1000 

pressurized water reactors 

Approx 80 mi 

southsouthwest

Proposed(j) Pre-construction 

activities have commenced. NRC 

Limited Work Authorization has been 

issued. Commercial operations are 

estimated to begin in 2016 for Unit 3 

and 2017 for Unit 4. 

Oconee Nuclear 

Station, Units 1, 2,

and 3

Three 846-MW(e) Babcock and 

Wilcox reactors

About 96 mi 

west-northwest 

Operational(b)

Buzzard Roost 

Combustion Turbine 

Station 

196-MW oil/gas-fired peaking 

facility 

Approx 35 mi 

westsouthwest 

Operational(k)

Buzzard’s Roost Dam 15-MW hydroelectric facility Approx 35 mi 

westsouthwest

Operational(l)

Westinghouse Fuel 

Fabrication Plant in 

Columbia, South 

Carolina

Design and fabricate completed 

nuclear fuel assemblies and 

fuel-related products, such as 

top and bottom nozzles, control 

rods, and Zirconium Diboride 

and Erbia integral fuel burnable 

absorbers for pressurized water 

reactors and Vodo-Vodyanoi 

Energetichesky Reactors. 

About 26 mi 

southwest

Operational(m)

Six Broad River 

Hydroelectric Projects

Hydroelectric facilities 5 upstream on 

the Broad 

River and 1 

downstream on 

the Broad 

River

Operational(b)

Mining Projects

Vulcan Materials 

Company/ Blair Quarry

Products include asphalt 

aggregate, base material, 

concrete, aggregate, and 

manufactured sand

Approximately 

10 mi north of 

VCSNS

Operational(n)

Transportation Projects

South Carolina 

Strategic Corridor 

System Plan

Strategic system of corridors 

forming the backbone of the 

state’s transportation system.

State-wide Planning document with no explicit 

schedules for projects, however, 

many strategic corridors coincide 

with routes which would/could be 

used for development at the VCSNS 

site(o)
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-5 NUREG-1939

Table 7-1. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Parks and Aquaculture Facilities

Sumter National Forest 371,000-ac National Forest. Located about 

9 mi northwest 

of VCSNS 

boundary

Currently managed by U.S. Forest 

Service(p)

Parr Hydro Wildlife 

Management Area

4400-ac wildlife management 

area

Adjacent to 

VCSNS

Currently managed by the South 

Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources(b)

Other Actions/Projects

City of Columbia Municipal water withdrawals 

from the Broad River

About 26 mi 

southeast 

Ongoing(b)

Various hospitals and 

industrial facilities that 

use radioactive 

materials 

Medical isotopes Within 50 mi Operational in Columbia, Lexington, 

Newberry, Rock Hill, Lancaster, 

Laurens, Greenwood, and Camden

Cone Mills Carlisle 

Finishing Co.

Fabric finisher About 22 mi. 

north of 

VCSNS on 

Broad River

Operational(q)

Chemtrade 

Performance 

Chemicals, LLC

Industrial Inorganic Chemicals About 23 mi 

north of 

VCSNS on 

Broad River

Operational(r)

Newberry County 

Water and Sewer 

Authority

(NCW&SA)/Cannons 

Creek Waste Water 

Treatment Plant 

(WWTP)

Waste water treatment About 8 mi 

west of 

VCSNS

Operational(s)

NCW&SA Broad River 

Wastewater Treatment 

Facility (WWTF) 

Phase 1

Waste water treatment About 12 mi 

west of 

VCSNS

Deactivated, discharge permit 

expired(t)

SCE&G Combined Site 

Emergency Operations 

Facility

A new combined site emergency 

operations facility 

10 mi from 

VCSNS

Operational(u)

Future Urbanization Construction of housing units 

and associated commercial 

buildings; roads, bridges, and 

railroad; construction of waterand/or wastewater-treatment 

and distribution facilities and 

associated pipelines, as 

described in local land-use 

planning documents. There is a 

low-to-moderate potential for 

increase urbanization within the 

Throughout 

region

Construction would occur in the 

future, as described in State and 

local land-use planning documents.
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-6 April 2011

Table 7-1. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Broad River watershed in 

Newberry and Fairfield 

Counties, South Carolina. The 

highest potential for 

development would be 

associated with residential 

development around the 

reservoirs, the Towns of 

Prosperity and Pomaria, and the 

City of Newberry. Sumter 

National Forest would limit 

urbanization north of VCSNS.

(a) Source: NRC 2004

(b) Source: SCE&G 2010a

(c) Source: NRC GEIS (NRC 1996)

(d) Source: EPA 2009a 

(e) Source: NRC 2009a 

(f) Source: NRC 2009b

(g) Source: NRC 2009c 

(h) Source: NRC 2009d 

(i) Source: NRC 2009e

(j) Source: NRC 2009f

(k) Source: Duke 2009a

(l) Source: Greenwood County 2008

(m) Source: Westinghouse 2009

(n) Source: SCDHEC 2007a

(o) Source: SCDOT 2009 

(p) Source: USFS 2004

(q) Source: EPA 2009b 

(r) Source: EPA 2009c 

(s) Source: EPA 2009d 

(t) Source: EPA 2009e,g

(u) Source: SCE&G 2010c

(v) Source: SCE&G 2011

7.1 Land Use 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.2 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.1, the impacts 

of NRC-authorized construction activities on land use would be SMALL, and no further 

mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.1 of this EIS, the review team 

concludes that the impacts of operations on land use would also be SMALL, and no further 

mitigation would be warranted. 

The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.1 and 

were determined to be MODERATE locally where new transmission lines would be installed and 

SMALL at the site. Overall, the combined impacts of preconstruction, construction, and 

operation of all of the proposed VCSNS facilities can be described as MODERATE. In addition 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-7 NUREG-1939

to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis also 

considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect land 

use. For this cumulative analysis, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi 

region described in Section 2.2.3, plus any transmission-line corridors that extend beyond that 

range. Most but not all of the transmission-line corridor length falls within a 50-mi radius of the 

site. Although Fairfield County has adopted a zoning ordinance and developed a 

comprehensive plan specific to the county, land-use planning for transmission-line routing over 

wide areas must consider land-use plans of adjoining counties and other land-managing 

agencies, rather than considering one county in isolation. Further, in predominately rural 

settings such as that surrounding the VCSNS site, land-use changes occurring substantial 

distances away from a project site can substantially influence land-planning decisions close to 

the site. Roads and other public facilities and services in rural areas tend to serve people who 

are spread thinly but broadly over large portions of the landscape. Therefore, land-use changes 

can affect roads and other facilities at greater distances than similar changes in more densely 

populated areas.

The VCSNS site is located in a sparsely populated, largely rural area, with forests and small 

farms composing the dominant land use. This Piedmont terrain varies from gently rolling to hilly 

and is punctuated by relatively narrow stream valleys. Historically, most upland areas have 

been used for crop production, but presently they are used for silviculture. Jenkinsville and 

Peak are the closest communities. Monticello Reservoir was created by impounding Frees 

Creek as part of the Unit 1 development, and since then portions of the shoreline have 

experienced private residential and public recreational development. Several electric 

transmission lines, State routes, and interstate highways currently traverse the region. 

Industries and facilities that have historically affected the land use near VCSNS are described in 

Table 7-1. The proposed project would result in land conversions to residential areas, roads, 

and businesses to accommodate growth, new workers, and services related to the proposed 

nuclear facility. Other reasonably foreseeable projects in the area that could contribute to an 

increase in urbanization include potential residences along the Monticello Reservoir. This would 

result in a conversion of open areas, forests, and wetlands to residential areas. There are no 

specific plans to build new or widen existing roads in the area, other than those described for 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The amount of land to be converted to residences, roads, or 

businesses would be minimal compared to the amount of land available in the area.

Because the other projects described in Table 7-1 do not include any reasonably foreseeable 

changes in types of land use within 50 mi of the VCSNS, other than the Monticello Reservoir 

shoreline development discussed above, there would not be any significant additional 

cumulative impacts on land use from those activities.

As described in Section 4.1, approximately 6.5 mi of new transmission-line corridors would be 

built in areas not adjacent to existing transmission-line corridors. In addition, approximately 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-8 April 2011

39 mi of transmission lines would be built in widened rights-of-way adjacent to existing 

transmission-line rights-of-way. These corridor impacts would amount to the conversion of 

existing land uses, especially forest cover and silviculture, on about 426 ac of which 204 ac are

currently forested. These corridor impacts would noticeably alter land-use patterns within the 

geographic area of interest.

Cumulative land-use impacts within the geographic area of interest would be consistent with 

existing land-use plans and zoning. However, due to the potential clearing of forested acreage 

caused by transmission-line development, especially for the 45 mi that would not be built within 

existing transmission-line rights-of-way, the review team concludes that the cumulative land-use 

impacts associated with the proposed Units 2 and 3, related transmission-line corridors, and 

other projects in the geographic area of interest would be MODERATE. 

Construction of transmission lines does not require NRC authorization; therefore, the NRC staff 

concludes that the incremental impacts from NRC-authorized activities for proposed Units 2 and 

3, which are limited to the proposed VCSNS site, would be SMALL and would not noticeably 

alter land-use patterns within the geographic area of interest. The incremental impacts 

associated with developing the proposed transmission lines, especially those not routed within 

or adjacent to existing transmission-line corridors, are the principal contributor to the 

MODERATE rating of cumulative impacts. 

7.2 Water Use and Quality

This section addresses the cumulative impacts of the proposed new units, the existing VCSNS 

units, and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on water use and 

quality. 

7.2.1 Water-Use Impacts

This section describes the cumulative water-use impacts from construction, preconstruction, 

and operation of proposed Units 2 and 3 and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

projects.

7.2.1.1 Surface-Water-Use Impacts

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 of this document serves as a 

baseline for surface-water use. As described in Section 4.2.2.1, the impacts from NRCauthorized construction on surface-water use would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would 

be warranted. As described in Section 5.2.2.1, the review team concludes that the impacts of 

operations on surface-water use would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

warranted.
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-9 NUREG-1939

The combined surface-water-use impacts from construction and preconstruction are described 

in Section 4.2.2.1 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis for surface-water use 

also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

potentially affect this resource. For the cumulative analysis of impacts of surface water, the 

geographic area of interest is considered to be the drainage basin of the Broad River upstream 

and downstream of the VCSNS site because other actions within this region could result in a 

cumulative impact. The Broad River has provided water for agricultural, industrial, and 

municipal use since colonial times. Dams have been installed on the river to provide flood 

control, increase the reliability of water supply to the region, and to provide power. Key actions 

that have current and reasonably foreseeable future potential impacts on surface-water supply 

in the Broad River basin include operation of VCSNS Unit 1, operation of the Fairfield Pumped 

Storage Facility (FPSF) that connects Monticello Reservoir with Parr Reservoir, the SCE&G 

Parr Hydroelectric Generating Station (or Plant), and the proposed William States Lee III 

Nuclear Station in Cherokee County, South Carolina (Lee Nuclear Station). 

Peak water needs during construction and preconstruction, as described in Section 4.2.2.1, are 

estimated to be 420 gpm (approximately 1 cfs) (SCE&G 2010a). This represents less than 

1 percent of the 7Q10 (lowest flow for 7 consecutive days expected to occur once per decade) 

estimated for Broad River (SCE&G 2010a) and the impact of its use would not be noticeable. 

The surface-water-use impacts of construction, preconstruction, and operation are dominated 

by the higher demands that would occur under normal operation. The projected consumptive 

water use of proposed Units 2 and 3 is expected to be about 62 cfs or 1 percent of the average 

river discharge of6300 cfs near the site, as described in Section 5.2.2.1. This average river flow 

reflects upstream cumulative consumptive uses of current users including the consumptive use 

associated with VCSNS Unit 1. Increases in consumptive use of water in the Broad River 

drainage is anticipated in the future. For example, Duke Energy is proposing to build two 

nuclear reactors at the Lee Nuclear Station (Duke 2009b). Duke has prepared an assessment 

of water availability and projected use for the Broad River to determine the availability of water 

to support expansions of Duke’s generating capability (Duke 2007). Duke considered future 

agriculture and irrigation projects, power projections, public water supplies and wastewater 

projections, and future industrial use. Duke also considered future trends in water use such as 

water reuse, water conservation, and changes in regulations and the regional economy. The 

Duke study does not consider the impact of climate change. The study indicates that 

consumptive water use would increase in the Broad River drainage from the 241.5 cfs (0.33 acft/yr) in 2006 to 412.9 cfs (0.57 ac-ft/yr) by 2070. Duke asserts in the document that the study 

will enable it to plan for water needs and develop water-storage facilities necessary to support 

the operation of its proposed facilities. Similarly, SCE&G asserts that the impact of consumptive 

use by VCSNS Units 1, 2, and 3 during low flows can be mitigated by using water from 

Monticello Reservoir. Because both the Lee Nuclear Station and VCSNS Units 1, 2, and 3 

would rely on water from reservoirs during period of low flow, impacts would not likely noticeably 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-10 April 2011

alter surface-water resources in the Broad River. The impacts of other projects listed in 

Table 7-1 are considered in the analysis included in Sections 4.2 and 5.2 or would have little or 

no impact on surface-water use.

The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect the water 

resources available for cooling and the impacts of reactor operations on water resources for 

other users. A recent compilation of the state of the knowledge in this area (Karl et al. 2009) 

has been considered in the preparation of this EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the 

region during the life of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 site include an increase in average 

temperature of 2 to 3°F and a decrease in precipitation in the winter, spring, and summer and a 

small increase in the fall (Karl et al. 2009, figures on pp. 28, 29, 31). Changes in climate during 

the life of proposed Units 2 and 3 could result in either an increase or decrease in the amount of 

runoff; the divergence in model projections for the southeastern United States precludes a 

definitive estimate (Karl et al. 2009, figures on p. 45). While the changes that are attributed to 

climate change in these studies are not insignificant, the review team did not identify anything 

that suggests the cumulative impacts would noticeably alter this resource.

The review team has examined the cumulative consumptive use of surface water from the 

operation of VCSNS Unit 1 and proposed Units 2 and 3 and other consumptive uses (existing or 

reasonably foreseeable user) and potential impacts from climate change. Although the 

cumulative effects on surface-water use may be detectable, they would not noticeably alter the 

resource. Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts on 

surface-water use would be SMALL, and no mitigation would be warranted. 

7.2.1.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 of this document serves as a 

baseline for groundwater use. As described in Section 4.2.2.2, the impacts from NRCauthorized construction on groundwater use would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would 

be warranted. As described in Section 5.2.2.2, the review team concludes that the impacts of 

operations on groundwater use would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

warranted.

The combined groundwater-use impacts from construction and preconstruction are described in 

Section 4.2.2.2 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis for groundwater use also 

considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could potentially 

affect this resource. For the cumulative analysis of impacts on groundwater two geographic 

areas of interest have been identified – the VCSNS site and Fairfield County, South Carolina. 

The geographic area of interest affected by dewatering activities for construction and 

preconstruction activities is limited to the VCSNS site because local bodies of surface water 

along the project boundaries (Mayo Creek, Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-11 NUREG-1939

Reservoir) limit the influence of dewatering beyond those features. Fairfield County is 

considered a region of interest for groundwater production because water from the Jenkinsville 

water-supply system would be used for construction and preconstruction of proposed Units 2 

and 3 until SCE&G completes the proposed water-treatment plant. The Jenkinsville watersupply system obtains a portion of its water from groundwater wells and is located in Fairfield 

County. 

Impacts on groundwater use on the VCSNS site would be localized and temporary during both 

construction and preconstruction, as discussed in Section 4.2.2.2. As mentioned above, the 

groundwater withdrawals on the VCSNS site would not contribute to a cumulative impact offsite 

because local bodies of surface water along the project boundaries (Mayo Creek, Broad River, 

Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir) limit the influence of onsite withdrawals beyond those 

features.

Impacts on groundwater use in Fairfield County would be minimal. As described in Section 4.2, 

SCE&G has indicated that a portion of the water needed for construction and preconstruction 

would be supplied by the Jenkinsville Water District. The Jenkinsville Water District obtains a 

portion of its water from groundwater wells but also has an excess capacity of 1 Mgd through its 

agreements with other nearby water districts (SCE&G 2010a). As mentioned in Section 4.2.2.2,

the excess capacity is from surface-water sources. 

Groundwater supplies less than 10 percent of the water used for public water supplies in 

Fairfield County (SCDHEC 2007b). South Carolina requires that any user withdrawing more 

than 3 million gallons per month in any given month from surface water or groundwater report its 

withdrawal to the State. The 2006 water-use summary report for South Carolina reports no 

groundwater use for industrial, agricultural, or power generation for Fairfield County (SCDHEC 

2007b).

As discussed in Section 5.2.2.2, impacts on groundwater use during operations are anticipated 

to be localized because there is no plan to use groundwater or to discharge waste to 

groundwater during operations. No other projects listed in Table 7-1 would affect groundwater 

at the VCSNS site. As mentioned in Section 3.4.2.1, impacts on groundwater use in Fairfield 

County during operations are not anticipated because VCSNS would obtain all water for 

operations from Monticello Reservoir. Given that the potable water needed for Units 2 and 3 

represents less than 2 percent of the excess capacity available, the potable water demand on 

ground water resources would be temporary until the VCSNS water-treatment plant is 

completed, and no industrial, agricultural or power generation uses are identified for 

groundwater, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impact on groundwater use in 

Fairfield County would be minimal. 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-12 April 2011

The review team has examined the cumulative consumptive use of groundwater including the 

operation of Unit 1 and the proposed Units 2 and 3, and other consumptive uses (existing and 

reasonably foreseeable users). Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that the 

cumulative impacts on groundwater use would be SMALL, and no mitigation would be 

warranted.

7.2.2 Water-Quality Impacts

This section describes cumulative water-quality impacts resulting from construction, 

preconstruction, and operation of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and impacts from other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. 

7.2.2.1 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 serves as a baseline for this resource 

area. As described in Section 4.2.3.1, the impacts from NRC-authorized construction on 

surface-water quality would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. As 

described in Section 5.2.3.1, the review team concludes that the impacts of operations on 

surface-water quality would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted.

The combined surface-water-quality impacts from construction and preconstruction are 

described in Section 4.2.3.1 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis for surface-water quality 

also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

potentially affect this resource. The geographic area of interest is the same as that described 

for surface-water use (see Section 7.2.1.1).

The impacts from building and operating proposed Units 2 and 3 were determined to be 

minimal, and were evaluated using the current conditions in the Broad River. The current 

conditions include the impact of operations of the VCSNS Unit 1, the FPSF, and the Parr 

Hydroelectric Plant. The hydrological conditions described in Sections 4.2 and 5.2 also include 

the impact of the activities listed as currently operational in Table 7-1 that are distinct from the 

activities at the VCSNS site. Those activities include facilities with National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits to discharge water to the river and its tributaries, including 

the Newberry County Water and Sewer Authority (NCW&SA) Broad River Waste-Water 

Treatment Plant (WWTP) and NCW&SA Cannons Creek WWTP. The NCW&SA Broad River 

WWTP has an active NPDES permit for discharge of 34.7 gpm (0.078 cfs) to Cannons Creek, 

which ultimately flowed into Parr Reservoir up until the permit expired in September of 2007 

(EPA 2009e, g). Currently, only the NCW&SA Cannons Creek WWTP has a current NPDES 

permit (SC0048313) with a discharge of 65,972 gpm (147 cfs) to Cannons Creek (EPA 2009d). 

Discharge from this WWTP is monitored for compliance with NPDES permitting regulations.
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-13 NUREG-1939

The review team performed an independent assessment of the primary water-quality impacts on 

the Parr Reservoir and the Broad River in its analysis of the estimated blowdown discharge of 

Units 2 and 3 (see Section 5.2.3). The review team determined that both the thermal impacts 

and the impact of discharging solutes and solids concentrated through evaporation in the 

cooling towers would be minimal and localized to the zone defined by the thermal plume. 

Table 7-1 identifies the proposed construction of two nuclear reactors at the Lee Nuclear 

Station. The review team anticipates that operation of this facility would result in a thermal 

discharge to the Broad River. However, given that it is located more than 50 mi upstream of the 

discharge for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, any thermal impact of the proposed Lee 

station would be undetectable by the time the water reaches Parr Reservoir. The impacts of 

other projects listed in Table 7-1 are either considered in the analysis included in Sections 4.2 

and 5.2 or would have little or no impact on surface-water quality.

Although the cumulative effects on surface-water quality may be detectable, they would not 

noticeably alter the resource; therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts of 

surface-water quality would be SMALL, and no further mitigation beyond that described in 

Chapters 4 and 5 would be warranted.

7.2.2.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 of this document serves as a 

baseline for this resource area. The groundwater-quality impacts from NRC-authorized 

construction are described in Section 4.2.3.2 and were determined to be SMALL. As described 

in Section 5.2.3.2, the review team concludes that groundwater quality impacts from operation 

of the two proposed units would be SMALL

The combined groundwater-quality impacts from construction and preconstruction are described 

in Section 4.2.3.2 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis for groundwater quality 

also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

potentially impact this resource. The geographic area of interest is the same as that described 

for groundwater use (see Section 7.2.1.2).

As discussed in Section 4.2.3.2, impacts on groundwater quality would be localized and 

temporary during construction. Impacts on groundwater quality during operations, as discussed 

in Section 5.2.3.2, are anticipated to be localized because there is no plan to use groundwater 

or to discharge waste to groundwater during operations. No other projects listed in Table 7-1

would affect groundwater at the VCSNS site. 

Although the cumulative effects on groundwater quality may be detectable, they would not 

noticeably alter the resource; therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts of 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-14 April 2011

groundwater quality would be SMALL, and no further mitigation beyond that described in 

Chapters 4 and 5 would be warranted.

7.3 Ecology

This section addresses the cumulative impacts on terrestrial, wetlands, and aquatic ecological 

resources as a result of activities associated with the proposed new units at the proposed 

VCSNS site and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within the 

geographic area of interest of each resource. 

7.3.1 Terrestrial Ecology and Wetlands

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.4.1 provides the baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessments for terrestrial ecological resources. As described in 

Section 4.3.1, the impacts from NRC-authorized construction on terrestrial and wetlands 

ecology would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. As described in 

Section 5.3.1, the review team concludes that the impacts of operations on terrestrial and 

wetlands ecology would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.3.1 

and determined to be SMALL for the site and MODERATE for the transmission-line corridors. 

In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

could affect terrestrial resources. For the cumulative analysis of terrestrial ecology, the 

geographic area of interest is considered to be the 6-mi vicinity of the VCSNS site plus the 

proposed transmission-line corridors and adjacent properties extending 1 mi outward from the 

center line on each side of each corridor (as defined in Chapter 4). This area is expected to 

encompass the ecologically relevant landscape features and species potentially affected by 

proposed Units 2 and 3, including the associated proposed transmission lines. The 1-mi 

distance from each proposed transmission-line corridor was chosen to include distances used 

by SCDNR for its elemental occurrence analysis. Current projects within the geographic area of 

interest include operation of VCSNS Unit 1, the SCE&G Parr Hydroelectric Plant, the FPSF and 

urbanization. There are no other major current projects in the geographic area of interest that 

would contribute to cumulative impacts on terrestrial ecological resources. Reasonably 

foreseeable projects within the geographic area of interest that could affect terrestrial resources 

include continued regional commercial and residential development, such as new residences 

along Monticello Reservoir. 

The geographic area of interest is located primarily in the South Carolina Southern Outer 

Piedmont ecoregion (which includes the site) and portions of the transmission-line routes cross 

the Sandhills and Coastal Plain ecoregions. These ecoregions have been altered considerably 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-15 NUREG-1939

since European settlement primarily due to farming, agriculture, and forestry (Godfrey 1980). 

During the time of early settlement, the forests were primarily a mixture of oaks, hickories, and 

pines (Kirkman et al. 2007). Currently, most forests in the geographic area of interest are 

dominated by planted and naturally vegetated pine. The area around the site has also changed 

dramatically since the damming of the Broad River and of Frees Creek to create the Parr and 

Monticello reservoirs (SCE&G 2010a; FPC 1974; SCE&G 1977; see historical photos in Chapter 

2 [Figure 2-13]). Prior to impoundment, the land currently inundated was primarily forest land, 

riparian land, and farmland (SCE&G 1977; FPC 1974). There also has been ongoing residential 

and commercial urbanization within the geographic area of interest.

Most of the geographic area of interest includes open water and rural forested land with 

scattered small farms. The habitats and wildlife that would be disturbed are common in the 

region, and are not considered to be unique or critical for the survival of Federally listed 

threatened or endangered species or for the other important species identified in Section 2.4.1. 

In addition, the percentage of wetlands and riparian habitats that would be lost due to the 

preconstruction, construction, and operations of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 represents only a small 

fraction of the wetlands in the area. 

7.3.1.1 Site-Preparation and Site-Development Impacts

The impacts on terrestrial habitats, wetlands, and important species from site preparation and 

development of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and associated transmission lines are 

described in Section 4.3.1. Proposed future actions that have the potential to result in 

cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources in the geographic area of interest include the 

regional urbanization that is expected to continue. The nearby Parr Hydro Wildlife Management 

Area, however, would continue to be managed for the benefit of wildlife, helping offset habitat 

losses in the future.

Activities from the projects mentioned above that could contribute to cumulative impacts for 

terrestrial ecological resources include land clearing and grading (temporary and permanent), 

filling and/or draining of wetlands, increased human presence, heavy equipment operation, 

traffic, noise, avian collisions, and fugitive dust. These activities would likely displace or destroy 

wildlife that inhabit affected areas. Some wildlife, including some individuals of important 

species, would perish or be displaced during land clearing for any of the above projects as a 

consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation, and competition for remaining resources. Less 

mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be at greater risk of 

incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, many of which would be displaced 

to adjacent communities. Undisturbed land adjacent to areas of activity could provide habitat to 

support displaced wildlife, but increased competition for available space and resources could 

affect population levels. Wildlife would also be subjected to impacts from noise and traffic, 

and birds could be injured if they collide with tall structures. The impact on wildlife from each 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-16 April 2011

noise-generating activity is expected to be temporary and minor. The clearing of new 

transmission-line corridors, as well as other linear features such as roadways and other utility 

lines, could be beneficial for some species, including those that inhabit early successional 

habitat or use forest edge environments, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 

bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), and the gopher 

tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Birds of prey, such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) 

would likely exploit newly created hunting grounds. Forested wetlands within transmission-line 

and other utility corridors would be converted to, and maintained in, a herbaceous or scrubshrub condition that could provide improved foraging habitat for some waterfowl and wading 

birds. However, fragmentation of forests could adversely affect species that are dependent on 

large tracts of continuous forested habitat. Fragmentation would result in noticeable, but not 

destabilizing, impacts on continuously forested habitats.

7.3.1.2 Operational Impacts

As described in Section 5.3.1, potential operational impacts would include cooling-tower noise, 

salt drift from vapor plumes, and avian collisions with tall structures, and transmission-line 

operation. Although increased urbanization would lead to greater noise and human presence 

on the landscape, the incremental contribution from operation of the proposed new VCSNS

facilities would be minimal. During the review of the VCSNS COL application, no other past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions in the region were identified that would substantially 

affect terrestrial ecological resources that would be affected by the operation of the VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3. 

7.3.1.3 Summary of Terrestrial Impacts

Cumulative impacts on terrestrial ecology and wetland resources from construction, 

preconstruction, and operation of the VCSNS and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects are estimated based on the information provided by SCE&G and the 

review team’s independent review. Due to the extent of habitat loss and fragmentation caused 

by the proposed new transmission lines and the additional forest fragmentation expected from 

new roads and utilities serving increased urban development, the review team concludes that 

the cumulative impacts on terrestrial and wetland resources would be MODERATE. Such 

fragmentation would result in noticeable, but not destabilizing, impacts on species that are 

highly dependent on large tracts of continuous forest.

Because most of the terrestrial ecology impacts associated with the project result from the 

transmission lines, which do not require NRC authorization, the NRC staff concludes that the 

incremental impacts from NRC-authorized activities (which are limited to the proposed VCSNS 

site and immediately adjacent lands), would be SMALL and would not noticeably alter the 

ecology within the geographic area of interest. The incremental impacts associated with 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-17 NUREG-1939

developing the proposed transmission lines, especially those not routed within or adjacent to 

existing transmission-line corridors, are the principal contributor to the MODERATE rating of 

cumulative impacts.

7.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.4.2 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment for aquatic ecological resources. As described in Section 4.3.2, 

the impacts of NRC-authorized construction on aquatic biota would be SMALL, and no further 

mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.3.2, the review team concludes that 

impacts of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operations on aquatic resources inhabiting onsite waterbodies, 

Monticello Reservoir, and Parr Reservoir, and along the six new offsite transmission lines would 

be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted.

The combined impacts on aquatic resources from construction and preconstruction were 

described in Section 4.3.2 and determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that could affect aquatic ecology. For this 

analysis, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the Broad River drainage basin 

upstream and downstream of the VCSNS site, Monticello Reservoir, and corresponding 

intermittent and seasonal streams on the VCSNS site, as the most likely to show the impact of 

water-use and water-quality criteria for aquatic biota. In addition, waterbodies crossed by the 

transmission-line corridors (as defined in Table 4-1) include the Santee River basin, Broad River 

basin, Catawba River basin, Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto basin, and Pee Dee River basins. 

Other actions listed in Table 7-1 within the geographic area of interest that have present and 

reasonably foreseeable future potential impacts on Monticello and Parr reservoirs include 

operation of VCSNS Unit 1; operation of the FPSF that connects Monticello Reservoir with Parr 

Reservoir; the NCW&SA Broad River WWTP; the NCW&SA Cannons Creek WWTP; Blair 

Quarry; SCE&G’s Parr Hydroelectric Plant located on the Broad River less than 1 mi southwest 

of proposed Units 2 and 3; five licensed hydropower facilities upstream of VCSNS on the Broad 

River; the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station in Cherokee County, South Carolina 

(Lee Nuclear Station); the implementation of the Santee Cooper River Basin Diadromous Fish 

Passage Restoration Plan (FWS 2001); and the Santee River Basin Accord (SRBA 2008) The 

evaluation of cumulative impacts from these actions on aquatic biota is described below.

Monticello Reservoir was formed in 1977 by impounding Frees Creek, a tributary to Parr 

Reservoir. Monticello Reservoir was designed to serve as a source of cooling water for VCSNS 

Unit 1, to receive thermal and chemical discharge from the VCSNS Unit 1, and to serve as the 

upper pool for the FPSF located on Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a). Water elevations within 

Monticello Reservoir are maintained via operation of the FPSF, which pumps water between the 

Monticello and Parr reservoirs. The increased consumption of water from the Monticello 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-18 April 2011

Reservoir for cooling purposes for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is expected to be about 1 percent of 

the average annual Broad River flow at Alston (SCE&G 2010a). Parr Reservoir was created in 

1914 by impounding a segment of the Broad River to provide a pool for the original Parr 

Hydroelectric Plant. In 1977, the size of Parr Reservoir increased to approximately 4400 ac 

when the height of the dam was increased to accommodate operation of the FPSF 

(SCE&G 2010a).

Operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would increase the level of impingement and 

entrainment of aquatic biota in Monticello Reservoir and introduce discharge of effluent to Parr 

Reservoir. The Unit 1 intake structure impingement and entrainment estimates are discussed in 

Section 5.3.2. The new circulating-water system (CWS) proposed for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

would operate at a reduced intake velocity (< 0.5 fps versus 0.72 fps for VCSNS Unit 1), with 

water withdrawal rates varying between 81 cfs for normal operations and 131 cfs for maximum 

use operations. In addition, the new water-treatment plant (for plant service, potable, 

demineralized, and fire protection systems) would withdraw 2.2 cfs during normal operations 

and 6.7 cfs during maximum operations (SCE&G 2010a). Given that the impingement and 

entrainment rates for Unit 1 are based on a cooling-water withdrawal rate of 1190 cfs, the 

planned cooling-water withdrawal rate for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 should result in at least a 

ninefold less potential for impingement and entrainment when compared to Unit 1 impingement 

and entrainment rates, which were found to result in minimal impacts (NRC 2004). Organisms 

most vulnerable to impingement and entrainment (see Section 5.3.2.1) at the VCSNS Unit 1 

intake structure include taxa that are common and represent appreciable proportions of the 

standing stocks of fish in Monticello Reservoir (Christie and Stroud 1997). Further, many of 

these fish, such as gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), 

are typically highly fecund and prolific spawners (Rohde et al. 2009).

Blowdown from proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would enter the Parr Reservoir. Because the 

discharge structure for VCSNS Unit 1 is located on Monticello Reservoir, there would be no 

direct interaction between the thermal plume from Unit 1 and the plume associated with 

proposed Units 2 and 3. The proposed blowdown discharge to Parr Reservoir is not likely to 

noticeably affect the biota, water quality, or consumptive use of the Parr Hydroelectric Plant, 

and is described in more detail in Section 5.3.2.1. The proposed water-treatment plant 

associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would discharge effluent into an existing Unit 1 discharge 

canal in Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2010a). Effluent from the water-treatment plant has the 

potential to affect aquatic biota in Monticello Reservoir; however, the impacts on aquatic biota 

are expected to be minimal because the discharge waste stream is quite small (from 0.1 to 

0.3 fps) and chemical constituents would be regulated by an NPDES permit. 

Cumulative impacts on aquatic resources within Monticello and Parr reservoirs may also include 

activities or events that are distinct from the VCSNS site. Water quality may be affected by 

discharges from other plants or facilities that maintain hydrologic connectivity to the Monticello 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-19 NUREG-1939

and Parr reservoirs, such as wastewater treated discharge that enters Parr Reservoir through 

Cannons Creek with the current discharge point approximately 8 mi to the west of the VCSNS 

site. The NCW&SA Broad River WWTP had an active NPDES permit (SC0048020) for

discharge of 0.05 Mgd to Cannons Creek. This discharge ultimately flowed into Parr Reservoir 

until cessation of permitted discharge in January 2008 (EPA 2009g). Currently only the 

NCW&SA Cannons Creek WWTP has a current NPDES permit (SC0048313) with a discharge 

of 0.95 Mgd to Cannons Creek (EPA 2009d). Discharge from this operating WWTP is 

monitored for compliance with NPDES permitting regulations to ensure water-quality metrics do 

not exceed allowable levels. Given that current discharges do not exceed allowable levels, 

operation of the NCW&SA Cannons Creek WWTP has minor impacts on aquatic biota. The 

Blair Quarry, approximately 10 mi north of the VCSNS site in the vicinity of Neal Shoals Dam, 

has an active permit for granite mining. The Blair Quarry operates under an NPDES permit for 

minor industrial effluent to Rocky Creek, which feeds into the Broad River (SCDHEC 2007a). 

Impacts on aquatic biota are considered minor due to the NPDES compliance and minimal 

effluent discharge.

Parr Shoals Dam is located approximately 1 mi from the proposed discharge location for 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The Parr Hydroelectric Plant at the Parr Shoals Dam generates up to 

15 MW through operation of six turbine units (SCE&G 2010a). A minimum daily average flow of 

800 cfs results in the transport of aquatic biota within the influence of the turbine intake systems 

downriver below Parr Shoals. The operation of the hydroelectric plant influences aquatic 

communities within Parr Reservoir by preventing any organisms that pass through the 

hydropower facility from returning upstream of the facility. In addition, the operation of the 

FPSF, which can produce over 511 MW of electricity, results in a daily average fluctuation of 4 ft 

in water elevation in Parr Reservoir as water is pumped from the Parr Reservoir into Monticello 

Reservoir and then flows back to Parr Reservoir through the hydroelectric turbines (NRC 2004). 

This daily pump-and-discharge operation may result in injury or mortality for some aquatic 

biota, thus contributing to the overall impact on aquatic populations. However, the overall 

impact is minor with no noticeable changes in local aquatic populations as a result of 

continuous operations.

Another potential cumulative impact may come from the continued operation of the FPSF that 

maintains the water elevation within Monticello Reservoir. SCDNR has active fish-stocking 

programs in the Broad River for smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and robust redhorse 

(Moxostoma robustum). Both species were recently collected by SCDNR in Monticello 

Reservoir and may have been transferred via FPSF intake operation from Parr Reservoir to 

Monticello Reservoir (SCDNR 2009). The intake withdrawal rate from Monticello Reservoir for 

operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 composes a very small fraction of the FPSF pumping rate 

and would have little to no impact on water use. The combined VCSNS Units 2 and 3 intake

rates are approximately 83 (normal) and 138 (max) cfs from Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 

2010a). Toblin (2007) estimates the hourly pumping rate at FPSF to be 19,255 cfs during 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-20 April 2011

power generation. Comparison of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 intake rates (e.g., 83 and 138 cfs) 

to the FPSF pumping rate of 19,255 cfs shows that VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operations represent 

less than 1 percent of the flow of the FPSF during pumping operations from Parr Reservoir. It is 

therefore anticipated that operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would not result in significant 

cumulative impacts with the current operation of the FPSF.

As described in Section 7.2.1.1, Duke Energy is proposing to build two nuclear reactors at the 

Lee Nuclear Station (Duke 2009b) that will result in an increase of water use upstream of the 

VCSNS site. Duke Energy is evaluating the use of an onsite reservoir and a proposed offsite 

reservoir to supply cooling water during periods of drought at the proposed Lee Nuclear Station.

The cumulative effect on water use for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and any resulting impacts on

habitat in the Broad River is expected to be minimal. Thermal effluent from the proposed Lee 

Nuclear Station is not likely to contribute to cumulative effects downstream because the sites 

are more than 50 river miles apart and segregated by a series of impoundments. 

The cumulative impact of existing water uses on aquatic biota in Parr Reservoir, Monticello 

Reservoir, and the Broad River during drought conditions has also been considered. The 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for operation of the Parr Shoals Dam 

requires that “...the flow shall be maintained at 1,000 cfs or at the average daily natural inflow 

into Parr Reservoir...during the striped bass spawning season in March, April, and May in order 

to protect the fishery of the Broad River” (SCE&G 2010a). The FERC license further stipulates 

that minimum flow below the dam will be 800 cfs for the remainder of the year. During low-flow 

conditions in the Broad River, Monticello Reservoir can supply a total of 45,000 ac-ft of usable 

storage for cooling water for VCSNS Units 1 through 3. If drought conditions in the Broad River 

persist and the storage water from Monticello Reservoir is used before hydrologic conditions are 

restored, “...SCE&G would curtail or cease operation of VCSNS until water is available” 

(SCE&G 2010a). Due to the combination of FERC licensing stipulations at the Parr Shoals 

Dam and the usable volume of water storage in Monticello Reservoir, cumulative impacts on

aquatic biota during drought conditions are expected to be minor. Five hydropower facilities 

upstream of VCSNS on the Broad River are not expected to result in cumulative effects on 

water use because these facilities are run-of-river dams. However, due to the absence of fishpassage facilities, these dams prohibit upstream migration of aquatic biota. Planned 

diadromous fish restoration activities in the Broad River basin may improve fish passage in the 

future, which would result in minimal cumulative impacts.
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-21 NUREG-1939

As described in Section 2.4.2.1, the Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage 

Restoration Plan (Plan) (FWS 2001) and the Santee River Basin Accord (SRBA 2008) focus on 

restoring habitat connectivity for diadromous fish that were historically present within the basin. 

Within the Santee-Cooper basin, the Plan identified the Broad River sub-basin as a high priority 

for restoration due to the amount of potential habitat available as well as the quality of existing 

habitat. There is currently no evidence that the Plan’s targeted diadromous fish species reside 

within the vicinity of the VCSNS site; but there are documented historical accounts that these 

fish migrated to the upper reaches of the Broad River. Future restoration efforts may result in 

the reestablishment of migratory fish populations upstream of the Parr Shoals Dam.

Potential impacts on aquatic biota resulting from the operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are 

evaluated in Section 5.3.2. With respect to future populations of migratory fish that may 

become established in the Broad River, impacts stemming from impingement and entrainment 

are unlikely because the intake structures associated with plant operation are located in 

Monticello Reservoir. The multiport diffuser, proposed to be located on Parr Reservoir, presents 

the greatest opportunity for direct interaction with future populations of migratory fishes in the 

Broad River. The discharge effluent may result in thermal impacts, but, as discussed in Section 

5.3.2.1, impacts on populations of aquatic biota, including diadromous fish species, would likely 

be minimal.

No Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species are known to occur at the VCSNS 

site, but seven Federally protected or proposed Federally protected aquatic species are known 

to occur within counties proposed for siting the six new transmission lines (Table 2-20). In 

particular, an existing segment of the VCSNS-Flat Creek corridor crosses a portion of Flat 

Creek in Lancaster County that is listed by FWS as critical habitat, and supports the Lynches 

River / Flat Creek population of the Federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter 

(Lasmigona decorata) (67 FR 44502). In addition, some of the aquatic taxa encountered during 

onsite aquatic inventories have been identified as State conservation priority species

(e.g., robust redhorse, seagreen darter (Etheostoma thalassinum) eastern floater (Pyganodon 

cataracta). Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), and catfish 

(Ictalurus spp.) are important recreational species in both Parr Reservoir and Monticello 

Reservoir. 

The construction of six new transmission lines for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would have a minor 

effect on these and other aquatic species because best management practices (BMPs) would 

be employed during construction and environmentally responsible practices would be followed 

during transmission-line corridor maintenance activities once the lines are completed and 

energized. Impact on populations of Federally threatened or endangered, State-listed, or 

recreationally important species and on the critical habitat for Carolina heelsplitter in Flat Creek 

is expected to be minimal.
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-22 April 2011

Anthropogenic activities such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of the 

nuclear facility can present additional constraints on aquatic resources. Future activities may 

include shoreline development (i.e., removal of habitat), increased water needs, and increased 

discharge of effluents into the Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and/or Monticello Reservoir. There 

is a low-to-moderate potential for additional residential development within the geographic area 

of interest, and one new residential area is under construction along the Monticello Reservoir. 

In addition to direct anthropogenic activities, physical disturbance and climatic events may 

impose external stressors on aquatic communities. Aquatic ecosystem responses to these 

events are difficult to predict. At certain times of the year, VCSNS operation, other 

anthropogenic stressors, and climatic events could combine to adversely affect the aquatic 

populations of Parr and Monticello reservoirs. The level of impact resulting from these activities 

or events would depend on the intensity of the perturbation and the resiliency of the aquatic 

communities. 

7.3.2.1 Summary of Aquatic Ecology Impacts

Cumulative impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information 

provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent review. Given the minimal levels of 

impingement and entrainment found at VCSNS Unit 1, which uses a once-through cooling 

system, the impacts for impingement and entrainment at proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, which 

will use a closed-cycle cooling system, would be negligible. VCSNS Unit 1 requires at least

nine times more water for cooling operations compared to proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

Therefore due to the minimal impingement and entrainment from VCSNS Units 1, 2, and 3, the 

high fecundity and prolific spawning habits of many of the potentially affected fish species, and 

other water-use impacts from current and reasonably foreseeable projects, anticipated impacts 

on aquatic resources would be minor. Cumulative impacts from thermal or chemical discharges 

are also expected to have minimal impacts on aquatic species because dischargers are 

operating within allowable levels that prevent water-quality degradation. The installation of six 

new transmission lines for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would have a minor effect on Federally listed 

threatened or endangered species, other aquatic species, and on the critical habitat for Carolina 

heelsplitter because BMPs would be used during installation and environmentally responsible 

practices would be followed during transmission-line corridor maintenance activities once the 

lines are completed and energized. Other direct and indirect anthropogenic stressors in the 

geographic area of interest, such as additional residential development and other changes in 

land use and global climate change, would cumulatively lead to some adverse effects on the 

aquatic communities, but they likely would be minor during the time period encompassing the 

building, operating, and decommissioning of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Therefore, the 

review team concludes that cumulative impacts on aquatic biota related to proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be SMALL.
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-23 NUREG-1939

7.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

The evaluation of cumulative impacts on socioeconomics and environmental justice is described 

in the following sections. 

7.4.1 Socioeconomics

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.5 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.4, the NRC 

staff concludes that any negative impacts of the NRC-authorized construction activities on all 

socioeconomics categories would be SMALL, with one exception. The NRC staff determined 

there would be a MODERATE and adverse traffic impact on Fairfield County in the vicinity of 

Jenkinsville for NRC-authorized construction. As described in Section 5.4, the review team 

concludes that all elements of socioeconomics would be SMALL and adverse, with the following 

exception. Operations would result in SMALL and beneficial tax revenue impacts in the region, 

and LARGE and beneficial impacts on Fairfield County.

The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.4 and 

determined to be SMALL with one exception. The review team determined that traffic impacts 

in the vicinity of the site would be MODERATE and adverse. The cumulative analysis also 

considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect 

socioeconomics. For this cumulative analysis, the geographic area of interest is considered to 

be Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richard Counties, as that is where the review team 

expects the socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. The geographic area of interest was 

modified as appropriate for specific impact analyses. For example, for some analyses the 

review team considered the entire 50-mi region surrounding the proposed VCSNS site, and for 

other analyses or specific taxation jurisdictions were considered. As the economic hub of the 

Central Midlands, the City of Columbia is the center of government and industry for a wide area 

in central South Carolina. Relatively recently, the Interstate-26 corridor has seen significant 

commercial and residential development in the areas of West Columbia and Irmo. The 

University of South Carolina and several regional medical facilities have attracted a welleducated workforce to this area. Fort Jackson, a large military installation in Columbia, is 

supported by nearly 4000 civilian employees.

The construction of Unit 1 provides context for what the potential cumulative impacts of building 

the new units would be. The NRC was completing its Final Environmental Statement (FES) for 

the Operating License (OL) for VCSNS Unit 1 just as final construction of that unit was winding 

down over the 1979–1981 period. As such, the OL FES provides a glimpse at the observed 

socioeconomic impacts from that construction project. At that time, the review team noted that 

the construction contractor commissioned a workforce survey to ascertain information such as 

the residence pattern of the construction workers. Of the approximately 2400 workers 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-24 April 2011

surveyed, 1913, or about 80 percent came from within the VCSNS region, and 927, or nearly 

50 percent came from either Lexington or Richland Counties (NRC 1981). The review team 

also observed that more than 70 percent of the workers came from the Central Midlands area, 

with the remainder coming from outside the region.

The impact analyses in Chapters 4 and 5 are cumulative by nature. Economic impacts 

associated with activities listed in Table 7-1 already have been considered as part of the 

socioeconomic baseline presented in Section 2.5. For example, the economic impacts of 

existing enterprises such as mining, other electrical utilities, etc., are part of the base used for 

establishing the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS) II multipliers. Regional 

planning efforts and associated demographic projections formed the basis for the review team’s 

assessment of reasonably foreseeable future impacts. Thus, there are no cumulative impacts 

associated with building and operating VCSNS Units 2 and 3 beyond those already evaluated in 

Chapters 4 and 5. 

The review team considered the impacts of the NRC-authorized activities plus past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future activities over the life of the two new units. Based on the 

above considerations, information provided by SCE&G, and the review team’s independent 

review, the review team concludes that NRC-authorized construction of proposed VCSNS Units

2 and 3 could make a temporary detectable adverse contribution to the cumulative effects 

associated with some socioeconomic issues. Adverse cumulative impacts would include 

physical impacts (workers and the local public, buildings, transportation, and visual aesthetics) 

and impacts on local infrastructures and community services (transportation; recreation; 

housing; water and wastewater facilities; police, fire, and medical services; social services; and 

schools).

The review team concludes there would be a LARGE and beneficial cumulative impact 

associated with tax revenues in Fairfield County. The incremental impact from NRC-authorized 

activities would be LARGE and beneficial. The review team also identified a MODERATE and 

adverse cumulative traffic impact in the Jenkinsville area that would be localized and temporary 

(limited to only “rush hour” traffic and the peak building employment period). The incremental 

impact from NRC-authorized activities would be MODERATE. The review team concludes that 

cumulative impacts on other socioeconomic impact categories would be SMALL and adverse.

7.4.2 Environmental Justice

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.6 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.5, the NRC 

staff concludes that the NRC-authorized construction traffic-related activities may create 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations and, 

therefore, the environmental justice can be characterized as MODERATE for traffic impacts in 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-25 NUREG-1939

the vicinity for the building period. Because traffic is so much less for operations, the review 

team determined there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minorities 

or low-income populations due to traffic-related activities during operations and, therefore, the 

impact would be SMALL. As described in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 for all other environmental 

justice impacts, the review team determined there would be no disproportionately high or 

adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations, and therefore the impact would be 

SMALL. 

The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.5 and 

determined to impose no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income 

populations and, therefore the impact can be considered SMALL, with one exception. The 

review team determined traffic-related activities may create disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts on minority or low-income populations and, therefore, the environmental justice impact 

would be MODERATE. The cumulative analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that would cause environmental justice impacts on minority and lowincome populations. For this cumulative analysis, the geographic area of interest is considered 

to be the entire 50-mi region surrounding the proposed VCSNS site.

From an environmental justice perspective, there is a potential for minority and low-income 

populations to be disproportionately affected by environmental impacts. Although the Columbia

metropolitan area is an urban population center, the wider region is largely rural and agricultural. 

Throughout the area of interest, the review team found low-income, African American, and 

aggregated minority populations that met the Census identification criteria established in 

Section 2.6.1 in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. The impact analyses in Chapters 4 and 5 are 

cumulative by nature. Any environmental justice impacts associated with activities listed in 

Table 7-1 already have been considered as part of the environmental justice baseline presented 

in Sections 2.6 and 7.4.1. The transmission-line routing and installation process typically 

attempts to avoid residential areas and minimize right-of-way acquisition costs to the extent 

practicable. Therefore the review team expects only minor impacts, if any, would be expected 

in any residential areas because of transmission-line installation, and thus would not be 

expected to noticeably affect any minority and low-income populations. Thus, there are no 

environmental justice cumulative impacts associated with building and operating of VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 beyond those already evaluated in Chapters 4 and 5. 

Based on the above considerations, information provided by SCE&G, and the staff’s 

independent review, the NRC staff concludes that NRC-authorized construction of proposed 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would not contribute additional environmental justice cumulative impacts 

beyond those described in Chapters 4 and 5. The impacts would include physical impacts 

(workers and the local public, noise, air quality, buildings, transportation, and visual aesthetics) 

and impacts on local infrastructures and community services (transportation; recreation; 

housing; water and wastewater facilities; police, fire, and medical services; social services; and 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-26 April 2011

schools). The NRC staff concludes that the environmental justice impacts of the NRCauthorized activities plus past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities over the life 

of the two new units depends on the impact category being considered. For example, the 

review team concludes there may be disproportionately high and adverse cumulative impacts 

on minority and low-income populations from traffic during limited periods of time during the 

peak building period in the Jenkinsville area, and that those impacts could be considered 

MODERATE. The incremental impacts from NRC-authorized activities would be MODERATE. 

Impacts from building and operating Units 2 and 3 in combination with other projects described 

in Table 7-1 would have minimal disproportionately high and adverse cumulative impacts on 

minority and low-income populations from all other environmental justice impact categories can 

be considered SMALL.

7.5 Historic and Cultural Resources

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.7 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.6, impacts on 

cultural resources from NRC-authorized construction activities would be SMALL. As described 

in Section 5.6, the review team concludes that the impacts on cultural resources from 

operations are SMALL. Mitigative actions may be warranted only in the event of an 

unanticipated discovery during any ground-disturbing activities associated with construction or 

maintenance of the operating facility; these actions would be determined by SCE&G in 

consultation with the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). To address the 

SHPO’s request for a Programmatic Agreement, SCE&G and Santee Cooper have 

management agreements with the SHPO to formalize avoidance and protective measures listed 

above as well as any updates made to the Environmental Management Plan regarding cultural 

resources awareness training and inadvertent discovery procedures (USACE 2011a, b).

The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.6 and 

determined to be MODERATE. If preconstruction activities associated with the transmission 

lines result in significant alterations to the cultural environment, then the impact could be greater. 

Chapter 2 defines the direct effects and viewshed Area of Potential Effect (APE) for cultural 

resources as the SCE&G property boundary, which is the geographic area of interest for this 

cumulative impacts assessment. The cumulative impacts assessment considers the eligibility of 

historical properties for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Discussions with the 

SHPO provides information on cultural resources and potential impacts on cultural resources 

with respect to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the geographic 

area of interest.

Historically, several groups of American Indians lived in South Carolina, many of which became 

extinct or merged with other groups due to non-American Indian encroachment by Spanish, 

French, and British explorers and settlers by the mid-1700s. The largest groups were the 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-27 NUREG-1939

Catawba and the Cherokee who likely used the Broad River region for resource gathering. 

Several Tribal groups and descendants of earlier groups are present today in South Carolina 

(descendants of the Cherokee, Catawba, Pee Dee, Chicora, Edisto, Santee, and ChicoraWaccamaw Tribes). In 1838, the Cherokee were forced to leave the eastern United States and 

resettle in Oklahoma. European settlement and colonization of South Carolina began in the 

early 1600s with more permanent settlement occurring along the Broad River in the early 1740s. 

Cotton production and plantations began flourishing during the 1800s, but were later affected 

by social and economic upheavals during the Civil War and later by the Great Depression of 

the 1930s.

Table 7-1 identifies other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and other actions 

considered in the cumulative analysis of the VCSNS site. Projects within the geographic area of 

interest that may have a potential cumulative impact on cultural resources include continued 

operation and decommissioning for VCSNS Unit 1 and future urbanization. Such projects could 

affect cultural resources if ground-disturbing activities occur that affect cultural resources. As 

described in Section 4.6, there are no significant cultural resources that would be adversely 

affected by building activities or operation of Units 2 and 3 because the four significant cultural 

resources located within the APE of the VCSNS site would be protected by SCE&G, in 

accordance with the signed management agreement between SCE&G, the South Carolina 

SHPO, and the USACE (USACE 2011a).

Table 3-1 describes the transmission lines supporting the new VCSNS units. As described in

Sections 4.6 and 5.6, the incremental impacts from installation of transmission lines would be 

minimal if there are no significant alterations (either physical alteration or visual intrusion) to the 

cultural environment. If these activities result in significant alterations to the cultural 

environment, then the impact could be greater. For impacts greater than small, mitigation would 

occur as described in Section 4.6.

Cultural resources are nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

is cumulative. Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative cultural 

resources impact from preconstruction, construction, operation and other projects would be 

MODERATE. However, activities related to transmission lines and urbanization have the 

potential to affect cultural resources within the APEs. If these activities result in alterations to 

the cultural environment, then the impact could be greater. The review team further concludes 

that the incremental impacts associated with the NRC-authorized activities would be SMALL 

because no significant cultural resources would be affected by these activities. The incremental 

impacts associated with onsite preconstruction activities are the principal contributor to the 

MODERATE rating of cumulative impacts. 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-28 April 2011

7.6 Air Quality 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.9 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.7, the impacts 

of NRC-authorized construction on air quality would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would 

be warranted. As described in Section 5.7, the review team concludes that the impacts on air 

quality from operations would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

7.6.1 Criteria Pollutants

The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.7 and 

were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, 

and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts on air quality. The 

geographic area of interest defined for this evaluation is Fairfield County, South Carolina. The 

single county was selected because designations of attainment or nonattainment by the EPA 

are made on a county-by-county basis.

The VCSNS site is located in an area that is in attainment for all criteria pollutants for which 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) have been established (40 CFR 81.341). 

Emissions from building proposed Units 2 and 3 are expected to be temporary and limited in 

magnitude, as described in Section 4.7. During operations of proposed Units 2 and 3, 

emissions of water vapor and some salt drift would be associated with the operation of the 

mechanical draft cooling towers, as described in Section 5.7. Air emissions from operations 

would be primarily from cooling towers, 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 negligible compared to other sources 

within the Columbia Intrastate Air Quality Control Region. 

Other sources of permitted air emission sources within Fairfield County include the SCE&G 

VCSNS Unit 1 and the SCE&G Parr Combustion Facility. Gaseous emissions from Unit 1 

include sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides associated with the 

intermittent operation of diesel generators (NRC 2004). The SCE&G Parr Combustion Facility,

located approximately 2 mi south of the VCSNS, uses four natural gas turbines to generate 

electricity. Gaseous emissions from the Parr Combustion Facility include sulfur oxides, carbon 

monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. This facility has a Part 70 Air Quality (Title V 

Operating) Permit (SCDHEC permit AIR-1000-0021), indicating that it could potentially emit 

more than 100 T/yr of any air pollutant (SCDHEC 2006). VCSNS Unit 1 is operated under a 

regulated air quality permit. In addition, Fairfield County, South Carolina, is in attainment, 

indicating that the total level of regulated pollutants within the county are within NAAQSs set 

by EPA.
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-29 NUREG-1939

Future development of the region around the VCSNS site could lead to increases in gaseous 

emissions related to transportation. Table 7-1 lists low-to-moderate potential for growth within 

Fairfield County. 

Given the intermittent operation of the diesel generators at both the existing VCSNS Unit 1 and 

proposed Units 2 and 3, the current attainment status of Fairfield County, and the low-tomoderate potential for growth in the county, and limited gaseous emissions from other projects 

identified in Table 7-1, the review team concludes the cumulative impacts on air quality would 

be minimal, and mitigation would not be warranted.

7.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

As discussed in the state of the science report issued by the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program (GCRP), it is the “... production and use of energy that is the primary cause of global 

warming, and in turn, climate change will eventually affect our production and use of energy. 

The vast majority of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, about 87 percent, come from energy 

production and use...” Approximately one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions are the result 

of generating electricity and heat (Karl et al. 2009). This assessment is focused on greenhouse 

gas emissions. Other elements of climate change are discussed in the EIS sections on 

hydrology and ecology.

Greenhouse gas emissions associated with building, operating, and decommissioning a nuclear 

power plant are addressed in Sections 4.7, 5.7.2, 6.1.3, and 6.3. The review team concludes 

that the atmospheric impacts of the emissions associated with each aspect of building, 

operating, and decommissioning a single plant are minimal. The review team also concludes 

that the impacts of the combined emissions for the full plant life cycle are minimal. 

The cumulative impacts of a single or combination of greenhouse gas emission sources must 

be placed in geographic context:

• The environmental impact is global rather than local or regional.

• The effect is not particularly sensitive to location of the release point.

• The magnitudes of individual greenhouse gas sources related to human activity, no matter 

how large compared to other sources, are small when compared to the total mass of 

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

• The total number and variety of greenhouse gas sources is extremely large and the sources 

are ubiquitous.

These points are illustrated by the following comparison of annual carbon dioxide emission rates 

(Table 7-2).
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-30 April 2011

Table 7-2. Comparison of Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Rates

Source

Metric Tons per 

Year

Global emissions 28,000,000,000(a)

United States 6,000,000,000(a)

1000-MW nuclear power plant (including fuel cycle, 80-percent capacity factor) 400,000(b)

1000-MW nuclear power plant (operations only, 80-percent capacity factor) 5000(b)

Average U.S. passenger vehicle 5(c)

(a) EPA 2009f

(b) Appendix J of this EIS

(c) FHWA 2006

Evaluation of cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions requires the use of a global 

climate model. The Karl et al. (2009) report referenced above provides a synthesis of the 

results of numerous climate modeling studies. The review team concludes that the cumulative 

impacts of greenhouse emissions around the world as presented in the report are the 

appropriate basis for its evaluation of cumulative impacts. Based on the impacts set forth in the 

Karl et al. (2009) report, and the CO2 emissions criteria in the final EPA CO2 Tailoring Rule (75 

FR 31514), the review team concludes that the national and worldwide cumulative impacts of 

greenhouse gas emissions are noticeable but not destabilizing. The review team further 

concludes that the cumulative impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing, with or without 

the greenhouse gas emission of the proposed project.

Consequently, the review team has determined an appropriate approach to addressing the 

cumulative impacts of greenhouse gases emissions, including carbon dioxide, is to recognize 

that the emissions contribute to climate change and that the carbon footprint is a relevant factor 

in evaluating energy alternatives. Section 9.2.5 contains a comparison of carbon footprints of 

the viable energy alternatives. 

7.6.3 Summary 

Cumulative impacts on air quality resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation. Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable activities exist in the geographic areas of interest (local for criteria pollutants and 

global for greenhouse gas emissions) that could affect air quality resources. The cumulative 

impacts on criteria pollutants from emissions of effluents from the VCSNS site and other 

projects would be minimal. The national and worldwide cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas 

emissions are noticeable but not destabilizing. The review team concludes that the cumulative 

impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing, with or without the greenhouse gas emissions 

from the VCSNS site. The review team concludes that cumulative impacts from other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on air quality resources in the geographic 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-31 NUREG-1939

areas of interest would be SMALL to MODERATE. The incremental contribution of impacts on 

air quality resources from building and operating proposed Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL. The 

incremental contribution of impacts on air quality resources from the NRC-authorized activities 

would also be SMALL.

7.7 Nonradiological Health

The description of the affected environmental in Section 2.10 serves as a baseline for the 

nonradiological health cumulative impact assessment. As described in Section 4.8, the impacts 

from NRC-authorized construction on nonradiological health would be SMALL, and no further 

mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.8, the review team concludes that the 

impacts of operations on nonradiological health would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation 

would be warranted. 

As described in Section 4.8, the combined nonradiological health impacts from construction and 

preconstruction would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted beyond what is 

described in SCE&G’s Environmental Report. In addition to the impacts from construction, 

preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts to 

nonradiological health (see Table 7-1). Based on the localized nature of nonradiological health 

impacts, the geographic area of interest for this cumulative impacts analysis includes projects 

within the 10-km (6-mi) radius of the VCSNS site plus the proposed transmission-line rights-ofway and immediately adjacent properties extending outward from the 6-mi vicinity. This area is 

expected to encompass areas where public and worker health could be influenced by the 

proposed project and associated transmission lines, in combination with any past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Other than the continued operation of VCSNS Unit 1, there are no major current projects in the 

geographic area of interest that would contribute to the cumulative impacts for nonradiological 

health. Future non-major projects expected to occur within the geographic area of interest are 

limited to non-specified urbanization.

There are no known existing or future projects that could contribute to cumulative 

nonradiological health impacts of occupational injuries. Existing and potential development of 

new transmission lines could increase nonradiological health impacts from exposure to acute 

electromagnetic fields (EMFs). However, as stated in Section 5.8.3, adherence to Federal 

criteria and State utility codes would create minimal cumulative nonradiological health impacts. 

With regard to chronic effects of EMFs, the scientific evidence on human health does not 

conclusively link extremely low frequency EMFs to adverse health impacts (although potential 

chronic health risks cannot be completely ruled out). Cumulative impacts from noise and 

vehicle emissions associated with current and future urbanization, current operations of VCSNS 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-32 April 2011

Unit 1, Parr Hydroelectric Station, the Parr Combustion Facility, and FPSF, along with further 

removed hydroelectric stations along the Broad River could occur. However, as discussed in 

Sections 4.8 and 5.8, the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 contribution to these impacts would be 

temporary and minimal, and existing facilities would likely comply with local, State, and Federal 

regulations governing noise and emissions. Section 7.10.2 discusses cumulative 

nonradiological health impacts related to additional traffic on the regional and local highway 

networks leading to and from the VCSNS site, and the review team determines that these 

impacts would be minimal.

The cumulative health impacts of operating cooling systems associated with the existing unit 

(Unit 1) and proposed two new units (Units 2 and 3) at the VCSNS site were evaluated relative 

to the ambient temperature of Monticello Reservoir and Parr Reservoir and the potential 

propagation of thermophilic or other etiological microorganisms. The proposed William States 

Lee III Nuclear Station near Gaffney, South Carolina, also on the Broad River (on which Parr 

Reservoir is located), is sufficiently remote from the Monticello and Parr reservoirs that thermal 

discharges to the Broad River would not interact with those from the existing and proposed units 

at VCSNS. The review team’s independent evaluation indicated that because the thermal 

discharge from Unit 1 goes into Monticello Reservoir and proposed Units 2 and 3 would 

discharge to Parr Reservoir, the addition of two proposed new units is not likely to increase 

populations of thermophilic or other etiological microorganisms in either reservoir. 

Furthermore, the low incidence of waterborne diseases in the geographic area of interest 

indicates that the public uses these waters for recreation in a manner that minimizes their 

potential exposure to waterborne etiological organisms. 

The review team is aware of the potential climate changes that could affect human health; a 

recent compilation of the state of the knowledge in this area (Karl et al. 2009) has been 

considered in the preparation of this EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region during 

the life of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 include an increase in average temperature and a 

decrease in precipitation. This may result in an increase in water temperature and frequency of 

downpours, which may alter the presence of microorganisms and parasites. While the changes 

that are attributed to climate change in these studies are not inconsequential, the review team 

did not identify anything that would alter its conclusion regarding the presence of etiological 

agents or change the incidence of waterborne diseases.

Cumulative impacts on nonradiological health are based on information provided by SCE&G 

and the review team’s independent evaluation of impacts resulting from proposed Units 2 and 3, 

along with a review of potential impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

projects and urbanization located in the geographic areas of interest. The review team 

concludes that cumulative impacts on public and worker nonradiological health would be 

SMALL, and that mitigation beyond what is discussed in Sections 4.8 and 5.8 would not be 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-33 NUREG-1939

warranted. The review team acknowledges, however, that there is still uncertainty associated 

with chronic effects of EMFs. 

7.8 Radiological Impacts

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.11 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.9, the NRC 

staff concludes that the radiological impacts from NRC-authorized construction would be 

SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.9, the NRC 

staff concludes that the radiological impacts from operations would be SMALL, and no further 

mitigation would be warranted. 

The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.9 and 

were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, 

and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. For the 

purposes of this analysis, the geographic area of interest is the area within the 50-mi radius of 

the VCSNS site. Historically, the NRC has used the 50-mi radius as a standard bounding 

geographic area to evaluate population doses from routine releases from nuclear power plants. 

Located on the VCSNS site are the existing VCSNS Unit 1 reactor, the decommissioned 

Carolinas-Virginia Tube Reactor, and decommissioned steam generators at the steamgenerator recycle-facility vault. SCE&G plans to construct an independent spent-fuel storage 

installation (ISFSI) on the VCSNS site. Offsite, but within the 50-mi radius area, are the 

Westinghouse nuclear fuel fabrication facility (south of Columbia, South Carolina) and hospitals 

using medical isotopes (in Columbia, Lexington, Newberry, Rock Hill, Lancaster, Laurens, 

Greenwood, and Camden, South Carolina).

As stated in Section 2.11, SCE&G has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring 

program (REMP) around the VCSNS site since 1982. The REMP measures radiation and 

radioactive materials from all sources, including the existing Unit 1 at the VCSNS site. In 2009, 

tritium concentrations less than 1000 pCi/L were found in Monticello and Parr Reservoirs, at the 

Columbia Water Works, and in one groundwater well (SCE&G 2010b). These concentrations 

are well below the EPA drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L (40 CFR Part 141) and would 

result in doses well below the VCSNS effluent dose limits. In addition, cobalt-60 concentrations 

ranging from 14-31 pCi/Kg were found in sediments at two locations; these concentrations are 

right around the minimum detectable level (SCE&G 2010b). 

As described in Section 4.9, the estimate of dose to construction workers during the building of 

proposed Units 2 and 3 is well within NRC annual exposure limits (i.e., 100 mrem/year), which 

are designed to protect the public health. For workers at Units 2 and 3, the estimate includes 

exposure from Unit 1, the steam generator recycle facility, and the proposed ISFSI. After Unit 2 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-34 April 2011

begins operation, this estimate also includes exposure to workers at Unit 3 from operation of 

Unit 2. As described in Section 5.9, the public and occupational doses predicted from the 

proposed operation of two new units at the VCSNS site are well below regulatory limits and 

standards. In addition, the site-boundary dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) from 

existing Unit 1 and proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site would be well within the 

regulatory standard in 40 CFR Part 190. The decommissioned tube reactor, the steamgenerator recycle facility, and the planned ISFSI do not contribute significantly to the dose 

offsite. Also, based on results of the REMP and the estimates of doses to biota given in 

Section 5.9, the staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impact on biota would not be 

significant. The results of the REMP indicate that effluents and direct radiation from the distant 

nuclear fuel fabrication plant, area hospitals, and industrial facilities that use radioactive 

materials, do not contribute measurably to the cumulative dose.

Currently, there are no other nuclear facilities planned within 50 mi of the VCSNS site. The 

NRC, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the State of South Carolina would regulate or control 

any reasonably foreseeable future actions in the region that could contribute to cumulative 

radiological impacts. 

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts of operating two 

new units, along with the existing unit at VCSNS and the influence of other man-made sources 

of radiation nearby would be SMALL.

7.9 Postulated Accidents

As described in Section 5.11.5, the staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts 

(risk) from a postulated accident from the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be 

SMALL. Section 5.11 considers both design basis accidents (DBAs) and severe accidents.

As described in Section 5.11, the staff concludes that the environmental consequences of DBAs 

at the VCSNS site would be SMALL for an AP1000 reactor. DBAs are addressed specifically to 

demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC safety criteria. The 

consequences of DBAs are bounded by the consequences of severe accidents.

As described in Section 5.11.2, the NRC staff concludes that the severe-accident probabilityweighted consequences (i.e., risks) of an AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site are SMALL 

compared to risks to which the population is generally exposed, and no further mitigation would 

be warranted. The cumulative analysis considers risk from potential severe accidents at all 

other existing and proposed nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase risks at any 

location within 50 mi of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Existing reactors within the geographic 

area include VCSNS Unit 1, H.B. Robinson Unit 1, Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3, Catawba Units 1 

and 2, McGuire Units 1 and 2, and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 1 and 2 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-35 NUREG-1939

nuclear generating stations. Also, within the geographic area of interest, new reactors have 

been proposed for the existing Vogtle site and the new Lee site in South Carolina.

Tables 5-18 and 5-19 in Section 5.11.2.1 provide comparisons of estimated risk for the 

proposed AP1000 units at the VCSNS site and current-generation reactors. The estimated 

population dose risk for the proposed AP1000 units at the VCSNS site is well below the mean 

and median value for current-generation reactors. In addition, estimates of average individual 

early fatality and latent cancer fatality risks are well below the Commission’s(a

7.10 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

) safety goals 

(51 FR 30028). For existing plants within the geographic area of interest, namely VCSNS 

Unit 1, H.B. Robinson Unit 1, Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3, Catawba Units 1 and 2, McGuire Units 1 

and 2, and Vogtle Units 1 and 2 nuclear generating stations, the Commission has determined 

that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL (10 CFR 51, 

Appendix B, Table B-1). Finally, according to the Lee Nuclear Station Environmental Report 

(Duke 2009b) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Vogtle Early Site Permit 

(NRC 2008), the risks from these proposed reactors would also be well below risks for currentgeneration reactors and would meet the Commission’s safety goals. The severe accident risk 

due to any particular nuclear power plant gets smaller as the distance from that plant increases.

However, the combined risk at any location within 50 mi of the VCSNS site would be bounded 

by the sum of risks for all of these operating and proposed nuclear power plants. Even though 

there would be potentially several plants included in the combination, this combined risk would 

still be low. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks from severe 

accidents at any location within 50 mi of the VCSNS likely would be SMALL, and no further 

mitigation would be warranted.

The cumulative impacts related to the fuel cycle, transportation of radioactive materials (fuel and 

waste), and facility decommissioning for the proposed site are described below.

7.10.1 Fuel Cycle

As described in Section 6.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts of the fuel 

cycle due to operation of proposed Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL. Fuel-cycle impacts would 

occur not only at the VCSNS site but would also be scattered through other locations in the 

United States or, in the case of foreign-purchased uranium, in other countries as described in 

Section 6.1. 

In addition to fuel-cycle impacts from proposed Units 2 and 3, this cumulative analysis also 

considers fuel-cycle impacts from existing Unit 1. There are no other nuclear power plants 

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

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

NUREG-1939 7-36 April 2011

within 50 mi of the VCSNS site. The fuel-cycle impact of Unit 1 would be similar to that of 

proposed Unit 2 or Unit 3. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.51(a), the NRC staff considers the 

impacts to be acceptable for a 1000-MW(e) reference reactor. The impacts of producing and 

disposing of nuclear 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 discussed in Section 6.1, advances in 

reactors since the development of Table S–3 in 10 CFR 51.51 reduce environmental impacts 

relative to 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. The Westinghouse nuclear fuel 

fabrication facility near Columbia, South Carolina, is an impact of the fuel-cycle, and is implicitly 

included in the discussion in Section 6.1. In Section 6.1, the NRC staff multiplied the values in 

Table S–3 by a factor of three to scale the impacts up from the 1000-MW(e) LWR model to 

address the fuel-cycle impacts of proposed Units 2 and 3. Adding the fuel-cycle impacts from 

Unit 1 would increase the scaling to no more than a factor of four. Therefore, the staff considers 

the cumulative fuel-cycle impacts of operating the VCSNS site to be SMALL. 

7.10.2 Transportation

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.5.2 serves as the baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Sections 4.8.3 and 5.8.6, 

the review team concludes that impacts of transporting personnel and nonradiological materials 

to and from the VCSNS site would be SMALL. In addition to impacts from preconstruction, 

construction, and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative transportation impacts. 

For this analysis, the geographic area of interest is the 50-mi region surrounding the 

VCSNS site.

Nonradiological transportation impacts are related to the additional traffic on the regional and 

local highway networks leading to and from the VCSNS site. Additional traffic would result from 

shipments of construction materials and movements of construction personnel to and from the 

sites. However, the additional traffic increases the risk of traffic accidents, injuries, and 

fatalities. A review of the projects listed in Table 7-1 indicates that other projects in the region 

could potentially increase nonradiological impacts. The most significant cumulative 

nonradiological impacts in the vicinity of the VCSNS site would result from major construction 

projects. However, there are no planned major construction projects in the region surrounding 

the VCSNS site. Operation of existing facilities could also result in cumulative nonradiological 

impacts if traffic to and from the VCSNS site would interact with traffic traveling to and from 

operating facilities in the region. For the VCSNS site, nearby operating facilities that could 

contribute to traffic hazards include the existing VCSNS Unit 1, Parr Hydroelectric Plant, FPSF, 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-37 NUREG-1939

and the Blair Quarry facility. There are also a number of recreation projects, such as park 

improvements, identified in Table 7-1. These types of improvements are generally of much 

smaller scope and have much lower resource and personnel requirements than constructing a 

new nuclear power plant or highway, and are therefore less likely to result in a measurable 

addition to cumulative impacts. In this EIS, it was shown that the impacts of transporting 

construction material and personnel to and from the VCSNS site and alternative sites is a small 

fraction of the existing nonradiological accidents, injuries, and fatalities in the counties in which 

the alternative sites are located. Mitigation measures designed to improve traffic flow at the 

VCSNS have been proposed by SCE&G (2010a). Based on this conclusion and the magnitude 

of nonradiological transportation impacts of nuclear power plant construction and operations 

relative to the other construction and operating activities listed above, the review team considers 

the cumulative nonradiological transportation impacts associated with constructing and 

operating the proposed new reactor at the VCSNS site to be minimal, and no further mitigation 

would be warranted.

As described in Section 6.2, the NRC staff concludes that impacts of transporting unirradiated 

fuel to the VCSNS site and spent fuel and radioactive waste from the VCSNS site would be 

SMALL. In addition to impacts from preconstruction, construction, and operations, the 

cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that could contribute to cumulative transportation impacts. For this analysis, the 

geographic area of interest is the 50-mi region surrounding the VCSNS site.

Historically, the radiological impacts on the public and environment associated with 

transportation of radioactive materials in the 50-mi region surrounding the VCSNS site are 

dominated by shipments of fuel and waste to and from the existing VCSNS Unit 1. The 

Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant in Columbia, South Carolina, may also contribute to the 

cumulative radiological impacts of transportation due to sharing highway links with some 

VCSNS shipments. Radiological impacts of transporting radioactive materials would occur 

along the routes leading to and from the VCSNS site and would also be scattered throughout 

the United States. For all these historical, current, and potential future projects, the radiological 

transportation impacts are a small fraction of the impacts from natural background radiation. 

The impacts of transporting this fuel and radioactive waste to and from the VCSNS site would 

be consistent with the environmental impacts associated with transportation of fuel and 

radioactive wastes from current-generation reactors presented in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.52, the NRC staff considers the impacts to be acceptable for the 

1000-MW(e) reference reactor. Advances in reactors since the development of Table S–4 of 

10 CFR 51.52 will have the effect of reducing environmental impacts relative to the operating 

reference reactor. For example, fuel-management improvements have been adopted by 

nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel requirements. This 

leads to fewer unirradiated and spent-fuel shipments than for the 1000-MW(e) reference reactor 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-38 April 2011

in 10 CFR 51.52. In addition, advances in shipping cask designs to increase their capacities will 

result in fewer shipments of spent fuel to offsite storage or disposal facilities. 

Therefore, the NRC staff considers the cumulative radiological and nonradiological 

transportation impacts of operating the proposed new reactors at the VCSNS site to be SMALL, 

and no further mitigation would be warranted.

7.10.3 Decommissioning

As discussed in Section 6.3 of this EIS, the environmental impacts of decommissioning 

proposed Units 2 and 3 are expected to be SMALL. 

In this cumulative analysis, the geographic area of interest is within a 50-mi radius of the 

VCSNS site. In addition to the proposed Units 2 and 3, the only other nuclear power plant 

within this area is the existing VCSNS Unit 1. The impacts of decommissioning nuclear power 

plants are bounded by the assessment in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586, Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. In that document, 

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). In 

addition, in Section 6.3 the review team concluded that the impact of greenhouse gas emissions 

on air quality during decommissioning would be small. Therefore, the cumulative impacts for 

the VCSNS site would be SMALL, and further mitigation would not be warranted.

7.11 Staff Conclusions 

The review team considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction, 

preconstruction, and operation of two additional nuclear units at the VCSNS site together with 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The specific resources that could be 

affected by the incremental effects of the proposed action and the other actions listed in 

Table 7-1 in the same geographic area were assessed. This assessment included the impacts 

of construction and operations for the proposed new units as described in Chapters 4 and 5: 

impacts of preconstruction activities as described in Chapter 4; impacts of fuel cycle, 

transportation, and decommissioning described in Chapter 6; and impacts of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that could affect the same 

resources affected by the proposed action.

Table 7-3 summarizes the cumulative impacts by resource area. The cumulative impacts for 

the majority of resource areas would be SMALL, although there could be MODERATE or 

LARGE impacts for some resources, as discussed below. For example, the cumulative impacts 

for land use and terrestrial ecology would be MODERATE, primarily due to new transmission 

lines. The incremental impact from NRC-authorized activities on land use would be SMALL 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-39 NUREG-1939

because the effects to land use, and terrestrial ecology from constructing and operating Unit 2 

and 3 would be minimal and because construction of transmission lines does not require NRC 

authorization.

Table 7-3. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of 

Proposed Units 2 and 3

Resource Category Impact Level

Land use MODERATE

Water-related

Surface-water use SMALL

Groundwater use SMALL

Surface-water quality SMALL

Groundwater quality SMALL

Ecology

Terrestrial ecosystems MODERATE

Aquatic ecosystems SMALL

Socioeconomic

Physical impacts SMALL

Demography SMALL

Economic impacts on the community SMALL to LARGE (beneficial)

Infrastructure and community services SMALL to MODERATE

Aesthetics and recreation SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL to MODERATE

Historic and cultural resources MODERATE

Air quality SMALL to MODERATE

Nonradiological health SMALL

Radiological health SMALL

Severe accidents SMALL

Fuel cycle, transportation, and 

decommissioning

SMALL

For socioeconomics, most categories would have SMALL cumulative impacts. However, the 

review team concludes there would be a LARGE and beneficial cumulative impact associated 

with tax revenues in Fairfield County, and the incremental impact from NRC-authorized activities 

would be LARGE and beneficial. The review team also identified a MODERATE and adverse 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-40 April 2011

cumulative traffic impact in the Jenkinsville area that would be localized and temporary (limited 

to only “rush hour” traffic and the peak building activity period), and the incremental impact from 

NRC-authorized activities would be MODERATE. Cumulative impacts to other socioeconomic 

impact categories would be SMALL. 

For environmental justice, most categories would have SMALL cumulative impacts. However, 

there may be intermittent disproportionately high and adverse cumulative impacts on minority 

and low income populations from traffic during the peak construction employment period in the 

Jenkinsville area and those impacts could be considered MODERATE. These incremental 

traffic impacts from NRC-authorized activities would be MODERATE. Cumulative impacts to 

other environmental justice impact categories would be SMALL.

There would be a MODERATE cumulative impact on historic and cultural resources, primarily 

due to preconstruction activities. The incremental impact from NRC-authorized activities would 

be SMALL.

For air quality, the cumulative impacts would be MODERATE primarily due to national and 

world-wide impacts of greenhouse gases emissions. The incremental impacts from NRCauthorized activities would be SMALL since such impacts would be minimal.

7.12 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.”

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.”

51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants; Policy 

Statement.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

67 FR 44502. July 02, 2002. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior.
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-41 NUREG-1939

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Public Law 111-5. 

Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1997. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

IV July 1, 1996 – June 30, 1997. Annual Progress Report F-63-3-4, South Carolina Department 

of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300700.

Duke Energy (Duke). 2007. Broad River Water Supply Study, Final Report, Analysis of Water 

Supply Needs. Prepared by HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy (Duke). 2009a. Buzzard Roost Station. Available at http://www.dukeenergy.com/power-plants/oil-gas-fired/buzzard-roost-station.asp.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke). 2009b. William States Lee III Nuclear Station COL 

Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage 

(Environmental Report), Revision 1. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Charlotte, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML090990348.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Statistics 2005 (Table Vm-1). Office 

of Highway Policy Information, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Federal Power Commission (FPC). 1974. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Parr 

Hydroelectric Project, No. 1894 – South Carolina. No. FPC-PWR-1894, Federal Power 

Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Godfrey, M.A. 1980. Field Guide to the Piedmont: The Natural Habitats of America’s Most 

Lived-in Region, from New York City to Montgomery, Alabama. The University of North 

Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Greenwood County, Public Safety Division, Emergency Management Office (Greenwood 

County). 2008. Buzzard Roost Dam Failure Preparedness. Available at 

http://emergency.greenwoodsc.gov/eop-k.html.

Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States. Cambridge University Press, New York. 

Kirkman, L.K., C.L. Brown, and D.J. Leopold. 2007. Native Trees of the Southeast: An 

Identification Guide. Timber Press Inc., Portland, Oregon.

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

Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South 

Carolina. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-42 April 2011

Santee River Basin Accord (SRBA). 2008. Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish 

Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement. Final Administration and Policy Document. South 

Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission. Accession No. ML082830321.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2006. Part 70 Air 

Quality Permit, SCE&G – Parr Combustion Facility, Parr Road, Jenkinsville, SC, 29065. Permit 

No. TV-1000-0021. Bureau of Air Quality, Columbia, South Carolina.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007a. 

Watershed Water Quality Assessment: Broad River Basin. Technical Report No.006-07. 

Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/shed/docs/bd_doc.pdf.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007b. South 

Carolina Water Use Report 2006 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML093270551.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009. Letter from Vivianne 

Vejdani (SCDNR) to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, dated March 6, 2009, “Reference: Request for Participation in the Scoping 

Process and List of State Listed Protected Species for the Environmental Review for the Virgil 

C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Combined License Application.” Columbia, South 

Carolina. Accession No. ML090840384.

South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). 2009. South Carolina Strategic 

Corridor System Plan. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.scdot.org/inside/multimodal/pdfs/StrategicCorridorPlan.pdf. Accession No. 

ML093421433.

South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G). 1977. Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Operating 

License Environmental Report (Volume II). Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. 

ML100690241.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008. Letter from Stephen A. Byrne (SCE&G 

Senior Vice-President, Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission dated March 27, 2008, “Subject V.C. Summer Nuclear Stations Units 2 and 3; 

Project Number 743 Submittal of a Combined License Application for V.C. Summer Nuclear 

Stations Units 2 and 3.” Jenkinsville, South Carolina. NND-08-0004. Accession No. 

ML081300460.
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-43 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 2, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML101930231.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010b. Letter from George A. Lippard to USNRC 

Document Control Desk, dated April 26, 2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. NPF-12, Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report.” Accession No. ML101200057. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010c. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

July 9, 2010, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 

and 52-028, Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses 

for V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3.” NND-10-0268. Accession No. ML101900618.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2011. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated February 8, 2011 referencing R.B. Clary letter 

dated July 2, 2010 and email clarifications from NRC dated January 25, 2011 and February 1,

2011, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined License 

Application (COLA) – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 – Response to Clarification 

Requests Concerning Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).” NND-11-0027. 

Accession No. ML110410185.

Toblin, R.S. 2007. Temperature Distribution in Parr Reservoir on the Broad River as a Result 

of Blowdown from Proposed 2-Unit AP1000 Operation at V.C. Summer Stations. Prepared by 

Tetra Tech NUS Inc., for South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011a. Letter from Tina Hadden (Chief, Regulatory 

Division) to Ronald B. Clary (Vice President SCE&G New Nuclear Deployment) dated January 

21, 2011, transmitting signed cultural resources management plan and agreement among the 

South Carolina Department of Archives & History, State Historic Preservation Office; the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers; and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) regarding the 

VC Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 & 3 Site and Associated New 230 KV SCE&G 

Transmission Lines. Accession No. ML110310829.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011b. Letter from Tina Hadden (Chief, Regulatory 

Division) to Ken Johnson (Supervisor Transmission Design, Santee Cooper) dated January 21, 

2011, transmitting signed Cultural Resources Management Plan For Two New Transmission 

Lines Serving The Proposed New Units at the VC Summer Nuclear Station Accession No. 

ML110310858.
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-44 April 2011

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) –

Detailed Reports – SCE&G/Parr Hydro Station. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=SC0001864&npvalue=1&npvalu

e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12. Accession No. ML100200614.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

Detail Report – Cone Mills Carlisle Finishing Company. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000587188. 

Accession No. ML100200476.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009c. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

Detail Report – Chemtrade Performance Chemicals, LLC. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110002182138. 

Accession No. ML100200469.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009d. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) –

Detailed Reports – NCW&SA/Cannons Creek WWTP. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=SC0048313&npvalue=1&npvalu

e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12. Accession No. ML100200549.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009e. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

Detail Report – NCW&SA/Broad RV. WWTF Phase 1A. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=SC0048020&p

gm_sys_acrnm_in=PCS. Accession No. ML100200496.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009f. Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions, Global Greenhouse Gas Data. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html. Accession No. ML100221499.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009g. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) Detailed 

Reports, NCW&SA/Broad Rv. WWTF Phase IA. Accessed on December 7, 2009 at 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=SC00...e=5&rvalue=12&npvalue

=6&npvalue=7&npvalue=9&npvalue=10&npvalue=11 (1 of 57). Accession No. ML110610776.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage 

Restoration Plan. Available at 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12197642. 
Cumulative Impacts

April 2011 7-45 NUREG-1939

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised 

Land and Resource Management Plan: Sumter National Forest. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Statement Related to 

the Operation of Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit No. 1. Docket No. 50-395. South 

Carolina Electric and Gas Company. NUREG-0719, Washington, D.C. 

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

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 

2, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Final 

Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, 

Washington D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a. William States Lee III Nuclear Station, 

Units 1 and 2 Application. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/lee.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2. 

Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/cat2.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009c. H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, 

Unit 2. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/rob2.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009d. McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1. 

Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/mcg1.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009e. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1. 

Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/vog1.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009f. Vogtle, Units 3 and 4 Application. 

Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Staff Memorandum from Scott Flanders,

DSER Division Director, to Brent Clayton, RENV Branch Chief, dated December 10, 2010,
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1939 7-46 April 2011

“Addressing Construction and Preconstruction Activities, Greenhouse Gas Issues, General

Conformity Determinations, Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative Impact

Analysis, and Cultural/Historical Resources Analysis Issues In Environmental Impact

Statements.” Accession No. ML100760503.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC. (Westinghouse). 2009. Columbia Site. Accessed 

December 3, 2009 at 

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Businesses/nuclear_fuel/columbia_site.shtm. Accession 

No. ML100200634.
April 2011 8-1 NUREG-1939

8.0 Need for Power

Chapter 8 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Environmental Standard 

Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000) with additional clarification provided in NRC Staff 

Memorandum (NRC 2010) guides the staff’s review and analysis of the need for power for a 

proposed nuclear power plant. The guidance states:

Affected states or regions continue to prepare need-for-power evaluations for 

proposed energy facilities. The NRC will review the evaluation for the proposed 

facility and determine if it is (1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to 

confirmation, and (4) responsive to forecasting uncertainty. If the State’s or 

region’s need-for-power evaluation is found acceptable, no additional 

independent review by NRC is needed, and the State’s analysis can be the basis 

for ESRPs 8.2 through 8.4 (NRC 2000).

In a 2003 response to a petition for rulemaking, the NRC reviewed whether the need for power 

should be considered in NRC environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared in conjunction 

with applications that could result in new plant construction (68 FR 55905). The NRC concluded 

that “...need for power must be addressed in connection with new power plant construction so 

that the NRC may weigh the likely benefits (e.g., electrical power) against the environmental 

impacts of constructing and operating a nuclear power reactor.” The NRC also stated in its 

response to the petition discussed above that (1) the NRC does not supplant the States, which 

have traditionally been responsible for assessing the need for power-generating facilities, for 

their economic feasibility, and for regulating rates and services; and (2) the NRC has 

acknowledged the primacy of State regulatory decisions regarding future energy options 

(68 FR 55905).

As identified in Section 1.3 of this EIS, the purpose and need for the project is to provide for 

additional baseload electric generating capacity. Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS)

Units 2 and 3 would provide a combined net electrical output of approximately 2214 MW(e) of 

baseload electric generating capacity. Unit 2 is projected to enter commercial service in mid2016, while Unit 3 is projected to enter commercial service in 2019. As a joint venture, SCE&G 

would be a 55-percent owner of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and receive the commensurate power 

output, and Santee Cooper (the State-owned public utility, formally called the South Carolina 

Public Service Authority [SCPSA]) would own 45 percent of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and receive 

the commensurate power output. The State of South Carolina frames the term “base load plant” 

by offering the following: “units or facility that is designed to be operated at a capacity factor 

exceeding seventy percent annually, has a gross initial generation capacity of 350 MW(e) or 

more, and is intended in whole or in part to serve retail customers of a utility of South Carolina” 
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-2 April 2011

(South Carolina [SC] Code Ann. 58-33-220). The purpose of the proposed project is consistent 

with the definition as offered by the State.

The proposed action is subject to the regulatory review and approval by the State of South 

Carolina through the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC), as well as the 

Board of Directors of the SCPSA. Both the PSCSC and the Board of Directors of the SCPSA 

evaluated the proposed need for power. Finding that the State’s evaluations and ensuing 

directions from these regulatory bodies conformed to the NRC’s four criteria as previously 

discussed, the NRC staff relied on their analysis to provide the basis for its conclusion that there 

is a need for power from proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Specific information regarding the 

application of the criteria is addressed in Section 8.1.5. 

The following sections describe the need for baseload electric generating capacity. Section 8.1 

reviews the current power system, including geographic considerations, and describes the 

regional characteristics. Section 8.1 also reviews and discusses the State’s regulatory guidance 

characterizing both the determination of the need for power and the approval of the proposed 

project through the PSCSC and SCPSA processes. Section 8.2 provides a review of pertinent 

details describing the demand for power, including an assessment of aspects that can impact 

the demand for power such as regional, State and Federal policies, energy efficiency (EE) and 

demand-side management (DSM), and econometric indicators. Section 8.3 is a discussion of 

power supply, including a review of past, present, and future generating capacity, power 

purchasing, and policies that may impact supply-side resources. Section 8.4 provides the staff’s 

conclusions regarding the determination of the need for power as proposed by the applicant and 

verified by the PSCSC and SCPSA evaluation processes, and concludes with a description of 

how the need-for-power evaluation performed by the State of South Carolina meets the four 

required criteria provided by the NRC.

Where necessary, data and details may be supplemented by information from other resources 

such as State Energy Offices, regional reliability and power planning entities such as the 

Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC), Energy Information Administration (EIA) 

estimates, and neighboring electric generating utilities.

8.1 Description of the Power System

The following sections describe the SCE&G and Santee Cooper relevant service areas, the 

regional reliability of the bulk power-supply system infrastructure related to the South Carolina 

power system, and the regulatory framework of the State of South Carolina under which the 

need for power has been evaluated and validated.

8.1.1 SCE&G Relevant Service Area

SCE&G is an investor-owned utility in the Southeast United States operating wholly within the 

State of South Carolina with a franchised service territory. The utility maintains a summer peak-
Need For Power

April 2011 8-3 NUREG-1939

generating capacity of approximately 5745 MW(e) including power purchases, and provides 

electrical service to approximately 640,000 customers in 24 counties across central and 

southern South Carolina (PSCSC 2008a) as shown in Figure 8-1. 

 

Figure 8-1. The Combined Service Territory of SCE&G and Santee Cooper (including State 

electric cooperatives) (SCE&G 2009a)
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-4 April 2011

The major native load centers within SCE&G’s relevant service territory include municipal areas 

in South Carolina such as Columbia, Aiken, and the coastal regions up to and including the 

Charleston area. The territory includes portions of the quickly growing Interstate 95 and 

southern coastal corridors, with municipalities in that area continuing to show consistent growth 

in residential population and associated light commercial supporting industries. 

8.1.2 Santee Cooper Relevant Service Area

The SCPSA, operating as Santee Cooper, is a 100-percent State-owned electric and water 

utility, supplying electricity to more than 163,000 retail customers in Berkeley, Georgetown, and 

Horry Counties, as well as to 29 large industrial facilities, the cities of Bamberg and 

Georgetown, and the Charleston Air Force Base. Santee Cooper also generates the power 

distributed by the State's 20 electric cooperatives to more than 700,000 customers in all 

46 counties of South Carolina. Santee Cooper maintains 6091 MW(e) of total summer peakgenerating capacity (SCE&G 2009b).

Santee Cooper provides transmission and electrical services to a geographic area that is 

considerably larger than the franchised service territory of SCE&G. For the purposes of this 

EIS, the geographic boundary under consideration for the determination of the need for power is 

the SCE&G franchised service territory in addition to the retail and wholesale customer base of 

Santee Cooper as described above. The combined service territory of SCE&G and Santee 

Cooper (including State electric cooperatives) is illustrated in Figure 8-1.

8.1.3 Regional Reliability 

SCE&G and Santee Cooper transmission systems operate entirely within the Virginia-Carolinas 

(VACAR) subregion of the SERC region, and are interconnected with both privately owned and 

State-owned utility systems. SERC serves as a regional entity with delegated authority from the 

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) for the purpose of proposing and 

enforcing reliability standards within the SERC region. 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. Owners, 

operators, and users of the bulk power-supply system in these states cover the SERC region, 

which, as shown in Figure 8-2, is an area of approximately 560,000 mi2 (NERC 2008).
Need For Power

April 2011 8-5 NUREG-1939

Figure 8-2. The SERC Service Territory (NERC 2008)

As participants in the regional production and distribution of energy, SCE&G and Santee 

Cooper, in conjunction with other members of the VACAR subregion, develop current and future 

power-flow and stability models of the integrated transmission system to assess the reliability of 

the system and to ensure compliance with regional and Federal reliability standards. The 

models are routinely adjusted to accommodate variations in power-generation capacity, 

seasonal changes or regional impacts such as drought, and planning margins, and include both 

long-term and short-term reliability and power-flow assessments (SCE&G 2009c).

SCE&G and Santee Cooper’s annual demand forecasts and electrical growth estimates are 

generally consistent with the most recent SERC forecasts. SCE&G stated for the PSCSC 

hearing record that it forecasted firm territorial demand growth of 1.7 percent per year for the 

next 15 years (PSCSC 2008a). Santee Cooper is forecasting average demand to increase 

1.2 percent per year for the next 15 years (SCE&G 2010a-). This is reasonable when compared 

with the SERC region forecast of approximately 1.7 percent annual growth for the next 10 years 

(NERC 2010), and the VACAR subregion of SERC forecast of approximately 1.7 percent annual 

growth for the next 10 years (NERC 2010). 

Nonregulated (merchant) capacity exists in neighboring, balancing authority areas with direct 

interconnection to the SCE&G and Santee Cooper balancing authority areas. This capacity is 

primarily natural-gas-fired generation. Due to the unknown commitment status of this capacity, 

transmission access limitations, and physical transmission constraints, the reliable deliverability 

of this capacity cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the 

purchase and distribution of merchant capacity within the service territory or in neighboring 

areas and the capacity can neither be considered nor modeled as a viable supply of baseload 

capacity. This premise is consistent with a review of nonregulated power capacity within the 

South Carolina service territories, which indicates a limited amount of total available capacity 

(EPA 2007). 
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-6 April 2011

8.1.4 South Carolina Regulatory Framework

The proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 project was reviewed and evaluated by the PSCSC, which 

issued the final findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Certificate of Environmental 

Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) giving legal authority to SCE&G to 

proceed with construction and operation of a two-unit nuclear power plant, after SCE&G met the 

State of South Carolina’s statutory requirements for the commencement of the project. The 

granting of the CPCN is a process that is independent from the approval of the combined 

construction permit and operating licenses (COLs). Therefore, the authority granted by the 

PSCSC in the approval of the CPCN does not influence the NRC in its approval of a COL. 

SCE&G was the sole applicant petitioning the PSCSC to grant the CPCN; however, SCE&G 

and the SCPSA (the latter operating as Santee Cooper) would be co-owners of the two-unit 

nuclear power plant and the power output. As such, both SCE&G and Santee Cooper have had 

to effectively demonstrate a need for power in their respective operating territories that is 

commensurate with the power output of the proposed project. They have done so through 

separate, yet analogous, proceedings, each of which is governed and controlled ultimately by 

the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina. 

Broadly, the South Carolina General Assembly has numerous responsibilities directed toward 

the effective control and oversight of both public and private utilities operating within the State. 

The General Assembly directly contributes legislative membership and appoints public 

participants to the State Regulation of Public Utilities Review Committee. The committee is then 

tasked with evaluating and nominating leaders to each of the following entities (SC Code Ann. 

58-3 Article 5):

• PSCSC, which controls regulated utilities such as SCE&G

• SCPSA Board of Directors, which represents the State of South Carolina operating as 

Santee Cooper 

• South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff, which serves as a public interest advocate and 

provides independent overview of the PSCSC. 

8.1.4.1 SCE&G’s Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

A provision in South Carolina State law, the Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection 

Act, requires all persons desiring to construct major utility facilities to obtain a CPCN from the 

PSCSC prior to the commencement of any construction activities. This process is governed by 

Chapter 103, Article 3, Subarticle 1 of the South Carolina Code of Regulations and by Title 58, 

Chapter 33 of the South Carolina Code of Laws.

Pursuant to the Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection Act, the PSCSC may not 

grant a certificate for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a major utility facility, 
Need For Power

April 2011 8-7 NUREG-1939

either as proposed or as modified, unless it shall find and determine the basis of the need for 

the facility; the nature of probable environmental impact; that the impact of the facility upon the 

environment is justified considering the alternatives; that the facilities serve in the interests of 

system economy and reliability; that there is reasonable conformance to applicable State and 

local laws and regulations; and that public convenience and necessity require the construction 

of the facility (PSCSC 2009). It is important to note that while the CPCN authorizes the 

construction of two units, the PSCSC does not have jurisdiction over Santee Cooper 

(PSCSC 2009). Therefore, no ruling by the PSCSC through the CPCN evaluation is extended 

to the 45 percent of the project that would be owned by Santee Cooper. However, as a joint 

owner in the proposed project, Santee Cooper’s need for power is discussed in the following 

sections. 

The PSCSC reviewed and evaluated SCE&G’s petition for a determination of the need for 

power in the proceedings governing the Combined Application for the CPCN and Base Load 

Review Order (PSCSC 2008b) pursuant to provisions in South Carolina’s Utility Facility Siting 

and Environmental Protection Act. Consistent with the preceding discussion, SCE&G submitted 

the Combined Application of South Carolina Electric and Gas Company for a Certificate of 

Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity and for a Base Load 

Review Order for the Construction and Operation of a Nuclear Facility in Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina, to the PSCSC on May 30, 2008.

The final order provided by the PSCSC approving the combined application and CPCN was 

issued to SCE&G on March 2, 2009, granting SCE&G approval for the construction and 

operation of two Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 

(AP1000) pressurized water reactors at the VCSNS site (PSCSC 2008a). The PSCSC further 

ruled that the impact of the proposed project would be justified based on the demonstrated need 

for additional baseload capacity (PSCSC 2008a). The CPCN application review proceedings 

provided full disclosure of expert and independent testimony provided by representative parties 

to the certification proceedings including the applicant, the South Carolina Office of Regulatory 

Staff, the Department of Health and Environmental Control, Department of Natural Resources, 

Department of Parks and Tourism, as well as public hearing and testimony.

Because the formal State process has been completed and the need for power has been 

demonstrated and documented by order of the PSCSC, the staff, in accordance with 

NUREG-1555 criteria, relies on the State’s evaluation of the need for power for its own 

independent analysis of the applicant’s determination of need. A discussion of the four 

NUREG-1555 reliability criteria can be found in Section 8.1.5 of this EIS (NRC 2000).

8.1.4.2 South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper)

Santee Cooper is the State-owned public utility operating under direct authorization of the 

SCPSA Board of Directors to produce, distribute, and sell electric power in accordance with 
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-8 April 2011

good business practices and the requirements of applicable licenses, laws, and regulations 

(SC Code Ann. 58-31-30(A) and 58-31-55(A)(3)(c)). Because Santee Cooper is a State-owned 

utility, the State prepares, or designates the preparation of, all analyses as required by statute 

such as Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) and rate cases. The analyses are provided to the 

South Carolina State Energy Office for review and comment, and must be consistent with the 

processes imposed on regulated utilities by the PSCSC (SC Code Ann. 58-37-40). The IRP, 

which includes a review of the load forecast, energy efficiency and conservation programs, and 

options to meet expected load growth and reserve requirements, is also submitted to the Board 

of Directors of the SCPSA. The Board of Directors authorizes auditing of the resource plan by 

both independent parties as well as affected parties, and upon final consideration provides final 

adoption of the plan through a formal SCPSA Board of Directors resolution (SCE&G 2009d).

The SCPSA Board of Directors adopted several board resolutions that provide a coordinated 

framework directly aligning Santee Cooper with the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 project. Individually, 

the resolutions address the following: (1) company-wide resource planning through IRPs that 

have been substantiated through independent reviews; (2) the need for South Carolina to 

aggressively pursue goals toward expanding the deployment of power-generating resources 

that do not emit greenhouse gases, and improving energy efficiency and conservation; and 

(3) the need to provide the authority and mechanisms by which Santee Cooper as the State 

public utility may partner with SCE&G for the construction, operation, and rate-recovery of the 

proposed two-unit nuclear power plant at the VCSNS site located in Fairfield County.

In successive review and in support of the preceding discussion detailing Santee Cooper’s 

ability to become a joint owner of a power plant in Fairfield Country, the Board of Directors

representing the State of South Carolina, fully adopted the following resolutions (SCE&G 

2009d):

• Mar. 27, 2006 (MB06-09): Adoption of the 2005/2006 Generation Resource Plan, which 

detailed the need for additional capacity as independently reviewed and corroborated by the 

R.W. Beck consulting company based on current data and acceptable forecasting methods. 

The resolution further authorized management to take actions deemed necessary or 

appropriate to obtain a construction and operating permit for an ownership share not to 

exceed 50 percent of a two-unit nuclear power plant at the VCSNS site.

• Oct. 20, 2006 (MB06-25): Santee Cooper management was authorized to continue to take 

actions necessary to design, permit, procure, construct, and install two nuclear units at the 

VCSNS site.

• Oct. 19, 2007 (MB07-14): The Board of Directors established a goal of generating 

40 percent of the gross electrical generation needs by non-greenhouse-gas-emitting 

resources, biomass fuels, energy efficiency, and conservation by 2020.
Need For Power

April 2011 8-9 NUREG-1939

• Apr. 25, 2008 (MB08-06): Adoption of the 2008 Generation Resource Plan that reflected the 

necessary addition of new generating resources to meet projected load growth. The plan 

was independently reviewed and corroborated by the R.W. Beck consulting company, which 

concluded that the processes and assumptions were reasonable and accurate. 

Management was further authorized to take actions deemed necessary or appropriate to 

obtain a construction and operating permit for an ownership share not to exceed 50 percent 

of a two-unit nuclear power plant at the VCSNS site.

• May 22, 2008 (MB08-07): The resolution appointed SCE&G to act as the SCPSA’s agent in 

connection with the execution and performance of the Engineer, Procure, Construct contract 

for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 project. The resolution further authorized management to 

continue taking actions necessary to permit, design, procure, and install two nuclear units at 

the VCSNS site and allowed an expenditure of an additional sum of money through 

December 31, 2011.

With authority granted by the South Carolina General Assembly, the above resolutions 

constitute the State’s evaluation and direct assessment of the need for power-generating 

facilities, their economic feasibility, and the regulation of rates and services. These resolutions, 

as reviewed and approved by the SCPSA Board of Directors, established both precedence and 

further guidance for Santee Cooper’s commitment to the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 project. 

The following sections characterize the basis provided by the State via issuance of the CPCN. 

Further, because Santee Cooper is a participant in the project, the following review includes 

relevant sections and conclusions from its 2008 and 2009 IRP, as well as responses to 

Requests for Additional Information (RAIs) as issued by the NRC staff, which describes the 

need for power for Santee Cooper.

8.1.5 Description of the South Carolina Analytical Process

In accordance with NUREG-1555, the staff reviewed the analytical process and need for power

evaluation performed by the State of South Carolina. The staff found that this evaluation

process met the four NRC criteria for being (1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to 

confirmation, and (4) responsive to forecasting uncertainty. The following details how the four 

NRC criteria were met.

Systematic: Regulatory provisions in South Carolina as previously described, state that on an 

annual basis SCE&G and Santee Cooper must provide the most up-to-date forecast and 

expected resource portfolio, respective of all known current conditions. SCE&G and Santee 

Cooper have a systematic and iterative process for load forecasting, which is updated and 

reviewed annually, as directed by the State either through the PSCSC or through the Board of 

Directors of the SCPSA. The load forecasts use utility industry best practices and 

methodological approaches to determine the utility’s need for power and the most cost-effective 
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-10 April 2011

strategies to meet its regulatory obligations. In the PSCSC hearings regarding the applicant’s 

request for a CPCN the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff and other witnesses indicated 

that SCE&G’s forecasts were reasonable for planning purposes, with the PSCSC finding that 

SCE&G had provided a reliable and appropriate basis for assessing the need for Units 2 and 3 

(PSCSC 2008a). The Board of Directors of the SCPSA approved the 2008 Santee Cooper 

IRP through Resolution MB-08-06 (April 25, 2008). For these reasons, the staff determined 

the SCE&G and Santee Cooper processes are sufficiently systematic for the purposes of 

this analysis.

Comprehensive: Peak and energy forecasts for both SCE&G and Santee Cooper incorporate 

key influencing factors such as economic and demographic trends, weather, and implemented 

load-reduction programs such as new energy-efficiency/demand-side management (EE/DSM) 

programs. Forecasts generated included each sector of the economy, and separate forecasts 

are developed to determine both short- and long-term demand. Power-supply forecasts include 

a comprehensive evaluation of present and planned generating capabilities as well as present 

and planned power purchases and sales in the service territory. All analyses are performed 

with forecasting, statistical modeling, and methodological approaches appropriate for the power 

industry. The peak and energy forecasts were evaluated and ruled upon by the PSCSC via the 

CPCN hearing process, and by the Board of Directors of the SCPSA via approval of the IRP. 

Therefore, the staff determined the SCE&G and Santee Cooper forecasting process 

coupled with the State’s evaluation process were sufficiently comprehensive for the purposes 

of this analysis. 

Subject to Confirmation: The process, models, and estimations used in SCE&G’s petition to 

the PSCSC for review and issuance of the CPCN are documented and subject to evidentiary 

review by the PSCSC, the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff, and the general public. 

The CPCN proceedings and relevant findings are all documented in the final order issued by the 

PSCSC (PSCSC 2008a). Santee Cooper’s resource planning process includes an independent

third-party review, and is subject to the State’s approval as confirmed through issuance of a

resolution by the SCPSA Board of Directors. The resolution provides details specific to the 

presented annual resource plan such as interactions with relevant parties (Customer Advisory 

Council, SCPSA Executive Council, industrial customers, etc.); instructions for future actions 

including those related to permitting, additional capacity requirements and development; and 

other directives regarding the implementation of stated goals such as obtaining 40 percent of 

gross electrical generation from non-greenhouse-gas-emitting resources, renewable energy 

sources, and EE/DSM. Therefore, the staff determined the SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

processes are sufficiently subject to confirmation for the purposes of this analysis.

Responsive to Forecasting Uncertainty: SCE&G and Santee Cooper test the validity of their 

overall forecast by analyzing the impact of alternative load forecasts (high, medium, and low). 

In addition, uncertainty in the load forecast is quantified by evaluating the resource portfolios 
Need For Power

April 2011 8-11 NUREG-1939

against variations in future sensitivities, such as fuel and construction costs, load forecasts, 

environmental laws and regulations, and risk. In doing so, SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

developed resource portfolios that quantify the long-term cost to customers under varying 

potential sensitivities, while understanding the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of 

various resource configurations. The PSCSC hearing record indicated that the forecast 

presented by SCE&G was comparatively analyzed against the previous 7 years as well as 

against the forecasts of other utilities within the region, and SCE&G’s forecast was found to be 

not only accurate, but conservative as well (PSCSC 2008a). Santee Cooper’s IRP, which 

contains the load forecast developed by GDS Associates, was independently verified by R.W. 

Beck, an independent consulting company specializing in the objective assessment of utility 

operations and management, who concluded that the assumptions and processes used were 

reasonable. Further, the generating plan, assumptions, and results were provided to affected 

parties for review, including the Central Electric Power Cooperative, Central Executive 

Committee, Customer Advisory Council, industrial customers, and the SCPSA Board of 

Directors. The most recent IRP was adopted via SCPSA Board of Directors Resolution 

MB 08-06 (SCE&G 2009d). For the reasons discussed here, the staff determined the SCE&G 

and Santee Cooper processes are sufficiently responsive to forecasting uncertainty for the 

purposes of this analysis.

8.2 Power Demand 

In Section 8.2.1, the demand for power is discussed for SCE&G as described through the 

State’s PSCSC process that culminated in the issuance of the CPCN. In Section 8.2.2, the 

demand for power is discussed for Santee Cooper as provided by its most recent IRP, and 

updated via RAI and Comment responses. 

8.2.1 SCE&G

SCE&G is an investor-owned utility operating in South Carolina with a well-defined franchised 

service territory. As such, SCE&G is subject to the regulatory purview and jurisdiction of the 

PSCSC as granted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, which charges the 

PSCSC with the broad supervision and regulation of the rates and services of every public utility 

in the State (SC Code Ann. 58-3-140).

8.2.1.1 Factors Affecting Demand

Pursuant to the Siting Act as previously described, SCE&G must provide for and justify the 

basis of need for the proposed facility (PSCSC 2008a). The following sections describe 

relevant information from the PSCSC proceedings regarding SCE&G’s CPCN filing, and the 

basis for final issuance of the CPCN.
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-12 April 2011

Reliability of Load Forecasting and Margin

The PSCSC reviewed the assertion that SCE&G energy forecasts incorporate extensive 

economic, population, and weather-based analysis, and that the forecasting accuracy compares 

favorably to actual growth rates on the SCE&G electrical system. Expert witnesses audited and 

corroborated the forecasting methodology and conclusions, and provided direct testimony 

supporting the forecasted growth in energy sales (1.3 percent per year) and growth in territorial 

peak demand (1.7 percent per year). It was also noted in the final order that current forecasts 

are 35 percent lower than historical growth rates for the prior 15-year period, and that the 

conservative nature of the assumptions would tend to understate the need for the proposed 

project rather than overstate the need. The South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff expert 

witness also compared the SCE&G forecast to other utility forecasts and concluded that the 

forecast was consistent with others’ forecasts within the region (PSCSC 2008a). 

Testimony was provided during the PSCSC CPCN application hearing regarding reserve and 

capacity margin analysis that demonstrated the need for additional capacity within the time 

frame under consideration. SCE&G has established a minimum of 12-percent and a maximum 

of 18-percent reserve margin of the firm peak forecasted demand for planning purposes. This 

reserve margin was corroborated as being appropriate by the South Carolina Office of 

Regulatory Staff, and is included in the CPCN hearing record (PSCSC 2008a). The CPCN 

application hearings were based on the SCE&G 2008 IRP forecast, which showed reserve 

margin declining to 2 percent in 2016 (which corresponds to the planned commencement of

commercial operation of Unit 2) if no additional capacity was added prior to that time 

(PSCSC 2008a). This is below the accepted range of generating reserves, and would likely 

render the utility in breach of its service obligations to the reserve sharing group in which 

SCE&G participates.

Responsiveness to Forecast Uncertainty

As an industry-accepted standard, SCE&G develops its forecast incorporating relevant variables 

as they pertain to its service territory. The forecasts are heavily data driven including but not 

limited to aspects of weather-related variability, such as heating degree days and cooling degree 

days; historic consumption; integration of new efficiency standards; and numerous others. The 

hearing record showed that as part of the audit of SCE&G’s application filing, the forecasts 

offered were not only reasonable, but conservative as well (PSCSC 2008a). 

The PSCSC reviewed the assertion that VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would likely not be needed when 

collective variations in supply and demand variables such as the implementation of new 

demand-side management and energy-efficiency programs, or adverse economic conditions are 

considered. Expert witness testimony was provided and the hearing record demonstrated that 

even if persistent adverse economic conditions significantly reduced SCE&G load capacity 

requirements in the future, VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would still be quite valuable (PSCSC 2008a). 
Need For Power

April 2011 8-13 NUREG-1939

Further testimony demonstrated that the most recent economic data were contained in the load 

forecast used to evaluate the combined application up to the time of the hearing, and that 

SCE&G regularly receives and updates load forecasts with data from national economic 

consulting firms (PSCSC 2008a). The data indicated that the impact of the current economic 

downturn on load forecasting, while potentially significant in the near term, would have only a 

minor impact on load forecasts in the 2016 and 2019 time frame (coinciding with commercial 

operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3), and that the impacts did not change the forecasted need for 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The PSCSC concurred with the position that long-term decisions related 

to energy capacity should be based on the long-range needs of the system, and not on shortterm considerations (PSCSC 2008a).

Demand-Side Management and Energy Efficiency

SCE&G demand-side management (DSM) programs depend heavily on supply-side generation 

resources such as the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility and Saluda Hydro to reduce peak 

demand. When combined with additional DSM resources, SCE&G maintains the capability to 

reduce demand by approximately 4 percent, which is well above industry standards for utilities 

in the region (PSCSC 2008a). 

Based on the hearing record, the PSCSC found that SCE&G had accurately reflected DSM 

efforts and the proposed impacts of energy-efficiency measures in its resource planning, and 

that they were not a viable substitute for the baseload capacity that SCE&G was seeking in the 

application (PSCSC 2008a). The PSCSC further found that SCE&G had included substantial 

reductions in demand due to current and forecasted DSM contributions and that the resource 

plans provided room for increased DSM contributions even with the addition of VCSNS Units 2 

and 3 to the system (PSCSC 2008a). 

The PSCSC considered expert testimony on the impact of current and projected energyefficiency programs in the resource plan and determined, though accurate, SCE&G could have 

done more in general with its energy-efficiency programs in the past, particularly in regard to the 

expansion of residential energy-efficiency programs (PSCSC 2008a). In response to these 

specific concerns and previous feedback from PSCSC findings, SCE&G has performed a 

comprehensive study of potential new DSM programs. The suite of programs was submitted on 

June 30, 2009, for PSCSC review and approval and is currently undergoing the PSCSC and 

public vetting process (PSCSC 2009). The staff reviewed the information available regarding 

the nine proposed new DSM programs and determined that the targeted 131 MW(e) demand 

reduction expected by the end of the third year of implementation does not materially affect the 

need for power (PSCSC 2009). This is consistent with the PSCSC finding in the hearing record 

(PSCSC 2008a) that stated “DSM is a useful supplement to the generation capacity needed on 

SCE&G’s system. It is not a substitution for it.” 
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-14 April 2011

System Economy and Reliability

The Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection Act requires that the proposed project 

“serve the interests of system economy and reliability” (SC Code Ann. 58-33-160 (1)(d)). The 

PSCSC heard expert witness testimony from SCE&G staff, the South Carolina Office of 

Regulatory Staff, and independent outside experts, and found that the projections and 

comparative analysis on which the selection of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 was based were 

reasonable and appropriate. The PSCSC further found that SCE&G properly concluded that the 

construction and operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would provide the greatest and most 

dependable contribution to system economy of all reasonable competitive alternatives 

(PSCSC 2008a). 

The PSCSC assessed the ability of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to provide reliable electricity to 

SCE&G customers. Although primarily limited to concerns regarding water availability and 

transmission planning, the PSCSC found that neither water supply nor transmission issues were 

likely to compromise the reliability of the plant to deliver power to SCE&G customers, and 

further found that the proposed location in Jenkinsville, South Carolina, provides a site that is 

appropriately located close to load centers in the central part of the State, thereby minimizing 

the impact on transmission issues (PSCSC 2008a).

SCE&G maintains a 12- to 18-percent reserve margin as discussed above. The reserve margin 

must also include SCE&G’s pro-rata share of approximately 200 MW(e) (SCE&G 2009c) as part 

of its VACAR Reserve Sharing Agreement. 

8.2.2 Santee Cooper 

The following sections describe Santee Cooper’s demand for power based on the adopted 

resource plan of 2008, the updated resource plan of 2009, applicant responses to RAIs as 

issued by the NRC, and applicant updates and revisions to the ER. After independent review by 

outside consultants and affected parties, the 2008 resource plan was adopted by the full Board 

of Directors of the SCPSA via Resolution MB 08-06 (April 25, 2008). This resolution constitutes 

the State of South Carolina’s approval of the resource plan and the findings therein and 

provides the basis for the following analysis. As necessary, changes to that resource plan are 

reflected and noted by the most recent forecast in RAI Response NND-09-0320 (SCE&G 

2009b) and in ER update information in NND-10-0334 (SCE&G 2010a).

8.2.2.1 Factors Affecting Demand

There are several contingencies currently impacting the future demand for power in the Santee 

Cooper service territory. Key among those that will affect the forecast estimates are the recent 

economic downturn, proposed Federal legislation that may increase the operating costs from 

fossil-fired generation, and the expected transition of a portion of wholesale power sales to the 
Need For Power

April 2011 8-15 NUREG-1939

Central Electric Power Cooperative (SCE&G 2010a). These impacts are modeled using 

industry accepted standards and incorporated into the most current forecast to reflect the best 

known and currently available information. 

Reliability in Load Forecasting

The Santee Cooper service territory is somewhat unique in that it provides energy to three 

electric systems that have widely varying characteristics. Accordingly, Santee Cooper prepares 

separate forecasts for each area, and then combines them for a total territorial energy and peak 

demand prediction (SCE&G 2009b). The forecasts are independently updated and validated by 

GDS Associates, Inc. (Santee Cooper 2008); the forecast and generation plan is further 

evaluated by R.W. Beck as a condition of acceptance by the Board of Directors of the SCPSA. 

The 2008 IRP, which was reviewed and approved the Board of Directors of the SCPSA 

(MB 08-06), projected energy growth at 1.8 percent. 

In its most recent energy forecast, Santee Cooper indicates that energy sales are expected to 

grow at 1.2 percent for the next 15 years (SCE&G 2010a). The forecast includes future energy 

projections based on econometric modeling for weather, temperatures, non-weather-related 

components, and historical trends. The model also accounts for the potential loss of energy 

sales to the Central Electric Cooperative as indicated in NND-10-0334 (SCE&G 2010a).

Energy Efficiency and Demand-Side Management

Santee Cooper actively pursues cost-effective EE/DSM programs. Formalized in 2007, the 

Santee Cooper Conservation and Renewable Energy Department has been tasked with 

developing and implementing new energy-efficiency and conservation programs, in addition to 

evaluating and acquiring renewable generating capacity to serve load. Discussion regarding 

Santee Cooper’s effort to expand on renewable energy can be found in Section 8.3.2. 

Currently, EE/DSM programs collectively account for almost 300 MW(e) of peak demand 

reduction and are effectively embedded in the system peak demand forecast (Santee Cooper 

2008). Santee Cooper also maintains an additional 300 MW of load-taking service, which is 

governed primarily through interruptible power rate structures. 

To the extent that these programs are accurately reflected in the current and projected load 

forecasts, have been independently verified through third-party analysis, and have been judged 

to be acceptable projections based on known information through Board of Directors approval, 

the staff finds that the EE/DSM programs proposed by Santee Cooper reasonably reflect the 

utility’s effort to reduce energy and peak demand in the service territory. However, these 

programs, though effective, do not represent a viable substitute for the baseload capacity that 

Santee Cooper would receive as a partner in the proposed project. 
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-16 April 2011

System Economy and Reliability

Santee Cooper maintains a planning reserve margin from 10 to 13 percent to meet firm load 

requirements, and to assess the adequacy of its resources for long-term power planning. The 

total load-requiring reserve that Santee Cooper is responsible for does not include power 

requirements that are served by other resources, such as the power supplied by the 

Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) (Santee Cooper 2008). Much like SCE&G, Santee 

Cooper is a participant in the VACAR reliability group, which requires maintenance of a pro-rata 

daily reserve margin. This additional capacity is factored into Santee Cooper’s reserve-margin 

analysis and directly contributes to the minimum acceptable capacity that must be available to 

service peak load(s). If existing company generating resources are not able to service the peak 

power demand, firm capacity purchases of additional power must be used to meet the shortfall 

(SCE&G 2009b). Additional information regarding the reserve-margin analysis can be found in 

the Santee Cooper IRP (Santee Cooper 2008).

Purchase of long-term wholesale power in the region is challenging. The reasons for this 

include the lack of excess baseload capacity available, excessive costs when compared to selfbuild options, limited transmission paths that can effectively bring power into the service 

territory, and risk. An example of this is Santee Cooper’s 2005 Request for Proposal for 

additional capacity that received no bids (SCE&G 2009b). 

8.2.3 Demand Forecast

The following is a summary of the forecasted cumulative demand for the combined SCE&G and 

Santee Cooper service territories. Table 8-1 lists the 2022 forecasted demand. The forecasted 

cumulative demand is evaluated for 2022, which would represent 3 years of commercial 

operation of both proposed units. The analysis accounts for all known demand-side influencing 

resources as provided through utility IRPs, ER revisions, and from information contained in the 

CPCN proceedings. 

The following analysis provides the projected demand for capacity and does not make 

assumptions regarding generating alternatives. The final demand and supply analysis is 

provided in Section 8.4. 
Need For Power

April 2011 8-17 NUREG-1939

Table 8-1. 2022 Forecasted Demand

IRP and CPCN-Related 

Forecasted Demand 

(MW(e))

SCE&G firm peak demand(a) 6076

SCE&G reserve(b) 729

Santee Cooper firm peak demand(c) 5928

Santee Cooper reserve(d) 771

Final electricity demand for the service territory 13,504

IRP = Integrated Resource Plan; CPCN = Certificate of Environmental Compatibility 

and Public Convenience and Necessity

(a) From SCE&G 2009c

(b) 12-percent reserve margin

(c) From SCE&G 2010a

(d) 13-percent reserve margin

Based on preceding information, the staff determined that the conclusions are acceptable as 

reviewed, verified, and approved by respective State regulatory bodies. Electricity demand for 

the combined utilities, including the minimum acceptable reserve margin, is forecast to be 

approximately 13,504 MW(e) in 2022. 

8.3 Power Supply

This section discusses the expected supply of electricity in the relevant service area that would 

be available three years after full operation of both proposed units. In Section 8.3.1, the supply 

of power is discussed for SCE&G as described through the State’s PSCSC process that 

culminated in the issuance of the CPCN. In Section 8.3.2, the supply of power is discussed for 

Santee Cooper as provided in its most recent IRP, and the revised forecast provided via ER 

Revision response NND-10-0334 (SCE&G 2010a). 

8.3.1 SCE&G

The reliable supply of power is inherent to SCE&G’s legal obligations in South Carolina. 

Accordingly, the PSCSC annually reviews the proposed forecasts and/or annual updates in 

addition to supporting documentation that may materially affect forecasting accuracy and powersupply requirements. For the proposed project, which requires a full public vetting process, the 

energy forecast and its distinct components were also subject to independent third-party review 

and testimony addressing the accuracy and completeness of the forecast.

In the comprehensive energy forecast submitted to the PSCSC as part of the proceedings that 

led to issuance of the CPCN, SCE&G factored in its full resource portfolio, including present and 
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-18 April 2011

planned generating capabilities, present and planned purchases and sales of power, and the 

impact from EE/DSM programs. 

8.3.1.1 Present and Planned Generating Capacity

By annually reviewing and adjusting capacity resources over a rolling 15-year planning period, 

SCE&G is able to account for new capacity, proposed unit retirements, capacity uprates and 

derates, policy drivers such as improved energy standards or Federal legislation regarding 

emissions, and their impact on the generating resource portfolio. In doing so, the forecasted 

variable (e.g., customer class) is modeled against multiple sensitivities of a broad range of 

possible indicators such as economic environment, weather, conservation, and price 

(SCE&G 2009c). From this, multiple resource portfolios are generated and tested against 

cumulative capacity requirement projections and the likely combinations of forecast sensitivities. 

The resource portfolios do not specify preference or partiality for capacity type; rather, they 

provide a systematic analysis of a range of potential capacity resources necessary for the 

development of a balanced and cost-effective resource portfolio and include both purchased 

alternatives and self-build options. 

As part of the PSCSC CPCN application hearing record, SCE&G indicated that it maintained 

5687 MW(e) of generating capacity broken out by capacity type as the following: coal-fired 

(2484), co-generation (90), natural-gas/oil fired combined cycle (1319), peaking combustion 

turbine (347), hydropower (227), pumped storage (576), and nuclear (644). SCE&G also has 

two long-term power purchase agreements that bring its total supply capacity to 5745 MW(e) 

(PSCSC 2008a). In servicing a 2007 peak power demand of 5248 MW(e), SCE&G’s existing 

capacity provided for a 9-percent online reserve margin,(a

8.3.1.2 Need for Baseload Capacity 

) which is below its established reserve 

margin target of 12 percent as previously indicated. To meet its reserve margin target, SCE&G 

has been required to purchase short-term, off-system capacity to supplement and satisfy the 

growing demand for power. 

The PSCSC heard testimony from SCE&G company witnesses regarding the need to add 

baseload capacity to the power-generation mix. The record shows that the last baseload 

capacity addition to the fleet was completed in 1996. From 1996 to the present, only peaking 

and intermediate capacity additions have been made to meet the 31-percent growth in demand 

over the same time period. By 2020, at the time when both Units 2 and 3 would be in 

commercial operation, the growth in energy demand is forecasted to have grown by 44 percent 

since 1996 (PSCSC 2008a). 

 (a) (Capacity – Peak) / Peak
Need For Power

April 2011 8-19 NUREG-1939

Review of SCE&G current operating practices demonstrates the value of baseload “preferred” 

capacity. Baseload capacity currently represents approximately 56 percent of total capacity in 

the SCE&G system, while providing over 80 percent of the energy used by SCE&G customers 

(PSCSC 2008a). Without the capacity additions represented by the proposed operation of 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3, baseload capacity as a percentage of total capacity would shrink to 

45 percent by 2020, indicating a significantly higher reliance on intermediate duty cycle 

technologies (such as natural-gas-fired combined-cycle power plants) to make up the need for 

more energy. With the additional capacity of the proposed nuclear project, both fossil-fired 

technologies listed in Table 8-2 (coal and gas) would likely experience lower demands for their 

capacity than are currently observed. The table outlines the potential impact the proposed 

project would have on baseload capacity resources and fuel diversity. Table 8-2 is not a final 

power supply portfolio, rather it serves to demonstrate how in the absence of the proposed 

project, SCE&G would likely observe a substantial increase in its reliance on natural-gas-fired 

capacity.

The PSCSC hearing record further demonstrated that even with the addition of the baseload 

capacity resources as proposed in the project, at no time does SCE&G actually exceed its 

reserve planning target. In 2016, at the time Unit 2 is proposed to be in commercial operation, 

the reserve margin in that year would go from 2 percent (if no capacity additions are made in the 

interim), up to 13 percent. Likewise, in 2019, at the time Unit 3 is proposed to be in commercial 

operation, the reserve margin in that year would increase to 17 percent; this is still below the 

targeted maximum reserve margin of 18 percent (PSCSC 2008a). 

Table 8-2. Potential Impact the Proposed Project Would Have on SCE&G Baseload Capacity 

Resources and Fuel Diversity

SCE&G

Percent of Capacity 

in Baseload

Total Capacity 

(MW(e))

Percent Capacity of Total

Coal Nuclear Gas

Current 56 5687 43 11 30

2020 with nuclear 63 6888 37 27 24

2020 without nuclear(a) 45 6888 36 9.4 41

Sources: SCE&G 2009c and PSCSC 2008a

(a) Calculated using existing nuclear and coal capacity and forecasted capacity requirements for 2020.

8.3.1.3 Fuel Diversity

The PSCSC heard relevant testimony from the SCE&G resource planning experts, as well 

independent review and auditing from the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff 

demonstrating the appropriate selection and mix of power-generating resources that would 

function to minimize exposure to future fuel costs and environmental compliance costs. The 

assessed SCE&G generation plans provided analysis comparing the “base case” scenario (two 

nuclear units) to combinations of various fossil-fired alternatives, such as coal-fired and naturalgas-fired plants either in simple cycle or combined cycle, including sensitivity analysis based on 
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-20 April 2011

factors such as uranium pricing, lower gas prices, reduced reliability of aging fossil plants, and 

associated emissions considerations. 

SCE&G is heavily dependent on fossil-fired capacity at 73 percent of existing resources. The 

utility’s exposure to future variations in fuel costs, environmental compliance, and operational 

risks were qualitatively assessed against the strengths and weaknesses of the current powergeneration fleet, and what the proposed generating alternatives might entail. The PSCSC 

CPCN application hearing record states that company leaders determined that the nuclear 

option would serve to strengthen SCE&G’s aging baseload capacity portfolio, diversify the 

company’s fuel mix, and reduce customer exposure to the risks and volatility of fossil fuel 

markets and supply (PSCSC 2008a). As discussed in Section 8.2.1, this was further validated 

by the PSCSC in its conclusion indicating that VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would provide the “greatest 

and most dependable contribution to system economy of all reasonably competitive 

alternatives” (PSCSC 2008a). 

SCE&G company witnesses also confirmed the useful flexibility of adding VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

to the capacity supply mix by providing testimony addressing the potential benefit to reducing 

company reliance on an aging coal-fired fleet. Allowing older fossil-fired plants to be retired or 

used less intensively in the future could benefit the electrical system in terms of reliability, 

compliance, and fuel efficiency (PSCSC 2008a). 

8.3.2 Santee Cooper

In developing the power-supply and capacity forecasts for its service territory, Santee Cooper 

factored in its present and planned generating capabilities, present and planned purchases and 

sales of power, distributed and self-generation power sources, and demand-side reduction. The 

power-supply analysis is bound by the description of Santee Cooper’s current customer base, 

and any known proposals or conditions that may materially affect forecasting accuracy and 

power-supply requirements. An example of such is the recent decision by the SCPSA to 

suspend all efforts to further permit and expand generating capacity at the Pee Dee site due to 

the expected transition of wholesale energy sales to the Central Electric Power Cooperative 

(SCE&G 2010a). 

The reliable supply of power is inherent to Santee Cooper’s legal obligation to the constituents 

of the State of South Carolina as reviewed in Section 8.2.2. Accordingly, the Board of Directors 

of the SCPSA reviews the IRP, and formally issues a resolution indicating its approval of the 

IRP and ensuing instructions or authorizations regarding future directions such as the continued 

investment in the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 project. 
Need For Power

April 2011 8-21 NUREG-1939

8.3.2.1 Present and Planned Generating Capacity

As a power generator, Santee Cooper is engaged in the operation of baseload, intermediate

and peaking duty cycle power plants. Santee Cooper owns and maintains a summer peak 

generating capacity of approximately 6091 MW(e), which also includes long-term purchased 

power contracts. The capacity mix currently includes very high exposure to fossil-based 

generating resources, such as coal at 70 percent of all capacity, and gas-oil fired at 22 percent 

of all capacity (SCE&G 2009b). These fossil-based generating resources produce and supply 

approximately 81 percent of the energy required by Santee Cooper; the remainder being 

supplied by hydropower (1 percent), nuclear (9 percent), and power purchases (9 percent). 

Santee Cooper also indicates that approximately 70 percent of all its generation resources 

operate in baseload (SCE&G 2009b). 

By periodically reviewing and adjusting capacity resources over a rolling 20-year planning 

period, Santee Cooper is able to account for new capacity, unit retirements, capacity uprates 

and derates, policy drivers such as Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards and potential 

Federal greenhouse gas legislation, and their impact on the resource mix. From this, multiple 

resource portfolios are generated and tested against cumulative capacity requirement 

projections and combinations of forecast sensitivities. The resource portfolios do not specify 

preference or partiality for capacity type; rather, they provide a systematic analysis of a range of 

potential capacity resources necessary for the development of a balanced and cost-effective 

resource portfolio.

Santee Cooper is currently engaged in several activities that may provide additional capacity 

within the timeline of consideration. These activities include the potential development of fossilfired capacity; integration of alternative or renewable based capacity; and upgrading, 

relicensing, or developing hydropower-based power plants. The activities are also modeled 

periodically on a rolling 20-year planning horizon enabling the incorporation of the most recent

and updated information, such as receiving the final ruling on the VCSNS CPCN or a sensitivity 

analysis regarding the cost and risk for potential capacity additions. Collectively, all of these 

activities are subject to the review and approval by applicable regulatory bodies such as the 

Board of Directors of the SCPSA and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

8.3.2.2 Purchased Power

Santee Cooper satisfies a portion of the resource portfolio by routinely purchasing intermediate 

and peaking power capacity through firm power purchase agreements. This practice has 

historically included contracted power purchase agreements from conventional non-utility 

(merchant) units, such as natural-gas-fired combustion turbines and combined cycle plants in 

addition to the known purchase and distribution of hydropower based power from SEPA and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In its 2008 IRP, Santee Cooper indicates that it currently has 

firm wholesale power purchase commitments for over 570 MW(e) from such facilities. Of this, 
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-22 April 2011

approximately 28 percent represents mid-term firm power purchases expiring in 2014 that are 

intended to provide adequate reserve margin; with the remainder representing long-term power 

purchases (Santee Cooper 2008). Further, in the 2009 IRP, Santee Cooper indicates that in 

order to maintain an adequate reserve margin prior to commercial operation of VCSNS Unit 2 in 

2016, increased short-term power purchases would be required starting in 2014 (SCE&G 

2010b). In deciding to add any new power resource, including purchased power, Santee 

Cooper evaluates and screens all viable supply-side options against the load forecast, 

assumptions of cost and risk, and the possible generation mix (SCE&G 2010b).

8.3.2.3 Renewable Resources

Enabling legislation passed by the South Carolina General Assembly in 1934 chartered Santee 

Cooper with the development of renewable resources in the form of hydropower-based power 

generation. Hydropower continues to supply customers of Santee Cooper with clean energy. 

Although with limited developable resources, what was once the sole source of power 

generation, hydropower currently supplies only 2 percent of the summer-time peak generating 

capacity at 130 MW(e) (SCE&G 2009b). This still represents the single largest contribution to 

Santee Cooper’s renewable energy portfolio.

Although renewable energy resources do not individually provide a significant amount of 

increased capacity, Santee Cooper continues to pursue developments in biomass, solar, and 

wind generation as the region and resources permit. Further, Santee Cooper indicates in longterm load forecasts (15 years) as reflected in the IRP and RAI responses, that renewable 

resources in combination are forecast to supply up to 250 MW(e) during the timeline of 

consideration. To date, approximately 50 MW(e) of the proposed renewable resources have 

been contractually negotiated, and are included in the most recent forecast (SCE&G 2010a). 

One example includes the expansion of landfill-based methane gas collection and combustion, 

currently at 13 MW(e), which is expected to double by the end of 2010 (Santee Cooper 2008). 

In addition, Santee Cooper has partnered with universities and others to either expand on 

existing programs such as solar development, or to continue investigating alternatives such as 

coastal wind power (Santee Cooper 2008).

Additional information regarding specific renewable energy alternatives is discussed in 

Section 9.2.3.

8.3.2.4 Need for Baseload Capacity 

As previously discussed, Santee Cooper operates 70 percent of its existing fleet of generating 

resources at baseload. As a percentage of available generating resources, this represents a 

significant commitment of resources, and is indicative of the utility’s current need to develop 

additional baseload resources. This premise has been corroborated by several entities 

including the SERC’s Reliability Review Subcommittee (RRS); the State of South Carolina 
Need For Power

April 2011 8-23 NUREG-1939

through the State Regulation of Public Utilities Review Committee, and Board of Directors of the 

SCPSA.

The SERC RRS reported in its 2009 Annual Report that while near-term(a) planning horizons 

appear to indicate sufficient capacity resources, adequate long-term(b

Additional language supporting the need for baseload capacity in the region is provided in the 

South Carolina State Regulation of Public Utilities Review Committee’s (PURC’s) Energy Policy 

Report, which is a comprehensive accounting of both the current and future energy 

requirements in the State of South Carolina. Although produced largely in the context of 

addressing pending Federal energy policies and establishing strategies for a course of action, 

the report, which was compiled by the Office of Regulatory Staff including a full public vetting, 

nonetheless recognized that South Carolina has a “growing baseload electric need” (PURC 

2009).

) planning reserves would 

be dependent on future business decisions, including the use of uncommitted generation and 

construction of new baseload capacity (SERC 2009). The RRS also recognizes that based on 

the percentage of planned net capacity additions, utilities are preparing to meet long-term 

demand growth with a significant commitment to base-load generation rather than relying on 

natural-gas-fired generation or purchases (SERC 2009). As previously discussed in 

Section 8.1.3, there is both a shortage of available uncommitted capacity for Santee Cooper to 

pursue for long-term baseload capacity requirements, and the capacity that is available is 

largely natural-gas-fired generation. Typically, plants fueled by natural gas are used to supply 

intermediate generation (20−60 percent capacity factor), and peaking generation (20 percent 

capacity factor) (PURC 2009, Appendix B, Glossary). Accordingly, the staff finds that Santee 

Cooper’s commitment to the proposed project aligns its need for baseload capacity with a 

SERC RRS recognized baseload generating alternative. The staff considers additional 

generating alternatives, including natural gas-fired generation, in Section 9.2.

The SCPSA Board of Directors, representing the State of South Carolina, authorized the 

commitment of Santee Cooper to the proposed project via the resolutions provided in 

Section 8.1.4.2. In doing so, the SCPSA Board of Directors sanctioned Santee Cooper’s pursuit 

of a generating resource that is used only to supply baseload power. Due to recognized need 

for baseload capacity within the region and the supporting documentation provided in the 

preceding discussion, the staff finds that it is reasonable to conclude that Santee Cooper’s 

pursuit of 45 percent of the capacity from the proposed project means the utility has a need to 

meet a significant percentage of its long-term demand for power by developing baseload 

generating capacity other than through natural-gas-fired generation or capacity purchases.

 

(a) Represented as years 2009 through 2013 (SERC 2009)

(b) Represented as years 2013 through 2018 (SERC 2009)
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-24 April 2011

8.3.3 Supply Forecast

The following is a summary of the forecasted cumulative supply for the combined SCE&G and 

Santee Cooper service territories. The forecasted cumulative supply is evaluated for 2022, 

which would represent 3 years of commercial operation of both proposed units. The analysis 

accounts for all known supply-side resources as provided through each respective utility’s IRP

and as updated via RAI and Comment responses, with the exception of the capacity of the 

proposed project. By removing the capacity additions of the proposed project, the staff is able 

to quantify the cumulative supply that is available to service the expected demand for that 

power. The final demand and supply analysis is provided in Section 8.4. 

Table 8-3 provides the cumulative supply forecast for the combined service territories through 

the summer of 2022.

Table 8-3. 2022 Forecasted Cumulative Supply

Forecasted Cumulative Supply (MW(e))

SCE&G cumulative supply(a) 5660

Santee Cooper cumulative supply(b) 5679

Combined cumulative supply 11,339

(a) Available capacity minus the proposed 55 percent of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (equal to 614 MW(e) X 2)

(b) Available capacity minus the proposed 45 percent of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (equal to 502 MW(e) X 2) 

The staff determined based on the preceding information, that the conclusions are acceptable 

as reviewed, verified, and approved by respective State regulatory bodies. Electricity supply for 

the combined utilities, minus the cumulative supply of the proposed project, is forecast to be 

approximately 11,339 MW(e) in 2022.

8.4 Assessment of Need for Power and NRC Findings

In its final order, the PSCSC provided a single determination of all aspects of the public interest 

evaluation related to proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 stating that, “in this case, the record 

demonstrates that VC Summer Units 2 and 3 represent capacity that is needed to supply 

reasonably forecasted customer demands. In addition, the size, type, location, and technology 

of the Units are the preferable means of doing so with the greatest economy and reliability and 

with the least impact on the environment” (PSCSC 2008a). The PSCSC also commented 

directly on the ability of the proposed project to insulate customers from the price volatility and 

supply risk that are increasingly associated with fossil-fuel-fired generation. The PSCSC further 

noted that alternative energy sources would likely provide useful supplemental energy for 

SCE&G systems going forward, but that public convenience and necessity would not be 

supported by forcing SCE&G customers to rely on the future availability and competitiveness of 
Need For Power

April 2011 8-25 NUREG-1939

these energy sources as a substitute for SCE&G constructing and operating additional baseload 

capacity at this time (PSCSC 2008a). The staff’s review of the PSCSC and SCPSA Need for 

Power evaluation is detailed in Section 8.1.5 above.

SCE&G: The staff reviewed the information provided in PSCSC Docket 2008-196-E and 

evaluated the assumptions and findings therein. The staff determined that SCE&G submitted a 

combined application for a CPCN and for a Base Load Review Order to the PSCSC for the 

design, construction, and operation of a two-unit nuclear power plant. The petition proceedings, 

public hearings, and independent evaluation by the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff 

confirmed for the record that SCE&G’s determination of the need for power equal to 55 percent 

of the power output of the two-unit plant followed conventional and appropriate practices, 

including the thorough evaluation of methodologies and assumptions in forecasting, impacts of 

energy-efficiency and DSM programs, and generation resource planning. The hearing record 

further demonstrated that the need for additional baseload capacity was justified and that 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would serve the interests of system economy and reliability as 

the most practicable means for the generation of electric power (PSCSC 2008a).

Santee Cooper: The staff reviewed the information found in the 2008 and 2009 Santee Cooper 

IRP, the 2009 updated forecast as provided in RAI response NND-09-0320 (SCE&G 2009b),

and comment response NND-10-0334 (SCE&G 2010a). The staff evaluated the assumptions 

and findings therein. The staff further determined that the State of South Carolina appropriately 

accounted for current and future energy needs through the submittal, independent auditing, and 

subsequent approval of Generation Resource Plans by the SCPSA Board of Directors. The 

Board of Directors further authorized Santee Cooper management to pursue an ownership 

share of 45 percent of the nuclear capacity additions proposed for the VCSNS site, and 

determined that in consideration of factors set forth in South Carolina Code 58-31-55(A)(3),

adoption of the resolutions was in the best interest of the SCPSA, and therefore, the State of 

South Carolina.

Proposed Need for Power: The final comparison of the combined power supply and demand 

forecasts for SCE&G and Santee Cooper indicates that both utilities require an expansion of 

generating capacity within the proposed timeline to maintain adequate generating capacity in 

support of State, regional, and utility-level capacity requirements, including reserves. The 

analysis is summarized in Table 8-4.

The outcomes and accuracy of forecasting efforts are subject to confirmation by parties external 

to the utilities and State Utility Commissions, including SERC’s RRS. The RRS conducts 

seasonal and annual reliability assessments of the SERC region by reviewing the data and 
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-26 April 2011

Table 8-4. Final Analysis of the Combined Power Supply and Demand Forecasts for SCE&G 

and Santee Cooper in 2022

Cumulative Demand

including Reserve 

Margin in 2022

Cumulative Supply in 

2022 Without Units 2 

and 3

Total New Capacity 

Required in 2022 

without Units 2 and 3

SCE&G(a) 6805 5660 1145

Santee Cooper(b) 6699 5679 1020

Combined 13,504 11,339 2165

(a) Analysis done using data supplied via SCE&G 2009c.

(b) Analysis done using data supplied via SCE&G (SCE&G 2010a).

studies submitted by SERC member systems. Load forecasting, as provided by the utilities 

within SERC, is a critical element of the process used to establish the reliability and capacity 

obligations within SERC; thus, the load forecast receives considerable scrutiny from the SERC 

RSS to make sure that it represents a reliable estimate of future peak loads and provides the 

basis upon which to evaluate future capacity requirements. The RSS annual report captures 

those forecasts and provides a documented assessment assuring that the SERC region is being 

planned in accordance with the NERC Reliability Standards and applicable SERC Supplements 

(SERC 2009). The historical predictive capability of SCE&G and Santee Cooper load forecasts 

compares favorably to the VACAR subregion analysis found in the annual report provided to 

SERC’s Engineering Committee by the RRS (SERC 2009).

In aggregate, the rulings and resolutions constitute the State of South Carolina’s application of 

statutory regulations to conclude that there is a justified need for power in the relevant service 

territory within the proposed timeline. The staff considered the State’s evaluation and 

determination of the need for baseload capacity for both SCE&G and Santee Cooper within the 

context of the NUREG-1555 guidelines. The staff accepts as complete and adequate the needfor-power evaluation contained in the State’s CPCN ruling as provided by the PSCSC, and in 

the resolutions provided by the SCPSA Board of Directors regarding the generation resource 

plans for Santee Cooper. 

8.5 References

68 FR 55905. September 29, 2003. “Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petition for 

Rulemaking.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2010. 2010 Long-Term Reliability 

Assessment. Princeton, New Jersey. Available at 

http://www.nerc.com/files/2010%20LTRA.pdf. 
Need For Power

April 2011 8-27 NUREG-1939

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2008. 2008 Long-Term Reliability 

Assessment, 2008-2017. Princeton, New Jersey. Available at 

http://www.nerc.com/files/LTRA2008.pdf.

Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2008a. Order Approving Combined 

Application. Docket No. 2008-196-E, Order 2009-104A, Columbia, South Carolina.

Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2008b. South Carolina Electric & Gas 

Company Combined Application for Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public 

Convenience and Necessity and for a Base Load Review Order. Docket No. 2008-196-E, 

Columbia, South Carolina.

Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2009. Application of South Carolina 

Electric & Gas Company for the Establishment and Approval of DSM Programs and Rate Rider. 

Docket No. 2009-261-E, Columbia, South Carolina.

Public Utilities Review Committee (PURC). 2009. State Regulation of Public Utilities Review 

Committee, Energy Policy Report. Columbia, South Carolina.

Santee Cooper. 2008. South Carolina Public Service Authority Integrated Resource Plan 2008. 

Santee Cooper, Moncks Corner, South Carolina.

SC Code Ann. 58-3-5. 2009. “Definitions.” South Carolina Code Annotated.

SC Code Ann. 58-3-140. 2009. “Powers to Regulate Public Utilities.” South Carolina Code 

Annotated.

SC Code Ann. 58-31-30. 2009. “Powers of Authority.” South Carolina Code Annotated.

SC Code Ann. 58-31-55. 2009. “Standards for Director’s Discharge of Duties; Immunity.” South 

Carolina Code Annotated.

SC Code Ann. 58-33-160. 2009. “Decision of Commission.” South Carolina Code Annotated.

SC Code Ann. 58-33-220. 2009. “Definitions.” South Carolina Code Annotated.

SC Code Ann. 58-37-40. 2009. “Integrated Resource Plans.” South Carolina Code Annotated.

SC Code Regulations Ann 103-1. 2008. “General Provisions.” South Carolina Code of

Regulations Annotated.

SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). 2009. Reliability Review Subcommittee’s 2009 Annual 

Report to the SERC Engineering Committee. Charlotte, North Carolina. 
Need For Power

NUREG-1939 8-28 April 2011

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

President, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated November 

20, 2009, in response to letter from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, "Subject: V.C. 

Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 Combined 

Licenses Application – Supplemental Response to NRC Environmental Report (ER) Information 

Needs NP-1, AQ-11 and AQ-13.”. NND-09-0320. Accession Number ML093310245.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. 2009 Integrated Resource Plan. 

Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Available at http://dms.psc.sc.gov/pdf/matters/B9AEAF4D-E782-

EB82-E79E7E7580306CF4.pdf. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

May 5, 2009, in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008, and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: ALT-1/NP-1, AQ-1, AQ-15, G-5, G-6, G-8, and NRHH-2.” NND-09-0110. 

Accession No. ML091890155.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010a. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

President, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated September 

8, 2010 in reference to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated July 2, 2010, and July 9, 2010, 

“Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined License 

Application (COLA) – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 - SCE&G Voluntary Submittal 

Related to the Environmental Report Chapter 8.” NND-10-0334. Accession No. ML102530165.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010b. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

President, New Nuclear Deployment) to SCE&G dated January 19, 2010, in response to letter 

from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009 and letter from Patricia Vokoun dated June 22, 

2009, "Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-

028 Combined Licenses Application – Response to NRC Environmental Report (ER) Requests 

for Additional Information (RAI): Santee Cooper 2009 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).” NND10-0027. Accession No. ML100321529.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. “Year 2005 eGrid Plant, Boiler, and 

Generator Data Files (eGrid2007V1_1_year05_plant).” eGRID2007 Version 1.1, Washington, 

D.C.
Need For Power

April 2011 8-29 NUREG-1939

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

(ESRP) – Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. 

NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, NRC, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Staff Memorandum from Scott Flanders,

DSER Division Director, to Brent Clayton, RENV Branch Chief, dated December 10, 2010,

“Addressing Construction and Preconstruction Activities, Greenhouse Gas Issues, General

Conformity Determinations, Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative Impact

Analysis, and Cultural/Historical Resources Analysis Issues In Environmental Impact

Statements.” Accession No. ML100760503.

April 2011 9-1 NUREG-1939

9.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

This chapter describes alternatives to the proposed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) action for combined construction permits and operating licenses (COLs) and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE’s) action for a Department of Army (DA) Individual Permit 

and discusses the environmental impacts of those alternatives. Section 9.1 discusses the noaction alternative. Section 9.2 addresses alternative energy sources. Section 9.3 reviews the 

region of interest (ROI) evaluated in the site-selection process, the South Carolina Electric and 

Gas (SCE&G) site-selection process, details specific to each one of the respective alternative 

sites, and summarizes and compares the cumulative environmental impacts for the proposed 

and alternative sites. Section 9.4 examines plant design alternatives. Section 9.5 describes 

onsite alternatives to reduce impacts on wetlands and natural and cultural resources. 

Section 9.6 lists the references cited in this chapter.

The need to compare the proposed action with alternatives arises from the requirement in 

Section 102(2)(c)(iii) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) 

(42 USC 4321) that environmental impact statements (EISs) include an analysis of alternatives 

to the proposed action. The NRC implements this requirement through its regulations in Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51 and its Environmental Standard Review Plan 

(ESRP) (NRC 2000). The environmental impacts of the alternatives are evaluated using the 

NRC’s three-level standard of significance – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – developed 

using Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines (40 CFR 1508.27) and set forth in the 

footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. The issues evaluated in this 

chapter are the same as those addressed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999)(a

As part of the evaluation of permit applications subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

the USACE is required by regulation to apply the criteria set forth in the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR Part 230; hereafter 404 Guidelines). 

These guidelines establish criteria that must be met for the proposed activities to be permitted 

pursuant to Section 404, which governs disposal sites for dredged or fill material. Specifically, 

) with 

the additional issue of environmental justice. Although NUREG-1437 was developed for license 

renewal, it provides useful information for the review reported here and is referenced throughout 

this chapter. Additional guidance on conducting environmental reviews is provided in the Staff 

Memorandum on “Addressing Construction and Preconstruction, Greenhouse Gas Issues, 

General Conformity Determinations, Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative Impact 

Analysis, and Cultural/Historical Resources Analysis Issues in Environmental Impact 

Statements” (NRC 2010a). 

 (a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999 (NRC 1999a). 

Hereafter, all references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-2 April 2011

the 404 Guidelines state, in part, that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted 

if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less adverse 

impacts on the aquatic ecosystem provided the alternative does not have other significant 

adverse consequences. An area not presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be 

obtained, used, expanded, or managed to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may 

be considered if it is otherwise a practicable alternative.

9.1 No-Action Alternative

For purposes of an application for COLs, the no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which 

the NRC would deny the COLs requested by SCE&G. The USACE could also take no action, or 

deny the permit requests. Upon such a denial by NRC, the construction and operation of two 

new nuclear units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site in accordance with 

10 CFR Part 52 would not occur and the predicted environmental impacts associated with the 

project would not occur. Preconstruction impacts associated with activities not within the 

definition of construction in 10 CFR 50.10(a) and 51.4 may occur. The no-action alternative 

would result in the proposed facility not being built. If no other facility would be built or strategy 

implemented to take its place, the benefits of the additional electrical capacity and electricity 

generation to be provided by the project would not occur. If no additional conservation 

measures were enacted to decrease the amount of electrical capacity that would otherwise be 

required for power in the ROI, then the need for baseload power, discussed in Chapter 8, would 

not be met. Therefore, the purpose of and need for this project would not be satisfied if the noaction alternative was chosen and the need for power was not met by other means.

If other generating sources were built, either at another site or using a different energy source, 

the environmental impacts associated with these other sources would eventually occur. As 

discussed in Chapter 8, there is a demonstrated need for power and SCE&G and Santee 

Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility formally called South Carolina Public Service

Authority) have regulatory responsibilities in South Carolina to provide electrical service in their 

respective service territories. This needed power may be provided and supported through a 

number of alternatives that are discussed in Sections 9.2 and 9.3. Therefore, this section does 

not include a discussion of other energy alternatives (discussed in Section 9.2) and alternative 

sites (discussed in Section 9.3) that could meet the need for power.

9.2 Energy Alternatives

The purpose and need for the proposed NRC action (i.e., issuance of COLs) identified in 

Section 1.3.1 of this EIS is to provide for additional baseload electric generating capacity by 

2016 and 2019 within the service territories of SCE&G and Santee Cooper. This section 

examines the potential environmental impacts associated with alternatives to the construction 

and operation of a new baseload nuclear generating facility. Section 9.2.1 discusses energy 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-3 NUREG-1939

alternatives that do not require new generating capacity, while Section 9.2.2 discusses energy 

alternatives that require 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, and a combination of alternatives at the VCSNS site.

For analysis of energy alternatives, the review team assumed a bounding target value of 

2214 MW(e) of electrical output, or the equivalent electrical capacity of the proposed VCSNS 

project. The review team also used this level of output in analyzing energy alternatives.

9.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity

The following are three alternatives to the proposed action that do not require SCE&G to 

construct new generating capacity:

• Purchase the needed electric power from other suppliers.

• Extend the operating life of existing power plants or reactivate retired power plants.

• Implement conservation or demand-side management (DSM) programs.

These alternatives are reviewed in the following sections.

9.2.1.1 Purchased Power

Power to replace the capacity of the proposed new nuclear units would have to be purchased 

from other generating resources, and likely would be one of those described in the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (e.g., coal, natural gas, 

or nuclear) (NRC 1996). The environmental impacts of coal-fired and natural-gas-fired plants 

are discussed in Section 9.2.2. Under the purchased power alternative, the environmental 

impacts of power production would still occur but would likely be located elsewhere within the 

Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC) region. However, the entire SERC region has 

been identified as a “Conditional Congestion Area” by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 

its 2006 (August) National Electric Transmission Congestion Study (DOE 2006a). This status 

means the movement of bulk power in the future has already been identified to be compromised 

unless the SERC region has a significant build-out of transmission capabilities in concert with 

the development of needed generation.

The option to purchase power implies that there is adequate generating capacity available for 

firm sales and transmission into or within the service territory. Although additional capacity may 

be available to serve native load from merchant power plants or other similar generators, the 

capacity from these plants is not considered to be useful in supplying baseload capacity. This 

premise was confirmed by Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC) Order 

2007-626, which indicated that the risk to low-cost, reliable electricity increased in magnitude as 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-4 April 2011

mandatory Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were applied to peaking, intermediate, and baseload 

capacity requirements, and further concluded that testing the market via RFPs would only be 

mandatory for new peaking capacity needs (PSCSC 2007). In addition, under the Public Utility 

Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA 1978), the electric utilities offer the purchase of electrical energy 

from qualifying facilities. Due to the limited number of PURPA-qualifying facilities in the area, 

and the limited total available capacity from these facilities, they do not represent a long-term 

solution for additional baseload capacity in the SCE&G and Santee Cooper service territory.

Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper are actively engaged in evaluating and negotiating firm 

power-purchase agreements for the time frame under consideration. Previous contracts have 

been established and are expected to fill intermediate and peaking duty cycles, and are not 

intended to be competitive with, or replace the need for, the additional baseload capacity. In the 

Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) and 

Base Load Review Act proceedings, the PSCSC found that the capacity needs in the timeline 

under consideration would be most reliably and efficiently met through the addition of new 

baseload capacity to the system consistent with proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

(PSCSC 2009a).

Based on the preceding discussion and information detailed in Section 8.3, the review team 

concludes that purchasing power is not a reasonable alternative to providing new additional 

baseload capacity commensurate with the proposed project. 

9.2.1.2 Extending the Service Life of Existing Plants or Reactivating Retired Plants

Nuclear power facilities are initially licensed by the NRC for a period of 40 years. An operating 

license can be renewed for up to 20 years, and NRC regulations permit additional license 

renewals. SCE&G and Santee Cooper jointly own and operate the VCSNS Unit 1 plant located 

in Jenkinsville, South Carolina. VCSNS Unit 1’s license was renewed in April 2004, extending 

the operating license through 2042. The environmental impacts of continued operation of a 

nuclear power plant are significantly less than those of construction of a new plant. However, 

continued operation of an existing nuclear plant does not in and of itself provide additional 

generating capacity.

Currently, SCE&G and Santee Cooper do not indicate in their energy forecasts or Integrated 

Resource Plans (IRPs) that they have any retired plants that would be suitable for reactivation, 

nor does SCE&G have firm plans for retiring any of its generating units. The review team 

concludes that extending the service life of existing plants or reactivating retired plants is 

incapable of providing additional baseload capacity commensurate with the proposed project. 

Therefore, extending the service life of existing plants or reactivating retired plants is not a 

reasonable alternative to the proposed project.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-5 NUREG-1939

9.2.1.3 Energy Conservation

SCE&G offers conservation and DSM programs to its customers to reduce peak electricity 

demands and daily power consumption. As reviewed in Section 8.2.1, the PSCSC, through the 

CPCN and Base Load Review Act process, fully evaluated existing energy efficiency and DSM 

(EE/DSM) programs and their impacts on capacity requirements. Collectively, the programs 

were found to be effective in reducing peaking and intermediate generation capacity 

requirements, but were not found to eliminate the need for baseload generation capacity that 

the proposed project would provide. Current energy forecasts and load growth projections 

incorporate these programs, and have been reported as part of both the IRP forecasting 

process and the CPCN process. SCE&G provided a comprehensive evaluation of potential new 

DSM programs to the PSCSC for review and approval, although no ruling has been provided to 

date (PSCSC 2009b). The review team based its analysis on the approved EE/DSM programs 

currently implemented; while the proposed new EE/DSM programs would reduce demand, they 

would not reduce demand to the point where the expected power from the proposed project 

would not be needed. Further information regarding SCE&G’s EE/DSM programs can be found 

in Section 8.2.

In its 2008 IRP, Santee Cooper provided EE/DSM program-specific information and a planning 

forecast reflective of its current offerings (Santee Cooper 2008). Santee Cooper maintains a 

working group formed in 2007 (Conservation and Renewable Energy Department) that is tasked 

with developing and implementing new EE/DSM programs, in addition to obtaining renewable 

resources to serve load. The proposed programs undergo a vetting process similar to the 

PSCSC process. Santee Cooper is showing consistent growth in these programs in its out-year 

energy forecasts, ranging from 8 to 12 percent annual growth or approximately 300 MW(e) total 

over the time period ending in 2017, and a total peak-energy-shaving capacity of approximately 

7 to 8 percent (Santee Cooper 2008).

Collectively, the implemented EE/DSM programs have been an effective strategy for 

significantly reducing peak capacity requirements. However, as stated in Section 8.2, the 

review team concludes that energy conservation is not a viable substitute for the baseload 

capacity that SCE&G is seeking through the proposed project within the timeline of 

consideration. Therefore, EE/DSM programs are not a reasonable alternative to the 

proposed project.

9.2.1.4 Conclusions

Based on the preceding analysis, the review team concludes that the options of purchasing 

electric power from other suppliers, reactivating retired power plants, extending the operating 

life of existing power plants, and full implementation of EE/DSM programs are not reasonable 

alternatives to providing the baseload generation capacity necessary to meet the long-term 

requirements in the ROI. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-6 April 2011

9.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity

This section discusses the environmental impacts of energy alternatives to the proposed action

that would require the applicants to build new generating capacity. In keeping with the NRC 

staff’s evaluation of alternatives to renewal of operating licenses, a reasonable set of energy 

alternatives to the construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units at the VCSNS 

site should be limited to analysis of discrete power-generation sources and those powergeneration technologies that are technically reasonable and commercially viable (NRC 1996). 

The discussion in Section 9.2.2 is bounded by the individual power-generating alternatives that 

are considered reasonable and viable as baseload technologies. As described in Chapter 8, 

baseload designed power in the State of South Carolina is defined as being capable of 

operating at a capacity factor greater than 70 percent, and exceeding 350 MW(e) (SC Code 

Ann. 58-33-220). The current mix of power-generation options within the SERC is also an 

indicator of the feasible choices for power-generation technology; approximately 76 percent of 

the current fleet within the SERC region is fossil-fired generation (SERC 2009).

Each year, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the DOE, issues an 

annual energy outlook. In the Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (DOE/EIA 2009), the EIA reference 

case projects that coal-fired capacity would account for approximately 18 percent of total electric 

generating capacity additions between 2006 and 2030. Coal-fired plants generally are used to 

meet baseload requirements. The EIA also projects that natural-gas-fired plants would account 

for approximately 53 percent of new capacity additions during this period. EIA projects that 

renewable energy sources would account for approximately 22 percent of new capacity 

additions during the period, and new nuclear plants would account for approximately 5 percent. 

The EIA projections include baseload, intermittent, and peaking units, and are based on the 

assumption that providers of new generating capacity would seek to minimize cost while 

meeting applicable environmental requirements (DOE/EIA 2009).

The discussion in Section 9.2.2 is limited to the individual alternatives that appear to the review 

team to be viable baseload generation sources: coal-fired and natural-gas combined-cycle-fired 

generation. The impacts discussed in Section 9.2.2 are estimates based on present 

technology. Section 9.2.3 addresses alternative generation technologies that have 

demonstrated commercial acceptance but may be limited in application, total capacity, or 

technical feasibility when based on the need to supply reliable, baseload capacity.

The review team assumed new generation capacity would be located at the VCSNS site for the 

coal-fired 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. For the purpose of 

analysis, the electric power transmission lines from these alternatives were assumed to follow 

the same proposed corridors as the proposed baseload nuclear generating facility at the 

VCSNS site. These corridors would be developed consistent with the description provided in 

Section 3.2. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-7 NUREG-1939

9.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Power Generation

For the coal-fired generation alternative, SCE&G assumed the operation of three pulverized 

coal-fired units, with a total net capacity of 2214 MW(e) at the VCSNS site (SCE&G 2010b). 

The associated emissions were determined based on factors contained in the EPA 

Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors (EPA 1998). The emission estimates are 

based on “as fired” and controlled conditions using both combustion and post-combustion 

technologies to reduce criteria pollutants. The new coal-fired generation is assumed to have an 

operating life of 40 years.

The review team also considered integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal-fired plants 

as a baseload technology. 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. 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, which is a black, glassy, sand-like material that is 

a potentially marketable byproduct. The other large-volume byproduct 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 significant quantities of fly ash, and process 

wastes are often minimized through the use of water-reuse technologies, thereby reducing the 

total outflow. In spite of the preceding advantages, the review team concludes that, at present, 

IGCC is not a reasonable alternative to a 2000-MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility for the 

following reasons: (1) IGCC plants are more expensive than comparable pulverized coal plants 

(NETL 2007), (2) existing IGCC plants have considerably smaller capacity than the proposed 

2000-MW(e) nuclear plant, (3) the system reliability of existing IGCC plants has been lower than 

conventional pulverized coal plants, and (4) a lack of overall plant performance warranties for 

IGCC plants has hindered commercial financing (NPCC 2005, Appendix I). For these reasons, 

IGCC plants are not considered further in this EIS.

The review team assumed that coal and limestone would be delivered to the site by train. 

SCE&G estimates that approximately 500 unit trains per year (each train consisting of 125 cars 

holding a 100 tons per car) would be needed to deliver coal and limestone to the coal-fired plant 

(SCE&G 2010b).

Air Quality

The impacts on air quality from coal-fired generation would vary considerably from those of 

nuclear generation because of emissions of SO2, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide (CO), 

particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds, and hazardous air pollutants such as 

mercury and lead. SCE&G assumed a plant design that would minimize air emissions 

through a combination of boiler and combustion technology as well as post-combustion 

pollutant removal (SCE&G 2010b). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-8 April 2011

Emissions from the coal-fired alternative such as SOx (sulfur oxides), nitrogen oxides (including 

NO and NO2), CO, and PM would be as follows (SCE&G 2010b):

• SO2 = 7044 T/yr

• nitrogen oxides = 1495 T/yr

• CO = 1495 T/yr

• PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less) = 67 T/yr

• PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 2.5 microns or less) = 0.17 T/yr.

Based on data from previous NRC EIS documents, the review team determined the preceding 

emission estimates are reasonable. A new coal-fired plant at the VCSNS site would also have 

approximately 16,500,000 T/yr of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that could affect climate 

change.

Coal and limestone (calcium carbonate) for the coal-fired plant would be delivered to the site by 

train. SCE&G estimated that the coal-fired facility would consume approximately 6.0 million 

tons per year of pulverized bituminous coal with an ash content of approximately 10 percent. 

Slaked lime or limestone, used in the flue-gas scrubbing process for control of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) emissions, is made into slurry and injected into the hot effluent combustion gases to 

remove SO2. The limestone-based scrubbing solution reacts with SO2 in the flue gas to form 

calcium sulfite or calcium sulfate, which precipitates and is removed from the process as sludge. 

SCE&G estimated that approximately 231,000 T/yr of limestone would be used for flue-gas 

desulfurization, generating approximately 275,000 T/yr of scrubber sludge that may be re-used 

in industries such as wall-board manufacturing (SCE&G 2010b). 

The acid rain requirements of the Clean Air Act capped the nation’s SO2 emissions from power 

plants. SCE&G 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. 

New coal-fired generation plants at the VCSNS site would likely need a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990. In addition, the plants would need to comply with new source performance standards 

(NSPSs) for such plants in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da. The standards establish emission 

limits for PM and opacity (40 CFR 60.42Da), SO2 (40 CFR 60.43Da), nitrogen oxides 

(40 CFR 60.44Da), and mercury (40 CFR 60.45Da).

The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart 

P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in an area 

designated as 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 SO2. Ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants are in 40 CFR Part 50. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-9 NUREG-1939

The VCSNS site in Fairfield County, South Carolina, is currently in an area designated as inattainment for all requirements.

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 

an 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 the days on which visibility is most impaired over the period of the implementation plan and 

verify 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. The 

Cape Romaine Wilderness is the only mandatory Class I Federal area within South Carolina. 

Several Class 1 Federal areas also are in neighboring North Carolina and Georgia. The closest 

area to the VCSNS site is the Cape Romaine Wilderness, which is approximately 130 mi to the 

southeast; remaining areas are farther than this distance, and no additional requirements would 

be expected based on proximity. 

The fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be mitigated using best 

management practices (BMPs), and such emissions would be temporary. The Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for license renewal mentions global warming from CO2

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 review team concludes that air 

quality impacts from coal-fired generation at the VCSNS site would be MODERATE. The 

impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize air quality.

Waste Management

As the NRC has described in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) and verified during its preparation of 

operating license renewal supplemental EIS analyses since the publication of that document, 

coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air pollution 

generates additional solid wastes such as spent selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst, 

and flue-gas scrubber sludge. SCE&G estimated that the coal-fired plants would generate 

582,000 T/yr of ash. Significant quantities of the fly ash may be recycled for use in commodity 

products such as concrete, thereby limiting the total landfill volume. The coal plant would also 

generate flue-gas scrubber sludge in the form of gypsum, which could also be dewatered and 

recycled for use in wall-board manufacturing. 

In May 2000, the EPA issued a “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 

Combustion of Fossil Fuels” (65 FR 32214). The EPA concluded that national regulation is 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-10 April 2011

warranted under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as 

amended (RCRA) when coal combustion wastes are disposed of in landfills or surface 

impoundments, and that regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA (or modifications to existing 

regulations under the authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act) are 

warranted when the wastes are used to fill surface impoundments or underground mines 

(65 FR 32214). As of November 2009, EPA is continuing to study the appropriate form for 

regulation of coal combustion waste products.

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 

noticeably affect land use and groundwater quality, but with appropriate management and 

monitoring, it would not destabilize any resources. After closure of the waste site and 

revegetation, the land could be available for other uses. Construction-related debris would be 

generated during plant construction activities, and would be disposed of in approved landfills.

For the reasons stated above, the review team 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 resources.

Human Health

Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, worker and 

public risk from coal and limestone transportation, worker and public risk from disposal of coalcombustion 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).

The EPA and State agencies (65 FR 32214) base air emission standards and requirements on 

human health impacts. These agencies impose site-specific emission limits as needed to 

protect human health. Air emissions from a coal-fired power-generation plant located at the 

VCSNS site would be regulated by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 

Control (SCDHEC). Given that the plant would have to comply with health-informed standards 

in the Clean Air Act and other relevant air emissions regulations, the review team concludes that 

the human health impacts from the construction and operation of coal-fired generation at the 

VCSNS would be SMALL. 

Other Impacts

Approximately 357 ac of land would need to be permanently converted to industrial use for the 

powerblock, infrastructure and support facilities, ash and solids disposal, and coal and 

limestone storage and handling (SCE&G 2010b). This is very close to the estimated 320 ac of 

permanent land dedication (approximately 500 ac when also accounting for temporary laydown 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-11 NUREG-1939

areas) needed for a nuclear facility (see Section 4.1). The land required for new transmissionline corridors would be similar to that reported in Section 4.1 for the transmission lines for the 

proposed nuclear facility. The land required for new transmission-line corridors would be similar 

to the proposed action. Land-use changes would affect the offsite coal-mining area that was 

supplying coal for the plant. In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff estimated that approximately 

22,000 ac would be needed for coal mining and waste disposal to supply a 1000-MW(e) 

coal-fire power plant over its operating life (NRC 1996), which would scale up to almost 

49,000 ac for a 2214-MW(e) facility. This is almost five times the estimated 10,000 ac needed 

to supply fuel to the proposed nuclear plant. The nuclear estimate is based on an estimated 

need of 113 ac/yr for a 1000-MW(e) nuclear plant, scaled to approximately 250 ac/yr for a 

2214-MW(e) nuclear plant, multiplied by 40 years of operation. Commitment of 49,000 ac of 

land for coal mining would have a noticeable effect on the availability of land in most regions of 

the United States, but would not be expected to destabilize the availability of land in the typically 

rural locations used for mining. Based upon the amount of land affected, the review team 

concludes that land-use impacts would be MODERATE.

The impacts on water use and quality from constructing and operating a coal-fired plant at the 

VCSNS site would be comparable to the impacts associated with a new nuclear plant because 

both types of power plants rely on steam turbines to generate 100 percent of the power. 

Therefore, the review team assumes that the operation of coal-fired power plants located at the 

VCSNS site would be consistent with the proposed two-unit nuclear power plant. 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 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) 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, the NRC staff determined that some erosion and 

sedimentation would likely occur during construction of new facilities (NRC 1996). Overall, the 

review team concludes that the water-use and water-quality impacts would be SMALL.

The coal-fired generation alternative would introduce ecological impacts from building and new 

incremental impacts from operations. The impacts could include wildlife habitat loss and 

fragmentation, reduced species productivity, and a local reduction in biological diversity. The 

impacts could occur at the proposed site and at the sites used for coal and limestone mining. 

Extraction of makeup water for cooling could have adverse impacts on aquatic resources. 

Cooling-tower drift would have minimal impacts on terrestrial ecology. Storage and disposal of 

fly ash could affect the aquatic environment. The impacts on threatened and endangered 

species at the VCSNS site would be similar to the impacts from a new nuclear facility. Overall, 

the review team concludes that impacts on terrestrial ecology would likely be MODERATE 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-12 April 2011

primarily because of the potential impacts associated with the disposal of ash and the large land 

area affected by mining. The review team further concludes that the impacts on aquatic ecology 

would likely be SMALL and similar to the proposed action.

Adverse socioeconomic impacts would result from the average number of construction workers 

and the peak workforce of approximately 2000. However, socioeconomic impacts would be 

SMALL and consistent with the proposed project with the exception of the likely MODERATE 

impacts localized to the vicinity of the VCSNS due to traffic- and transportation-related issues. 

The plant would pay significant property taxes to Fairfield County, South Carolina and the 

review team concludes that these taxes would have a LARGE and beneficial impact on the 

county. Other socioeconomic impacts related to building and operation would be SMALL.

The coal-fired units would have emissions stacks that might be as much as 200 ft tall and would 

be visible offsite during daylight hours. The stacks and associated emissions would likely be 

visible in daylight hours for distances greater than 40 mi. Cooling towers and associated 

plumes also would have aesthetic impacts. Natural draft towers could be up to 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 overall height of 200 ft above ground level have markings and/or 

lighting so as not to impair aviation safety (FAA 2007). A mitigating factor is that the VCSNS 

site is currently a developed site located in a predominantly rural area. However, the site is 

near the towns of Jenkinsville and Pomaria, South Carolina, with several towns such as 

Newberry, Chapin, and Winnsboro located within 15 mi. The visual impacts of a new coal-fired 

plant could be further mitigated by landscaping and selection of building colors that are 

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. 

Transmission lines would have a larger aesthetic impact, but would be consistent with the 

proposed project. Overall, the review team concludes that the aesthetic impacts associated 

with new coal-fired power generation at the VCSNS site and around the transmission lines 

would be SMALL because of the amount of cover around the VCSNS site and along likely 

transmission-line corridors. 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 levels from onsite building activities would be 

attenuated by distance and obstacles such as buildings, vegetation, and topography. Because 

the site is surrounded by forests and moderate topography, the review team concludes that 

noise emanating from the project site would be somewhat muffled to surrounding communities 

and the associated impact would not be significant. It is expected that noise levels experienced 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-13 NUREG-1939

by sensitive noise receptors outside of the exclusion area boundary would rapidly attenuate to 

below 50 dBA (SCE&G 2010b). Noise impacts associated with railroad delivery of coal and 

lime/limestone would be most significant for residents living in close proximity to the facility and 

along the railroad route. While there is frequent train transport, and many people are likely to be 

within hearing distance of the rail line, the short duration of the noise reduces the impact. 

Therefore, the impacts of noise on residents in close proximity to the facility and of the rail line 

are considered SMALL. 

Historic and cultural resources impacts of locating a new coal-fired plant at the VCSNS site 

would be similar to the impacts of locating a new nuclear plant at the VCSNS site, 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 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 corridors where new construction would occur, for example, roads 

and new transmission-line corridors. The review team concludes that the historic and cultural 

resource impacts at the VCSNS site would be MODERATE and consistent with the proposed 

project.

As discussed in Sections 4.5 and 5.5, at the VCSNS site there are no environmental pathways 

by which the identified minority or low-income populations in the 50-mi region would be likely to 

suffer disproportionate and adverse environmental impacts, with the exception of traffic-related 

adverse and disproportionate impacts on minority populations in the Jenkinsville area. 

Mitigation of the traffic-related impacts, such as a traffic-management plan, is discussed in 

Section 4.5. However, the review team finds that because the traffic-related impacts would be 

temporary and of short duration in nature, they would be noticeable but not destabilizing to the 

Jenkinsville community. Therefore, the review team concludes that the environmental justice 

impacts from building activities related to traffic would be MODERATE. Similar traffic-related 

impacts would occur during the building of a coal plant at the VCSNS site. Therefore, the 

review team concludes that the adverse impacts of building a coal-fired plant at the VCSNS site 

would be SMALL with the exception of the impact due to traffic which would be MODERATE. 

Other building and operation impacts would be SMALL. In most cases, the impacts would not 

be detectable or they would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter 

any known attribute of the resource. Due to the minor nature of these impacts, mitigation 

beyond that discussed would not be warranted.

The building and operation impacts of coal-fired power generation at the VCSNS site are 

summarized in Table 9-1.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-14 April 2011

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation – 2214 MW(e)

Impact Category Impact Comment

Land use MODERATE Uses approximately 357 ac for powerblock; coal handling, storage, 

and transportation facilities; infrastructure facilities; waste disposal; 

and cooling-water facilities. An additional 49,000 ac of land would 

be used for mining activities over 40 years. Impacts would also be 

associated with transmission-line corridors.

Air quality MODERATE SO2 – 7044 T/yr

Nitrogen oxides – 1495 T/yr

CO – 1495 T/yr

PM10 – 67 T/yr

PM2.5 – 0.17 T/yr

Small amounts of hazardous air pollutants

Water use and 

quality

SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for new nuclear 

power units located at the VCSNS site.

Ecology SMALL to 

MODERATE

Uses the undeveloped area of the existing VCSNS site. Potential 

habitat loss and fragmentation, reduced productivity and biological 

diversity, and impacts on terrestrial ecology from cooling-tower 

drift. Additional impacts are associated with the building and 

expansion of transmission-line corridors and mining

Waste 

management

MODERATE Total waste volume of combustion wastes including fly ash and 

flue gas scrubber sludge would exceed 1 million tons per year.

Historic and 

cultural resources

MODERATE Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for new nuclear units 

located at the VCSNS site.

Human health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight are assumed to be protective of 

human health.

Socioeconomic LARGE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse

Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for new nuclear units 

located at the VCSNS site. Large beneficial impacts derived from 

tax revenues. Moderate adverse due to localized traffic impacts.

Environmental 

justice

MODERATE Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for new nuclear units 

located at the VCSNS site. There are no environmental pathways 

by which the identified minority or low-income populations in the 

50-mi region would be likely to suffer disproportionate and adverse 

environmental or health impacts with the exception of traffic-related 

impacts within the vicinity of the VCSNS.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-15 NUREG-1939

9.2.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation

For the natural gas alternative, SCE&G assumed operation of three natural-gas-fired plants with 

a closed-cycle cooling system and cooling towers located at the VCSNS site with a capacity of 

2214 MW(e) (SCE&G 2010b). The associated emissions were determined based on factors 

contained in the EPA Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors (EPA 2000). The 

review team also assumed the construction and operation of transmission lines, as discussed in 

Section 3.3 of this EIS.

Air Quality

Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel. When compared with a coal-fired plant, naturalgas-fired plants release similar types of emissions such as nitrogen oxides, but in significantly 

lower quantities. Emission estimates are based on “as fired” and controlled conditions. A new 

natural-gas-fired power-generation plant would require a PSD Permit and a state-specific 

operating permit under the Clean Air Act. A new natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle plant would 

also be subject to the NSPSs specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Da and GG. These 

regulations establish emission limits for particulates, opacity, SO2, and nitrogen oxides.

The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51, 

Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in 

areas designated as in attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act. As previously 

discussed, the VCSNS site in Fairfield County, South Carolina, is currently in an area 

designated as in attainment for all requirements.

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 

air-pollution control requirements could be imposed. As discussed previously, there are no 

mandatory Class I Federal areas within 130 mi of the VCSNS site. 

Emissions from a natural-gas-fired plant equipped with appropriate combustion and postcombustion pollution-control technology would have approximately the following emissions 

(SCE&G 2010b):

• SO2 – 34 T/yr
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-16 April 2011

• nitrogen oxides – 558 T/yr

• CO – 116 T/yr

• PM10 – 97 T/yr

• PM2.5 – 97 T/yr.

A natural-gas-fired power plant would also have CO2 emissions of approximately 

5,630,000 T/yr.

The fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be mitigated using BMPs, and 

such emissions would be temporary. Other construction and operation impacts, such as the 

development and use of material laydown areas and parking, would be minor.

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 review team 

concludes that air quality impacts resulting from construction and operation of new natural-gasfired power generation at the VCSNS site would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

Waste Management

In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff concluded that waste generation from natural-gas-fired 

technology would be minimal (NRC 1996). The only significant waste generated at a naturalgas-fired power plant would be spent SCR catalyst, which is used to control nitrogen oxide 

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. Minor construction-related debris would be 

generated during construction activities. Overall, the review team concludes that the waste 

impacts from natural-gas-fired power generation would be SMALL.

Human Health

In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff identified cancer and emphysema as potential health risks from 

natural-gas-fired plants (NRC 1996). The risks may be attributable to nitrogen oxide emissions 

that contribute to ozone formation, which in turn contributes to health risk. Air emissions from a 

natural-gas-fired power-generation plant located at the VCSNS site would be regulated by the 

SCDHEC. The human health effects are expected to be either undetectable or minor. Overall, 

the review team 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 87 ac for the powerblock 

and support facilities (for 2214 MW(e)). Construction of a natural-gas pipeline from the VCSNS 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-17 NUREG-1939

site to the closest natural-gas distribution line would require approximately 318 ac. Thus, the 

total land-use commitment would be approximately 405 ac (SCE&G 2010b). This is very close 

to the estimated 320 ac of permanent land dedication (approximately 500 ac when also 

accounting for temporary laydown areas) needed for a nuclear facility (see Section 4.1).

For a new natural-gas-fired power plant, additional land may be required for natural-gas wells 

and collection stations. The additional land required is expected to be less than the 10,000 ac 

needed to support fuel cycle activities over a 40-year operational life of a nuclear plant. Due to 

the proximity of the VCSNS site to existing natural-gas infrastructure, minimal pipeline(s) would 

have to be constructed, and pipeline distances would be minimized. The land required for new 

transmission-line corridors would be similar to that reported in Section 4.1 for the transmission 

lines for the proposed nuclear facility. The impacts of new transmission-line corridors would 

have a noticeable but not destabilizing impact along the corridors, consistent with the impacts 

for building and operating two new nuclear units at the VCSNS site. Therefore, the review team 

concludes that the land-use impacts from new natural-gas-fired power generation at the VCSNS 

would be MODERATE. The impacts on water use and quality from constructing and operating a 

natural-gas-fired combined-cycle power plant at the VCSNS site would be similar to or less than 

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 staff 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 review team concludes that impacts on water use and quality would be SMALL.

Siting of the natural-gas-fired plant would have ecological impacts. Some of the impact would 

occur in areas that were previously disturbed during construction of VCSNS Unit 1. 

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 related to the expansion of 

transmission-line corridors would be likely. Withdrawal and discharge of makeup water for the 

cooling system could affect aquatic resources, and elevated total dissolved solids in coolingtower drift could affect the terrestrial ecology. The review team concludes that impacts on 

terrestrial ecology would likely be MODERATE due to the impacts of the transmission-line 

corridors. The review team concludes that the impacts on aquatic ecology would likely be 

SMALL, similar to the proposed project, as described in Chapters 4 and 5.

Adverse socioeconomic impacts would result from the demands on housing and public services 

during construction, and the approximately 50 workers needed to operate the natural-gas-fired 

facility. Overall, the staff concludes that these impacts would be SMALL because of the 

proximity of the site to the surrounding population area and the relatively small number of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-18 April 2011

workers needed to construct and operate the plant in comparison to nuclear and coal-fired 

generation alternatives would cause the impacts to be minor. A review of workforce 

requirements for combined-cycle power plant construction suggests an average workforce of 

approximately 240 workers for a 550-MW(e) plant, with a peak of 350 workers (Palomar Energy 

2003). For the proposed project this would suggest an average peak workforce of 

approximately 1000 workers, or half of the suggested peak workforce for coal and nuclear plant 

construction. The plant would pay property taxes to Fairfield County, South Carolina. The 

review team concludes that the taxes would have a MODERATE and beneficial impact on the 

county, based on the smaller number of total workers required during construction and 

operation.

The heat-recovery steam generators, exhaust stacks (approximately 200 ft tall) and associated 

emissions, cooling towers and associated plumes from the cooling towers, and the gas pipeline 

compressors would be visible offsite during daylight hours. Noise and light from the plant would 

be detectable offsite. A mitigating factor is that the VCSNS site is currently a developed site 

located in a predominantly rural area. Transmission lines would have a larger aesthetic impact, 

but would be consistent with the proposed project. Overall, the review team concludes that the 

aesthetic impacts associated with new natural-gas-fired power generation at the VCSNS site 

and around the transmission lines would be SMALL, similar to the proposed project. Other 

construction and operation impacts would also be SMALL. In most cases, the impacts would 

not be detectable or they would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably 

alter any known attribute of the resource.

As discussed in Sections 4.5 and 5.5, at the VCSNS site there are no environmental pathways 

by which the identified minority or low-income populations in the 50-mi region would be likely to 

suffer disproportionate and adverse environmental with the exception of traffic-related adverse 

and disproportionate impacts on minority populations in the Jenkinsville area. However, the 

review team believes that because the traffic-related impacts are temporary and of short 

duration in nature, they would be noticeable but not destabilizing to the Jenkinsville community. 

Therefore, the review team concludes that the environmental justice impacts from building 

activities related to traffic would be MODERATE. Similar traffic-related impacts would occur 

during the construction of a nuclear plant at the VCSNS site. Therefore, the review team 

concludes that the adverse socioeconomic impacts of building a gas-fired plant at the VCSNS 

site would be minor with the exception of the impact due to traffic, which would be MODERATE.

Historic and cultural resources impacts for a new natural-gas fired plant located at the VCSNS 

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 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 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-19 NUREG-1939

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 

corridors where new construction would occur; for example, roads and new transmission-line 

corridors. The review team concludes that the historic and cultural resource impacts at the 

VCSNS would be MODERATE and consistent with the proposed project. The impacts of 

natural-gas-fired power generation at the VCSNS site are summarized in Table 9-2.

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

Impact Category Impact Comment

Land use MODERATE Approximately 230 ac would be needed for powerblock, 

cooling towers and support systems, and connection to a 

natural-gas pipeline. Additional land would be required for 

gas pipelines, transmission-line corridors, and infrastructure.

Air quality SMALL to 

MODERATE

SO2 – 34 T/yr

Nitrogen oxides – 558 T/yr

CO – 116 T/yr

PM10 – 97 T/yr

PM2.5 – 97 T/yr

Water use and quality SMALL Impacts would be similar to or less than the impacts for a 

new nuclear power plant located at the site.

Ecology SMALL to 

MODERATE

Uses the undeveloped area of the existing VCSNS site. 

Potential habitat loss and fragmentation, reduced productivity 

and biological diversity, and impacts on terrestrial ecology 

from cooling-tower drift. Additional impacts are associated 

with the construction and expansion of transmission-line 

corridors.

Waste management SMALL The only significant waste would be from spent SCR catalyst 

used for control of nitrogen oxide emissions.

Socioeconomics MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

SMALL 

Adverse

Construction and operations workforces would be relatively 

small compared to nuclear and coal plants. Addition to the 

property tax base, while smaller than for a nuclear or coalfired plant, would still be noticeable. Construction-related 

impacts would be noticeable but minimized due to the 

smaller peak workforce. Operations-related impacts would 

be minor because of the small workforce involved. The plant 

and new transmission line would have aesthetic impacts.

Human Health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of 

human health.

Historic and cultural 

resources

MODERATE Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for new nuclear 

units located at the VCSNS site.

Environmental justice MODERATE There are no environmental pathways that would lead to 

disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority and lowincome populations with the exception of traffic-related 

impacts within the vicinity of the VCSNS. 

SCR = selective catalytic reduction
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-20 April 2011

9.2.3 Other Alternatives

This section discusses other energy alternatives, the review team’s conclusions about the 

feasibility of each alternative, and the review team’s basis for its conclusions. New nuclear units 

at the proposed site would provide baseload generation. Any feasible alternative to the new 

units would need to be capable of generating baseload power with high availability and capacity 

factors. In performing its initial evaluation in its Environmental Report (ER), SCE&G relied 

heavily on NUREG-1437, the NRC’s Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NRC 1996). The review team reviewed the information submitted 

by SCE&G, conducted an independent review, and finds that SCE&G’s conclusion that these 

generation options are not reasonable alternatives to one or more new nuclear units is 

acceptable.

The review team 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 proposed site. Any attempt to assign 

significance levels would require the review team’s speculation about the unknown site.

9.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Power Generation

The 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 2009), 

although oil-firing in combustion turbines is often used to supplement natural-gas feed stock. 

Oil-fired generation is more expensive than nuclear, natural-gas-fired, or coal-fired generation 

options, and currently makes up only 1 percent of the existing capacity within the SERC region 

(SERC 2009). In addition, fluctuations in future 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, the staff estimated that 

construction of a 1000-MW(e) oil-fired plant would require about 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).

For the preceding economic and environmental reasons, the review team concludes that an 

oil-fired power plant at or in the vicinity of the proposed VCSNS site would not be a reasonable 

alternative to construction of a 2214-MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility.

9.2.3.2 Wind Power

The VCSNS site is in a wind power Class 1 region with average wind speed lower than 5.6 m/s 

(DOE 2009c). Class 1 regions have the lowest potential for generation of wind energy and are 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-21 NUREG-1939

considered unsuitable for the development of wind energy (DOE 2008a). The coastal region of 

South Carolina has been recognized as being capable of supporting intermittent off-shore utilityscale wind generation (DOE 2009c). However, the South Carolina State Regulation of Public 

Utilities Review Committee (PURC) in their 2009 Energy Policy Report, commented that though 

capable, “given the limits of current technology, costs, and availability, solar and wind are not 

practical for utility-scale generation in this State” (SC PURC Energy Policy Report 2009). 

The PURC report further indicates that advances in research and development of the resources 

could change the landscape, and for these reasons, Santee Cooper continues to pursue the

potential development of wind-generation resources as part of its renewable energy resource 

portfolio including partnerships with the DOE, South Carolina Energy Office, and several 

universities. Although the utility has made no purchased-power commitments, Santee Cooper 

continues to investigate offshore wind resources on coastal South Carolina, and remains 

engaged with the development of this potential resource (Santee Cooper 2008). 

Though coastal geographies may contain adequate resources in support of on-shore and 

offshore-based wind turbines, both have considerable environmental and aesthetic challenges 

(SCE&G 2010b). Additionally, newer wind turbines typically operate at approximately a 36-

percent capacity factor (DOE 2009c), compared with 90 percent for a baseload plant such as a 

nuclear power station (NEI 2007). The largest operating wind farm has a more than 700-MW 

generating capacity (AWEA 2008a); however, the capacities of most installations or wind farms 

are under 200 MW. A utility-scale wind-generation plant would generally require about 60 

ac/MW(e) of installed capacity, although much of this land could be used for other purposes 

(AWEA 2008b). Modern wind turbine designs are approaching 5 MW(e); however, it is likely 

that well over 800 commonly deployed wind turbines would be required to produce the 2214 

MW(e) of the proposed nuclear units. Because of the inherent variability of wind as a resource, 

the capacity from wind turbines may supply baseload power when or if coupled with a power 

source that is capable of being dispatched when the capacity is required such as energystorage mechanisms or additional resources such as hydropower (NPCC 2005). This requires 

both the wind resource and the storage mechanism to be within reasonable proximity of each 

other, and of commensurate power output when used singly or in combination.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) issued an analysis of offshore windpower 

in Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States—Assessment of Opportunities and 

Barriers (NREL 2010). As NREL indicates “... the opportunities for offshore wind are abundant, 

yet the barriers and challenges are also significant. ... Technological needs are generally 

focused on making offshore wind technology economically feasible and reliable and expanding 

the resource area to accommodate more regional diversity for future U.S. offshore projects.” 

When energy policies mature and large-scale offshore wind-energy projects become technically 

feasible, then it can play a significant role in future U.S. energy markets. The NREL report 

considers the wind-energy potential and the proposed U.S. offshore wind projects and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-22 April 2011

capacities; it divides wind-energy projects into two groups: those within State boundaries 

(within 3 nautical miles) and those in Federal waters. Regionally, there are currently two 

projects under consideration. One project in North Carolina waters totaled up to 9 MW(e), and 

one Federal lease project in Georgia was estimated to be up to 10 MW(e). No other regional

wind-energy projects were identified by NREL in either State or Federal waters. 

For the preceding reasons, the review team concludes that wind power is not capable of 

supplying baseload capacity of 2214 MW(e), and is therefore not a reasonable alternative to the 

proposed project. 

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 [PV] and 

solar-thermal) cannot currently compete with conventional nuclear and fossil-fueled 

technologies in grid-connected, utility-scale applications because of solar power’s lower 

capacity factors and higher capital cost per kilowatt of capacity. In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff 

determined that the average capacity factor of PV cells is about 25 percent, and the capacity 

factor for solar thermal systems is about 25 to 40 percent (NRC 1996). As reviewed in 

Section 8.3.2, Santee Cooper is actively pursuing opportunities in solar power development as 

part of its committed expansion in renewable energy resources.

Because solar power cannot supply 2214 MW(e) baseload power, the review team concludes 

that solar-power technologies would not be a reasonable alternative to proposed project.

9.2.3.4 Hydropower

South Carolina has an estimated 480 MW(e) of developable hydroelectric resources (Conner 

and Francfort 1997). As stated in Section 8.3.4 of NUREG-1437 for license renewal (NRC 

1996), the percentage of U.S. generating capacity supplied by hydropower is expected to 

decline because hydroelectric facilities have become difficult to site as a result of public 

concerns about flooding, destruction of natural habitat, and alteration of natural river courses. 

More recently the EIA references expected stable electricity production only from existing 

hydropower resources through 2030 (DOE/EIA 2008). In NUREG-1437, the staff estimated that 

land requirements for hydroelectric power are approximately 1 million ac per 1000 MW(e) 

(NRC 1996). 

Because there is an insufficient amount of undeveloped hydropower resource in South Carolina 

the review team concludes that hydropower is not a feasible alternative to the proposed project.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-23 NUREG-1939

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 geographic availability of the resource (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 2006b). South Carolina does 

not have sufficient high-temperature geothermal resources that are suitable for electricity

generation (DOE 2008e). 

Therefore, the review team concludes that a geothermal energy facility at or in the vicinity of the 

proposed VCSNS site would not be a reasonable alternative to the proposed project.

9.2.3.6 Wood Waste

In NUREG-1437, the NRC 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). SCE&G currently receives approximately 1 percent of 

its total energy from woody-biomass-fired facilities (SCE&G 2009a).

The fuels required are variable and site-specific. Wood-based biomass resources in South 

Carolina are significant, with an estimated 22 million tons of the resource available each year 

(SCE&G 2010b). However, significant impediments to the use of wood waste for the generation 

of electricity are the high cost of fuel delivery in addition to the quantity of acceptable fuel 

necessary. The larger wood-waste power plants are 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 a significantly smaller scale (NRC 1996). Similar to coalfired plants, wood-waste plants require large areas for fuel storage and processing and involve 

similar types of combustion and combustion control equipment.

Because of uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a 

baseload power plant, and the small total generating capacity per unit, the review team 

concludes that wood-waste-fired generating capacity would not be a reasonable alternative to 

the proposed project. 

9.2.3.7 Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal solid-waste facilities incinerate 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 2009d). Municipal waste 

combustion facilities use three basic types of technologies: mass burn, modular, and refuse-
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-24 April 2011

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, the NRC 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). There are 89 waste-to-energy plants that are operating in the United States, with 

an average of approximately 30 MW(e) per plant (IWSA 2008). 

One additional generating resource that uses municipal solid waste as a fuel derivative is the 

capture and combustion of landfill-based gas (LFG). Santee Cooper currently produces 

13 MW(e) from LFG, with plans to double that capacity by the end of 2010 (Santee 

Cooper 2008). 

Given the limited capacity of the plants and limited supply of LFG, the review team concludes 

that generating electricity from municipal solid waste or LFG is not be a reasonable alternative 

to the proposed project.

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. These include but are not limited to animal-derived 

wastes, crop-based biomass, converting crops to a liquid fuel such as ethanol, and gasifying 

crops (including wood waste). However, in NUREG-1437, the NRC 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 generating plant (NRC 1996).

The EIA estimates that biomass will be the largest source of renewable electricity generation 

among the non-hydropower renewable fuels through 2030 and that significant growth in 

dedicated biomass power-generation capacity is expected in regions with stringent Renewable 

Energy Portfolio Standards requirements and limited supplies of lower-cost resources such as 

wind (DOE/EIA 2008). As reviewed in Section 9.2.3.6, biomass resources are available in 

South Carolina in the form of woody residues, and they are expected to contribute to the overall 

production of energy and fuels in the future (South Carolina Energy Office 2007). Furthermore, 

South Carolina has created a biomass council through its South Carolina Energy Office to 

capitalize on increasing energy diversity and enhancing environmental quality for South 

Carolina (South Carolina Energy Office 2007). 

Co-firing biomass with coal is possible when low-cost biomass resources are available. 

Co-firing is the most economic option for the near future to introduce new biomass power 

generation. These projects require small capital investments per unit of power-generation 

capacity. Co-firing systems range in size from 1 to 30 MW(e) of bio-power capacity 

(DOE 2008d). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-25 NUREG-1939

Construction of a biomass-fired plant would have an environmental impact that would be similar 

to that of a coal-fired plant, although facilities using wood waste and agricultural residues for fuel 

would be built on significantly smaller scales. Like coal-fired plants, biomass-fired plants require 

areas for fuel storage, processing, and waste (i.e., ash) disposal. In addition, operation of 

biomass-fired plants has environmental impacts, including potential impacts on the aquatic 

environment and air.

Given the limited capacity of the plants, the review team concludes that biomass-derived, or 

biomass co-fired fuels used singly or in combination with other fossil fuels do not offer a 

reasonable alternative to the proposed project.

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 byproducts are heat, water, and CO2. 

Hydrogen is typically derived from hydrocarbon-based fuels, such as natural gas, by subjecting 

them to steam reforming or partial oxidation, through gasification of coal or biomass, or through 

the electrolysis of water. 

Phosphoric-acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. During the past 

three decades, significant efforts have been made to develop more practical and affordable fuel 

cell designs for stationary power applications and the first-generation technologies have given 

way to membrane and solid-oxide-based fuel cells operating consistently at above 50-percent 

electrical efficiency (DOE 2008b). High-temperature, second-generation fuel cells have 

achieved increased fuel-to-electricity and thermal efficiencies, giving second-generation fuel-cell 

systems the ability to generate steam for cogeneration such as in distributed generation type 

combined heat and power applications.

Research in both stationary and transportation-based fuel cells is intended to provide continuing 

improvements of both materials and components as they relate to system cost and durability. 

Currently, the cost of fuel-cell power systems must be reduced before they can be competitive 

with conventional technologies (DOE 2008c). At the present time, fuel cells are not 

economically or technologically competitive with other alternatives for baseload electricity 

generation (NUREG-1437, Supplement 34). Because fuel cells have not been developed to the 

point where they are capable of supplying power consistent with the proposed projects purpose 

and need equal to 2214 MW(e), the review team concludes that fuel-cell-based electricity 

generation does not offer a reasonable alternative to the proposed project. 

9.2.4 Combinations of Alternatives

Individual alternatives to the construction of one or more new nuclear units at the proposed site 

might not be sufficient on their own to generate SCE&G’s target value of 2214 MW(e) of 

baseload capacity because of the small size of the resource, lack of cost-effective opportunities, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-26 April 2011

or inability to generate baseload capacity. It is conceivable however, that a combination of 

alternatives might be capable of meeting both the baseload and capacity targets of proposed 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3. There are many possible combinations of alternatives. It would not be 

reasonable to examine every possible combination of energy alternatives in an EIS. Doing so 

would be counter to CEQ’s direction that an EIS should be analytic rather than encyclopedic, 

shall be kept concise, and shall be no longer than absolutely necessary to comply with NEPA 

and CEQ’s regulations (40 CFR 1502.2(a)(c)). Given that the stated objective is for a baseload 

power generation facility of significant capacity, a fossil energy source, most likely coal or natural 

gas, would need to be a significant contributor to any reasonable alternative energy combination.

When examining the potential alternatives or combinations of alternatives, SCE&G indicated 

that the total generating capacity must be commensurate with the proposed 2214-MW(e) 

project. The selection of a combination of alternatives follows a reasonable set of capabilities 

determined to be within the proposed region, and supported by review and analysis of the 

programmatic goals of the applicant, technical maturity, and economics. Section 9.2.2.2 

assumes the construction of a 2214-MW(e) natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle generating unit at 

the proposed site using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers. For a combined-alternatives 

option, the review team assessed the environmental impacts of an assumed combination of 

three 600-MW(e) natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle generating units at the proposed site using 

closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers, for a total of 1800 MW(e); 174 MW(e)from renewable 

energy resources such as biomass, solar, wind, and LFG; and 240 MW(e) from conservation 

and DSM programs for a total of 2214 MW(e). Based on information presented in SCE&G and 

Santee Coopers IRPs, a review of State and regional programs and policies for the 

development of renewable resources, and as discussed in the preceding sections of this 

chapter, the review team believes that these contributions are reasonable and representative.

Natural-gas-fired generation was selected based on its lower environmental impact than a 

comparatively sized coal-fired unit(s). This type of power generation is capable of the loadfollowing characteristics necessary when deployed in conjunction with renewable energy 

sources; this capability enables power production to continue when the renewable energy 

resource is unavailable. To review the potential impacts from a combination of alternatives, a 

reduction in environmental impacts can only be considered when the power generation from the 

fossil-fired facility is displaced by the renewable resource. The analysis assumes that the 

availability of the alternatives in any combination is similar to what would be required of the 

proposed project. 

A summary of the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of this 

combination of alternatives is provided in Table 9-3. The combination of alternatives assumes 

siting of natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle units at the proposed site and siting of other 

generating units such as those using renewable resources in the general vicinity (within 100 mi) 

of the site. Similar to the proposed project, closed-cycle cooling with mechanical draft cooling 

towers is assumed for all thermal plants. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-27 NUREG-1939

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

Impact Category Impact Comment

Land use MODERATE A natural-gas-fired plant would have land-use impacts for the 

powerblock, new transmission-line corridor, cooling towers and 

support systems, and connection to a natural-gas pipeline. Solar 

and biomass facilities and associated transmission lines may also 

have significant land-use impacts as previously discussed. 

Air quality SMALL to 

MODERATE

Emissions from the natural-gas-fired plant would be 

approximately (a)

SO2 – 28 T/yr

Nitrogen oxides – 458 T/yr

CO – 95 T/yr

PM10 – 80 T/yr

PM2.5 – 80 T/yr

CO2 – 4.1 million T/yr

Municipal solid-waste and biomass facilities would also have 

emissions associated with the combustion of gaseous or solid fuels.

Water use and 

quality

SMALL Impacts would not be greater than the impacts associated with a 

new nuclear power plant located at the proposed site.

Ecology SMALL to 

MODERATE

Some of the impacts would occur in areas that were previously 

disturbed during the construction of existing VCSNS Unit 1. 

Potential habitat loss and fragmentation and reduced productivity 

and biological diversity would likely be minimal in that area. 

Impacts on terrestrial ecology from cooling-tower drift could occur. 

Solar facilities take up large dedicated tracts of land that may 

displace existing biological populations and reduce diversity. 

Biomass production and collection may also result in reduced 

productivity and loss of habitat unless they are coordinated with 

existing harvesting practices or needs.

Waste 

management

SMALL The only significant waste would be from spent SCR catalyst used 

for control of nitrogen oxide emissions and ash and slag from 

biomass and municipal solid-waste sources.

Socioeconomics MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse

Construction and operations workforces would be relatively small. 

The addition to the property tax base, while smaller than for a 

nuclear or coal-fired plant, might still be quite noticeable. 

Construction-related impacts for some renewable sources would be 

noticeable. Impacts during operation would be minor because of 

the small workforce involved. The plant and new transmission line 

would have aesthetic impacts.

Human health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of human 

health.

Historic and 

cultural resources

MODERATE Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for new nuclear units 

located at the VCSNS site
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-28 April 2011

Table 9-3. (contd)

Impact Category Impact Comment

Environmental 

justice

MODERATE There are no environmental pathways that would lead to 

disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority and low-income 

populations with the exception of traffic-related impacts within the 

vicinity of the VCSNS.

(a) Represented as a percentage of the natural-gas combined cycle analysis: 1800/2200 = 82 percent of the total 

emissions

(b) SCR = selective catalytic reduction

9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Table 9-4 contains a summary of the review team’s environmental impact characterizations for 

constructing and operating new nuclear, coal-fired, and natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle 

generating units at the proposed site. 

Table 9-4. Summary of the Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear, Coal-Fired, Natural-GasFired, and a Combination of Alternatives

Impact Category Nuclear(a) Coal Natural Gas

Combination of 

Alternatives

Land use MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Air quality SMALL MODERATE SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

Water use and quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Ecology SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

Waste management SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL

Socioeconomics LARGE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse

LARGE Beneficial 

to MODERATE 

Adverse

MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

SMALL Adverse

MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse

Human health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Historic and cultural 

resources

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Environmental justice MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

(a) From Chapters 4 and 5.

The distinguishing impacts are primarily related to emissions from the alternative generation 

sources (air quality). A nuclear plant has less impact on air quality than, coal, natural gas, or a 

combination of alternatives. The land-use impact for the coal-fired alternative is a function of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-29 NUREG-1939

the irretrievable commitment of land due to coal mining. For the combination of alternatives, in 

proposing a combination of renewable resources such as biomass and wind in addition to the 

natural-gas-fired capacity, it would be expected that the commitment of land would exceed the 

natural-gas-fired capacity by itself. This may include further commitment of land for biomass 

production and harvesting, and the siting of renewable energy resources which would not be colocated on the VCSNS site.

For the energy-generation alternatives discussion, emissions are bound by a review of criteria 

pollutants and the total tons produced. Accordingly, the coal-fired alternative produces the 

highest level of criteria pollutants and total air emissions; in total tons, the highest percentage of 

emissions comes from the release of sulfur during the combustion process followed by nitrogen 

oxides and carbon monoxide also due to the combustion of coal with air (oxygen). These 

pollutants can also lead to the development of PM (particulate matter). The natural gas 

alternative produces the next highest level of emissions. With a reasonably clean fuel stream 

(methane), the primary pollutants are limited to nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. Natural 

gas, in combination with renewable resources is considered to be slightly less than the naturalgas-fired alternative assuming that when/if the alternative generating source was operable, the 

natural-gas-fired alternative would not be required to be operating.

Carbon dioxide emissions for the proposed action and energy generation alternatives are 

discussed in Sections 5.7.2, 9.2.2.1, and 9.2.2.2. Table 9-5 summarizes the CO2 emission 

estimates for a 40-year period for the alternatives considered by the review team to be viable for 

baseload power generation. These estimates are limited to the emissions from power

generation and do not include CO2 emissions for workforce transportation, construction, fuelcycle, or decommissioning. Among the viable energy-generation alternatives, the CO2

emissions for nuclear power are a small fraction of the emissions of the other viable energygeneration alternatives. Adding the transportation emissions for the nuclear plant workforce and 

fuel cycle emissions, would increase the emissions for plant operation over a 40-year period to 

about 54,000,000 MT. This number is still significantly lower than the emissions for any of the 

other alternatives.

Table 9-5. Comparison of Direct Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Energy Alternatives

Generation Type Years CO2 Emission (MT)

Nuclear power(a) 40 380,000

Coal-fired generation(b) 40 600,000,000

Natural gas-fired generation(c) 40 205,000,000

Combination of alternatives(d) 40 166,000,000

(a) From Section 5.7.2, value is for two units

(b) From Section 9.2.2.1 

(c) From Section 9.2.2.2

(d) From Section 9.2.4 (assuming only natural gas generation has significant CO2 emissions)
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-30 April 2011

On June 3, 2010, EPA issued a rule tailoring the applicability criteria that determines which 

stationary sources and modifications to existing projects become subject to permitting 

requirements for greenhouse gas emissions under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Title V programs of the Clean Air Act (Ref 75 FR 31514). According to the Tailoring 

Rule, greenhouse gas is a regulated new source review (NSR) pollutant under the PSD major 

source permitting program if the source (1) is otherwise subject to PSD (for another regulated 

NSR pollutant) and (2) has a greenhouse gas potential to emit equal to or greater than 

75,000 tons per year of CO2e (“carbon dioxide equivalent” adjusting for different global warming 

potentials for different greenhouse gases). Such sources would be subject to Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). The use of BACT has the potential to reduce the amount of 

greenhouse gases emitted from stationary source facilities. The implementation of this rule 

could reduce the amount of greenhouse gases from the values indicated in Table 9-5 for coal 

and natural gas, as well as from other alternative energy sources that would otherwise have 

appreciable uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions. The greenhouse gas emissions from the 

production of electricity from a nuclear power source are primarily from the fuel cycle and such 

emissions could be reduced further if the electricity from the assumed fossil fuel source 

powering the fuel cycle is subject to BACT controls. The emission of greenhouse gases from 

the production of electrical energy from a nuclear power source is orders of magnitude less than 

those of the reasonable alternative energy sources. Accordingly, the comparative relationship 

between the energy sources listed in Table 9-5 would not change meaningfully, even if the 

greenhouse gas emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle reductions are ignored, because 

greenhouse gas emissions from the other energy source alternatives would not be sufficiently 

reduced to make them environmentally preferable to the proposed project.

Carbon dioxide emissions associated with generation alternatives such as wind power, solar 

power, and hydropower would be associated with workforce transportation, construction, and 

decommissioning of the facilities. Because these generation alternatives do not involve 

combustion, the review team considers the emissions to be minor and concludes that the 

emissions would have a minimal impact. Other energy-generation alternatives involving 

combustion of oil, wood waste, municipal solid waste, or biomass-derived fuels would have CO2

emissions from combustion as well as from workforce transportation, plant construction, and 

plant decommissioning. It is likely that the CO2 emissions from the combustion process for 

these alternatives would dominate the other CO2 emissions associated with the generation 

alternative. It is also likely that the CO2 emissions from these alternatives would be the same 

order of magnitude as the emissions for the fossil-fuel alternatives considered in Sections 

9.2.2.1 and 9.2.2.2. However, because these alternatives were determined by the review team 

not to meet the need for baseload power generation, the review team has not evaluated the 

CO2 emissions quantitatively.

As discussed in Chapter 8 of this EIS, the review team has concluded that the need for the 

additional baseload power generation has been demonstrated. Also, as discussed earlier in this 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-31 NUREG-1939

chapter, the review team concludes that the viable alternatives to the proposed action all would 

involve the use of fossil fuels (coal or natural gas) whether singly or in combination with other 

alternative energy resources. The review team concludes that the proposed action results in 

the lowest level of emissions of greenhouse gases among the viable alternatives. 

The review team reviewed the available information on the environmental impacts of powergeneration alternatives compared to the building and operation of new nuclear units at the 

VCSNS site. Based on this review, the review team concludes that, from an environmental 

perspective, none of the energy alternatives is environmentally preferable to building and 

operation of a new baseload nuclear power generation plant at the VCSNS site.

9.3 Alternative Sites

NRC EISs prepared in conjunction with a COL application must analyze alternatives to the 

proposed action (10 CFR 51.71(d)). NRC guidance (NRC 2000, the Environmental Standard 

Review Plan or ESRP) states that the ER, submitted in conjunction with an application for a 

COL, should include an evaluation of alternative sites to determine if any obviously superior 

alternative to the proposed site exists. NRC’s site-selection process guidance calls for 

identification of an ROI followed by successive screening to identify candidate areas, potential 

sites, candidate sites, and the proposed site (NRC 2000). This section includes a discussion of 

SCE&G’s ROI for the proposed siting of a new nuclear power plant, and describes its alternative 

site-selection process. Because the project involves a partner, this section also includes a 

review of potential sites located within the Santee Cooper ROI that are located outside of the 

SCE&G ROI to confirm that in the selection of the VCSNS site, SCE&G did not preclude any 

known alternative sites that may rank equal to or better than the VCSNS site. This is followed 

by the review team’s description of the alternative sites selected, and discussion of the 

environmental impacts of locating a unit at each alternative site. 

This section describes the SCE&G site-selection process, the review team’s evaluation process, 

the alternative sites selected by SCE&G, and the review team’s evaluation of the environmental 

impacts of locating two new nuclear generating units at each alternative site. The specific 

resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects of the proposed 

action and other actions in the same geographic area were assessed. For the purposes of this 

alternative sites evaluation, impacts evaluated include NRC-authorized construction, operation, 

and other cumulative impacts including preconstruction activities. Sections 9.3.3 through 9.3.6 

provide a site-specific description of the environmental impacts at each alternative site based on 

issues such as land use, air quality, water resources, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, 

socioeconomics and environmental justice, and historic and cultural resources. Section 9.3.7 

contains tables of the staff’s characterization of the impacts at the alternative sites and 

comparison with the proposed site to determine if there are any alternative sites that are 

environmentally preferable to the proposed site.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-32 April 2011

The review of alternative sites consists of a two-part sequential test (NRC 2000). The first part 

of the test determines whether any environmentally preferable sites are among the candidate 

sites. To determine if a site is environmentally preferable, the review team 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 its 

own independent review, the review team then determines whether any of the alternative sites 

are environmentally preferable to the applicant’s proposed site. If the review team determines 

that one or more alternative sites are environmentally preferable, then it would proceed with the 

second part of the test. 

The second part of the test determines if an environmentally preferable alternative site is 

obviously superior to the proposed site. The review team must determine that (1) one or more 

important aspects, either singly or in combination, of an acceptable and 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. Included in this 

part of the test is the consideration of estimated costs (i.e., environmental, economic, and time 

of building the proposed plant) at the proposed site and at the environmentally preferable site or 

sites (NRC 2000). 

9.3.1 Alternative Site-Selection Process

This section includes a discussion of the alternative site-selection processes used to evaluate 

the siting of the proposed two-unit nuclear power plant project. The site-selection and 

comparison process focuses on strategically identifying and evaluating sites that represent an 

acceptable range of alternatives for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 within the stated ROI. This

section details the process deployed to strategically identify and screen the ROI in successive 

steps until four alternative sites were determined and the final VCSNS site was selected.

Due to the joint ownership aspect of the proposed project, the following review includes 

considerations from both the SCE&G and Santee Cooper siting evaluations. Section 9.3.1.1 

outlines SCE&G’s siting analysis while Section 9.3.1.2 outlines Santee Cooper’s siting analysis. 

It is noted that at the time the alternative siting analysis took place originally, Santee Cooper 

was not yet a partner in the project, and therefore the alternative sites developed under the COL 

application were generally limited to the SCE&G service territory, or located within 15 mi of the 

franchised service territory to take advantage of land availability, proximity to transmission lines 

and transportation facilities, and environmental factors (SCE&G 2009b). However, once joint 

ownership was established, SCE&G undertook an evaluation of the Santee Cooper service 

territory to confirm that in the selection of the VCSNS site, SCE&G did not overlook or preclude 

site(s) located within the Santee Cooper service territory that would serve the power needs of 

both SCE&G and Santee Cooper.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-33 NUREG-1939

One final consideration that is discussed in more detail in Section 8.2.2 is the following: while 

there are no legal impediments to SCE&G siting a plant outside of its service territory, enabling 

legislation provided by the South Carolina General Assembly limits Santee Cooper’s 

participation to existing or future nuclear generation units at or near Parr Shoals in Fairfield 

County (SC Code Ann. 58-33-200). Authorization for Santee Cooper to partner at another site 

would require a change in statutory language. Therefore, the siting analysis performed by 

Santee Cooper was done to confirm the findings of the SCE&G siting analysis, which proposed 

the VCSNS as the preferred site, rather than to individually determine a proposed site for 

Santee Cooper.

In successive steps, the process of site selection involves the screening of a group of sites 

against applied criteria beginning with the ROI. The screening process proceeds through the 

following steps successfully reducing the ROI to the candidate sites, and final proposed site:

• Region of Interest: Largest geographic area of consideration; for regulated utilities this is 

considered to be the franchised service territory. Typically, the ROI is screened using 

exclusionary type criteria to provide a targeted list of acceptable potential sites for further 

analysis. 

• Potential Sites: Discrete parcels of land found within the geographic area of consideration 

that would support the facility as proposed. Potential sites are screened using suitability 

criteria to provide an acceptable list of candidate sites. The screening data set is typically of 

reconnaissance-level detail.

• Candidate Sites: Sites that are considered to be among the best sites in the given ROI that 

can reasonably be found for the siting and operation of a power plant. Candidate sites are 

typically evaluated through the application of a more refined set of suitability criteria where 

the quantifiable weighting and ranking process provides the mechanism through which the 

proposed site is chosen and evaluated against the other candidate sites. 

The identification and validation of the final proposed site from the list of candidate sites is done 

on an issue-by-issue basis, which allows the applicant to identify the cost and environmental 

trade-offs associated with developing each one of the candidate sites. Review team visits to 

each of the candidate sites provides verification of the critical site-suitability criteria and provides 

a mechanism for deriving reasonable assurance that the proposed site has no unforeseen or 

fatal flaw that might result in licensing delays, increased costs, or environmental impacts outside 

of the identified scope.

NUREG-1555, Section 9.3 (III)(12) (NRC 2000) recognizes the potential value of including 

existing nuclear power plant sites that were “previously found acceptable on the basis of a 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, or have [been] demonstrated to be 

environmentally acceptable on the basis of operating experience, or allocated to an applicant by 

a state government from a list of state approved power plant sites.” 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-34 April 2011

Of the four candidate sites, VCSNS and the Savannah River Site met the preceding criteria of 

having been previously characterized and found acceptable after a NEPA review.

The State of South Carolina also lends considerable influence to the siting process, as can be 

found in the PSCSC language regarding implementation of the Utility Facility Siting and 

Environmental Protection Act (SC Code Ann. 58-33-160(c)). The statute requires that “the 

impact of the facility upon the environment must be justified, considering the state of available 

technology and the nature and economics of the various alternatives and other pertinent 

considerations.” Finally, the Base Load Review Act, “requires the [South Carolina Public 

Service] Commission to go beyond the public convenience and necessity findings required 

under the Siting Act and to conduct a full preconstruction prudency review of the proposed 

Units” (PSCSC 2009a). Prior to issuance of the CPCN, the South Carolina Office of Regulatory 

Staff independently audited and evaluated the SCE&G site-selection process, criteria used for 

evaluation, and the final decision to select the VCSNS site as the final proposed site. The 

PSCSC, in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, found that the record clearly supported 

the prudency and reasonableness of the selection of the Jenkinsville site (VCSNS) for VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 (PSCSC 2009a). 

9.3.1.1 SCE&G Alternative Site-Selection Process 

SCE&G‘s ROI is its legally obligated service area in addition to areas outside, but in close 

proximity to the ROI that were capable of supporting the proposed project (SCE&G 2010b). 

This enabled the characterization of areas outside of the franchised service area that 

maintained siting advantages such as the availability of land, proximity to transmission and 

transportation infrastructure, and environmental factors. 

The designated ROI is consistent with the guidance in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000). The review 

team concludes that the ROI used in SCE&G’s application is reasonable for consideration and 

analysis of candidate areas and sites. The review team also finds that SCE&G’s basis for 

defining its ROI did not arbitrarily exclude desirable locations. Figure 9-1 shows the geographic 

scope of the ROI analysis and the 20 potential sites that were evaluated through the siteselection process.

SCE&G considered three distinct evaluations in the final selection of the VCSNS site. The first 

siting study was the 1974 Dames and Moore study that screened the ROI and provided 18 

potential sites for evaluation (Dames and Moore 1974). Collectively, 18 sites were identified in 

the initial siting study for evaluation within the ROI: 15 of the sites were greenfield sites and 3 

were existing fossil-fired sites. The second siting study, the South Carolina Electric & Gas 

(SCE&G) Nuclear Power Plant Siting Study, 2005, was conducted in 2005 by McCallum-Turner 

who deployed the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Siting Guide (EPRI 2002) to reevaluate and update the earlier Dames and Moore study using the most current and available 

information (McCallum-Turner 2005a). In addition to the previous 18 sites under consideration, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-35 NUREG-1939

Figure 9-1. Potential Site Locations (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009)
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-36 April 2011

McCallum-Turner identified the Savannah River Site, an existing Federal nuclear site, and the 

existing (VCSNS) commercial site for inclusion in the analysis. The site-selection process used 

guidance provided in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000) and the EPRI Siting Guide (EPRI 2002). 

A shortcoming of the second evaluation was simply that SCE&G brought forth only two sites for 

final characterization, which is inconsistent with NUREG-1555 guidelines which recommend 

three to five sites in addition to the proposed site (NRC 2000).

The third siting study, the Nuclear Plant Site Selection Study Report (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 

2009), was a compilation of the 1974 and 2005 siting studies. The study was conducted with 

the expressed intent of verifying that a reasonable suite of viable candidate sites was 

considered using a single methodology and set of criteria, and determining whether there were 

any obviously superior sites among the candidate sites for the siting and operation of two 

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) 

pressurized water reactors (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009). In screening the ROI, SCE&G used a 

dual process to confirm that potential sites were represented by both developed and 

undeveloped sites. The first process simply made sure that existing nuclear power plant 

locations, or other NEPA-characterized locations within the ROI, were included on the potential 

site list that would be subject to further analysis. In doing so, SCE&G included the VCSNS site 

and the Savannah River Site. The second process evaluated the ROI by applying refined 

screening criteria to areas that were found to be capable of supporting potential power plants, 

and were considered either “greenfield” (no development) or “brownfield” (existing power plant) 

sites.

SCE&G provided key criteria for use as “bounding conditions” to aid in the identification and 

evaluation of sites for the 2005 McCallum-Turner siting study and the 2009 Tetra Tech NUS, 

Inc. evaluation. These factors included the following considerations (McCallum-Turner 2005b):

• The sites and evaluations must be consistent with the applicant’s business plans and 

objectives (Unit 2 commercial by 2016, accurate reflection of need for power, etc).

• The site and siting evaluation must be consistent with NRC site suitability requirements 

(EPRI Siting Guide: Site Selection and Evaluation Criteria for an Early Site Permit 

Application dated March 2002 would be used).

• Compliance with NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

SCE&G’s process for screening the 20 potential sites followed a prescriptive methodology by 

applying exclusionary criteria appropriate to the geography in consideration and the technology 

involved with constructing and operating the proposed AP1000 nuclear power plant. SCE&G 

obtained data from publicly available resources such as the Environmental Systems Research 

Institute geographic information system database, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, as well as others, and evaluated and verified potential sites 

that could support the proposed nuclear power plant. In the selection and application of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-37 NUREG-1939

screening criteria, SCE&G aligned its 10 screening criteria with NUREG-1555 by focusing on 

the preservation of existing conditions and minimizing impacts at potential sites. Broadly, 

screening criteria fell into categories that enabled SCE&G to avoid carrying sites forward that 

demonstrated significant issues that precluded their use for a nuclear power plant, could cause 

significant impacts or degradation of local natural resources on the site, or posed significant 

impacts on surrounding terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (SCE&G 2010b). 

The 20 potential sites were quantitatively evaluated using the following exclusionary criteria: 

seismic, land use, hydrology, geotechnical, terrestrial ecology, aquatic ecology, and 

demographics. This reconnaissance-level approach evaluated potential sites by critical 

attributes and enabled the elimination of nine potential sites from more costly and in-depth 

analysis (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009). Through this process, SCE&G identified 11 candidate 

sites from the 20 potential sites that were carried forward for detailed investigation. 

The remaining 11 candidate sites were evaluated against EPRI site criteria with both weighting 

and ranking factors applied to each of the following 10 criteria: cooling-water supply, flooding, 

population, hazardous land use, ecology, wetlands, railroad access, transmission access, 

geology/seismic, and land acquisition. Each criterion was then broken down into several 

respective sub-criteria to quantify the most meaningful set of measurements. For example, 

cooling-water supply was broken down into five categories, including the presence or absence 

of a lake or river, minimum flow measurement, average flow measurement, and distance to the 

water source. In this manner, each of the 11 candidate sites was subject to the application and 

analysis of 27 distinct sub-criteria (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009). The resulting weighting and 

ranking of candidate sites provided SCE&G with clear indications of acceptable alternative sites 

to carry forward for further analysis and auditing. Based on its site audit, the review team 

elected to carry one additional site forward, Fairfield 1 (FA-1) site, for full analysis because of its 

proximity in scoring to the next-highest ranking site.

Based on the guidance provided in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000), the EPRI Siting Guide (EPRI 

2002), and in accordance with the site-selection process described by SCE&G, the applicant 

selected VCSNS as the proposed site and the three sites that maintained the highest composite 

scores were selected as alternative sites. The review team elected to include the FA-1 site as 

an alternative site based on its site audit. Of the four alternative sites, one site was a wellcharacterized existing nuclear facility; two sites were greenfield sites; and one site was a 

brownfield site. The four alternative sites presented for comparative evaluation included the 

following:

• FA-1, Fairfield County (greenfield), South Carolina

• Cope Generating Station site (brownfield), Orangeburg County, South Carolina

• Saluda site (greenfield), Saluda County, South Carolina

• Savannah River (SR) site (at the existing Federal Savannah River Site), Aiken County, 

South Carolina.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-38 April 2011

In analyzing each of the four alternative sites, SCE&G performed detailed evaluations 

considering environmental benefits, strategic business issues such as constructability and cost 

benefits, and additional non-tangible benefits. Specifically, SCE&G determined that there were 

advantages to co-locating new nuclear generating units with an existing power plant owned by 

SCE&G. The following potential advantages of co-location at the VCSNS site were identified in 

the application (SCE&G 2010b):

• environmental benefits

– Extensive onsite conditions are known as a result of years of data collection. It is 

reasonable to assume that the impacts of additional units would be comparable to those 

of the operating unit.

– Construction of new transmission-line corridors may be avoided if the existing 

transmission system can accommodate the increased power generation.

– The site has already been characterized as mandated by NEPA and was the subject of 

extensive environmental screening during the original site-selection process.

• constructability and cost benefits

– Site physical criteria, including geologic and seismic, have been fully characterized.

– No additional land acquisitions would be necessary and the site could accommodate the 

land requirements of the new units

– Construction, operation, and maintenance costs would be reduced because of existing 

site infrastructure.

• other benefits

– The VCSNS site has nearby power markets. The VCSNS site personnel have relevant 

nuclear experience.

The review team considered only environmental matters in its determination of whether an 

alternative site was environmentally preferable to the proposed site and did not consider nonenvironmental issues, such as constructability and cost. The review team recognizes, however, 

that in some cases environmental and cost factors are related. So, for example, a site that 

requires longer transmission lines will have both higher environmental impacts and higher costs 

related to those transmission lines.

9.3.1.2 Santee Cooper Alternative Site-Selection Process

The Santee Cooper ROI coincides with several regulated utilities and many of the electric 

cooperatives within South Carolina. As such, SCE&G evaluated Santee Cooper’s ROI by

focusing on the 22 counties that lie in northern and northwestern South Carolina and are outside 

of the SCE&G service territory. This region was not evaluated in the SCE&G siting analysis, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-39 NUREG-1939

which focused only on the SCE&G service territory, and generally aligns with the service 

territories of Duke Energy and Progress Energy. Figure 9-2 outlines the additional counties 

reviewed by SCE&G (2009b).

Due to the interconnected transmission system that Santee Cooper maintains in supplying 

power throughout the ROI, and the fact that the Santee Cooper system coincides with regulated 

utilities operating in the same region, SCE&G reviewed and evaluated recent alternative siteselection studies prepared by Duke Energy for the William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Duke 

2009a) and Progress Energy for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (PE 2008) specifically 

for the South Carolina sites, as well as the siting analysis performed by MACTEC for Santee 

Cooper’s coal-fired Pee Dee Generating Station (MACTEC 2006). Collectively, these siteselection studies accounted for a reconnaissance-level review of over 20 potential sites, and a 

detailed review of 9 sites located within South Carolina. 

Because all nine sites were found to be viable sites based on previous siting studies, SCE&G’s 

evaluation focused primarily on the application of reconnaissance-level criteria to determine if 

any one of the sites could rank equal to or better than the four alternative sites already identified 

in the VCSNS siting study. Of primary consideration, and with what might be expected when 

proposing to site a power plant outside of the franchised service territory or declared ROI, this 

included criteria such as the ability to own or control the property, distance to and impact on 

transmission corridor access, proximity to load centers, and critical site-development 

requirements such as improving water supply and availability. The criteria were consistent with 

those used in the SCE&G Site Selection Study Report (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009). In 

accordance with NUREG-1555 guidelines, which support the use of reconnaissance-level 

criteria to screen out potential sites from further evaluation, consideration of the Santee Cooper 

ROI did not “substantially improve” the environmental diversity of SCE&G’s siting options 

(NUREG-1555 [NRC 2000]). Therefore, in the application of criteria, SCE&G did not carry 

forward any of the nine additional sites for in-depth comparative analysis, because they did not 

rank equal to or better than the proposed four alternative sites, nor did they improve the 

environmental diversity of SCE&G siting options. 

Three sites evaluated in the Duke Energy service territory were Lee, Keowee, and Middleton 

Shoals. Each of the sites is currently owned by Duke Energy, and control of the property would 

be difficult to obtain. Furthermore, the distances to SCE&G high-voltage transmission lines runs 

from 45 to 85 mi requiring the development of transmission-line corridors, while distances to the

major load centers is even farther, requiring extensive transmission system upgrades. 

Consistent with the siting analysis performed by Duke Energy, each of the sites would likely 

require site modifications such as the construction of a supplemental water reservoir (SCE&G 

2009b). As part of the alternative siting analysis and audit performed for the Lee site COL 

application, the NRC staff participated in onsite audits of each of the three Duke Energy sites 

under consideration (Lee, Keowee, and Middleton Shoals). Due to the preceding 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-40 April 2011

Figure 9-2. Santee Cooper Region of Interest (SCE&G 2009b)
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-41 NUREG-1939

considerations, the review team found that the reconnaissance-level information evaluated for 

the alternative sites in the Lee COL application, in combination with the utility requirements for 

SCE&G and Santee Cooper, did not indicate that there was a site located within the Duke 

Energy service territory that would rank higher than the candidate sites in the SCE&G study. 

Two sites evaluated in the Progress Energy Carolinas service territory included the existing H.B. 

Robinson Nuclear Plant site and a greenfield site located in Marion County. The Robinson site, 

as a Progress Energy-owned site, would require SCE&G and Santee Cooper to acquire rights to 

construct and operate on it; they would also have to acquire the Marion County site property as 

well. Similar to the issues discussed previously for candidate sites outside of the SCE&G 

service territory, the construction and operation of a power plant at either of these sites would 

require extensive development of transmission-line corridors and transmission system upgrades 

due to the distances to existing transmission infrastructure and load centers. At the Robinson 

site, water supply limits due to thermal restrictions on the lake may preclude the successful 

construction and operation of a two-unit nuclear power plant. Finally, the Marion site may 

require the construction of a cooling-water reservoir and has considerable wetland acreage 

onsite (SCE&G 2009b). As part of the alternative siting analysis and audit performed for the 

Harris site COL application, the NRC staff participated in onsite audits of each of the two 

Progress Energy Carolina sites under consideration (Robinson and Marion County). Due to the 

preceding considerations, the review team found that the ground-level information evaluated for 

the alternative sites in the Harris COL application, in combination with the utility requirements for 

SCE&G and Santee Cooper, did not indicate that there was a site located within the Progress 

Energy Carolinas service territory that would rank higher than the candidate sites in the 

SCE&G study.

Of the six sites evaluated in Santee Cooper’s Pee Dee coal-fired power plant siting analysis, 

two of the sites were in close proximity to the Al-1 and Wateree sites identified by SCE&G in its 

site-selection process used for the VCSNS siting analysis. Because the two sites evaluated by 

Santee Cooper shared similar environmental characteristics with the sites identified in the 

SCE&G site-selection analysis and because there were no significant differences between the 

two comparable locations, the sites were not carried forward. SCE&G then reviewed the 

remaining four candidate sites, which included three sites located on the Great Pee Dee River 

(sites 7, 9, and 10), and one site located on Bull Creek (site 6). Site 7 was the preferred site for 

the Pee Dee coal-fired project and is the only site owned by either utility. Further, sites 7, 9, and 

10 would require the construction of a cooling-water reservoir to ensure adequate water supply 

in low-flow periods. All four sites would require the development of approximately 65 mi of new 

transmission-line corridors to connect to the existing SCE&G transmission infrastructure, as well 

as significant transmission system upgrades to provide power to the major load centers located 

from 75 to 85 mi away (SCE&G 2009b).
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-42 April 2011

Due to the preceding considerations, the review team found that the reconnaissance-level 

information evaluated by SCE&G for the alternative sites in the Pee Dee coal-fired project, in 

combination with the utility requirements for SCE&G and Santee Cooper, did not indicate that 

there was a site located within the Santee Cooper service territory that would rank higher than 

the candidate sites in the SCE&G study. 

9.3.1.3 Conclusions About the Alternative Site-Selection Process

The review team evaluated the methodology used by SCE&G and concluded that the process 

for selecting and evaluating alternative sites, including the final proposed VCSNS site, was 

reasonable and consistent with the guidelines presented in NUREG-1555 and the EPRI 

Siting Guide. 

The review team also evaluated the SCE&G analysis of the Santee Cooper service territory, 

including site-selection studies performed by Duke Energy, Progress Energy, and MACTEC for 

Santee Cooper’s siting of the Pee Dee coal-fired project. Each of the site-selection studies 

individually followed a prescriptive process for the comparative evaluation of alternative sites, 

and included the detailed analysis of nine sites located within the Santee Cooper service 

territory. The review team concluded that none of the sites identified in the Santee Cooper 

siting analysis would rank higher than the candidate sites identified in the SCE&G study based 

on critical siting criteria, such as the proximity to transmission access and load centers, the 

need for cooling-water reservoirs to ensure adequate water availability, and land availability.

Finally, the review team recognizes the siting precedence established by the State of South 

Carolina through the PSCSC process as part of the CPCN evaluation and findings (PSCSC 

2009a) and the through the South Carolina General Assembly (SC Code Ann. 58-33-200) as 

part of the legislative language permitting Santee Cooper to participate with SCE&G in the 

construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the Fairfield County site. This 

precedence is afforded “substantial weight” under NUREG-1555 guidelines, having undergone 

rigorous evaluation and extensive review (NRC 2000).

The review team found that the systematic alternative siting analysis demonstrated a logical 

selection process and application of screening and exclusionary siting criteria. The analysis 

enabled the evaluation of the likely environmental impacts associated with the respective sites, 

including the evaluation of suitability criteria; identified acceptable alternative sites; and clearly 

provided the mechanism for selection of the final proposed site. The review team evaluated the 

siting methodology used by SCE&G to select its ROI, potential sites, candidate sites, and 

alternative sites. Based on SCE&G’s description of its process and the review team's 

evaluation of the criteria used, and as addressed in the analysis in the previous section, the 

review team determined that the process used to identify alternative sites was a logical 

approach and was therefore acceptable. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-43 NUREG-1939

9.3.2 NRC/USACE Alternative Site Evaluation

The four alternative sites (FA-1, CGS, Saluda, and SR) are examined in detail in Sections 9.3.3 

through 9.3.6. The review team visited each of the four alternative sites as well as the proposed 

site in March 2009. Section 9.3.7 contains tables of the review team’s characterization of the 

cumulative impacts of the proposed action at the proposed and alternative sites.

Following the guidance promulgated in ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000), the review team visited the four 

alternative sites and collected and analyzed reconnaissance-level information for each of the 

sites. The review team then used the information provided in the ER, RAI responses, and 

information from other Federal and State agencies, and information gathered during the visits to 

each alternative site to evaluate the cumulative impacts of building and operating two new 

nuclear power plants at those sites. The analysis therefore includes the impacts of NRCauthorized construction and operation as well as potential impacts associated with other actions 

affecting the same resources. Cumulative impacts occur when the effects of an action are 

added to or interact with other effects in a particular place and within a particular time; as a 

result, the cumulative impact assessment entails a more extensive and broader review of 

possible effects of the action beyond the site boundary.

The cumulative analysis for the impacts at the alternative sites was performed in the same 

manner as discussed in Chapter 7 for the proposed site except, as specified in ESRP 9.3 (NRC 

2000), the analysis was conducted at the reconnaissance level for the alternative sites. To 

inform the cumulative impacts analysis, the review team researched EPA databases for recent 

EISs within the state; used an EPA database for permits for water discharges in the geographic 

area to identify water-use projects; and used www.recovery.gov to identify projects in the 

geographic area funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 

111-5). The review team developed tables of the major projects near each alternative site that 

were considered relevant in the cumulative analysis. The review team used the information to 

perform an independent evaluation of the direct and cumulative impacts of the proposed action 

at the alternative sites to determine if one or more of the alternative sites were environmentally 

preferable to the proposed site. 

Included are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private 

actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts with the proposed action. For the 

purposes of this analysis, the past is defined as the time period prior to receipt of the COL 

application. The present is defined as the time period from the receipt of the COL application 

until the beginning of activities associated with building proposed Units 2 and 3. The future is 

defined as the beginning of building activities (construction and preconstruction activities) 

associated with Units 2 and 3, through operation and eventual decommissioning. 

The specific resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects of the 

proposed action and other actions in the same geographic area were identified. The affected 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-44 April 2011

environment that serves as the baseline for the cumulative impacts analysis is described for 

each alternative site, and a qualitative discussion of the general effects of past actions is 

included. The geographic area over which past, present, and future actions could reasonably 

contribute to cumulative impacts is defined and is described in later sections for each resource 

area. The analysis for each resource area at each alternative site concludes with a cumulative 

impact finding (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE). For those cases in which the impact level to 

a resource was greater than SMALL, the review team also discussed whether building and 

operating the nuclear units would be a significant contributor to the cumulative impact. In the 

context of this evaluation, “significant” is defined as a contribution that is important in reaching 

that impact-level determination.

The cumulative impacts are summarized for each resource area in the sections that follow. The 

level of detail is commensurate with the significance of the impact for each resource area. The 

findings for each resource area at the VCSNS site and each alternative site are then compared 

in Table 9-35. The results of this comparison are used to determine if any of the alternative 

sites are environmentally preferable to the proposed site. If any alternative site is determined to 

be environmentally preferable, the review team would evaluate whether that alternative site was 

obviously superior. 

The impacts described in Chapter 6 of this EIS (e.g., nuclear fuel cycle; decommissioning) 

would not vary significantly from one site to another. This is true because all of the alternative 

sites and the proposed site are in low-population areas and because the review team assumes 

the same reactor design (therefore, the same fuel cycle technology, transportation methods, 

and decommissioning methods) for all of the sites. As such, these impacts would not 

differentiate between the sites and would not be useful in the determination of whether an 

alternative site is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. For this reason, these 

impacts are not discussed in the evaluation of the alternative sites.

9.3.3 The FA-1 Site 

This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

a two-unit nuclear power plant at the FA-1 site located in Fairfield County, South Carolina. The 

following sections describe a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major resource 

area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects 

of the proposed action if it were implemented at the FA-1 site and other actions in the same 

geographic area were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of NRC-authorized 

construction, operations, and preconstruction activities. Also included in the assessment are 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that 

could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered together with the proposed action if 

implemented at the FA-1 site. Other actions and projects considered in this cumulative analysis

are described in Table 9-6.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-45 NUREG-1939

Table 9-6. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

Considered in the FA-1 Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Energy Projects

VCSNS Unit 1 VCSNS Unit 1 consists of one 996-

MW(e) nuclear power generating 

plant. 

5.5 mi south-southwest 

of FA-1

VCSNS Unit 1 is 

currently operational 

and is licensed to 

continue operations 

through August 6, 

2042(a)

Carolinas-Virginia 

Tube Reactor 

(CVTR)

Experimental pressurized tube heavy 

water nuclear power reactor

About 7.5 mi south of 

FA-1

Decommissioned(b)

Independent Spent 

Fuel Storage 

Installation

Dry spent-fuel storage About 8 mi south of FA1Proposed(c)

Old Steam Generator 

Recycle Facility

Decommissioned steam generator 

storage

About 8 mi south of FA1Operational(c)

Lee Nuclear Station Two Westinghouse AP1000 

pressurized water reactors 

About 47 mi upstream 

(north) on Broad River

Proposed new nuclear 

plant. Operation would 

begin in 2018-2021(d)

Catawba Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2

Two 1129-MW(e) Westinghouse 

reactors

About 50 mi northnortheast of FA-1Operational(e)

H.B. Robinson Steam 

Electric Plant, Unit 2

Nuclear power generating plant with 

one 710-MW(e) unit

About 70 mi east of FA1Operational(f)

McGuire Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2

Two 1100-MW(e) Westinghouse 

reactors

About 78 mi northnortheast of FA-1Operational(g)

Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant 

(VEGP)

Nuclear power generating plant with 

2 units, VEGP 1 (1109 MW(e)) and 

VEGP 2 (1127 MW(e))

Approx 80 mi southsouthwest of 

FA-1

Operational(h)

VEGP Units 3 and 4 Nuclear power generating plant with 

two Westinghouse AP 1000 

pressurized water reactors 

Approx 80 mi southsouthwest of FA-1Proposed(i) (Preconstruction activities 

have commenced. 

NRC Limited Work 

Authorization has been 

issued.)

Oconee Nuclear 

Station, Units 1, 2, 

and 3

Three 846-MW(e) Babcock and 

Wilcox reactors

About 92 mi westnorthwest of FA-1

Operational(j)

SCE&G Parr 

Hydroelectric Plant

A 14-MW(e) hydroelectric plant About 6.9 mi 

downstream on Broad 

River

Parr Hydro Plant is 

currently operational(k)

SCE&G Fairfield 

Pumped Storage 

Plant

A 511.2-MW(e) hydroelectric plant. 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would use 

water supply from this facility.

About 4.1 mi 

downstream on Parr 

Reservoir (Broad River)

The Fairfield Pumped 

Storage Plant is 

currently operational(c)

SCE&G Parr 

Combustion Facility

71-MW(e) natural-gas electric 

generating plant

About 2.0 mi south of 

VCS&S

Operational(b)
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-46 April 2011

Table 9-6. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Buzzard Roost 

Combustion Turbine 

Station 

A 196-MW oil/gas-fired peaking 

facility 

Approx 35 mi westsouthwest of FA-1Operational(l)

Buzzard Roost Dam A 15-MW hydroelectric facility Approx 35 mi westsouthwest of FA-1Operational(m)

Westinghouse Fuel 

Fabrication Plant in 

Columbia, South 

Carolina

Design and fabricate completed 

nuclear fuel assemblies and fuelrelated products, such as top and 

bottom nozzles, control rods, and 

zirconium diboride and erbia integral 

fuel burnable absorbers for 

pressurized water reactors and VodoVodyanoi Energetichesky Reactors.

About 35 mi southwest 

of FA-1

Operational(n)

Six Broad River 

Hydroelectric Projects

Hydroelectric facilities 5 upstream of FA-1 on 

the Broad River and 1 

downstream on the 

Broad River

Operational(c)

Transmission Lines Various transmission lines currently 

exist throughout region and 

installation of additional lines would 

occur if new nuclear plants or other 

large energy projects are built. New 

transmission lines could require the 

following: widening of existing 

corridors, building new corridors, 

moving facilities within corridors, 

building new facilities within corridors. 

Throughout region Currently existing as 

well as the potential for 

additional transmission 

lines to be built. 

Mining Projects

Vulcan Materials 

Company/Blair 

Quarry

Products include asphalt aggregate, 

base material, concrete, aggregate, 

and manufactured sand. 

About 5 mi north of FA1Operational(o)

Transportation Projects

South Carolina 

Strategic Corridor 

System Plan

Strategic system of corridors forming 

the backbone of the State’s

transportation system.

State-wide Planning document with 

no explicit schedules for 

projects, however, many 

strategic corridors 

coincide with routes 

which would/could be 

used for development at 

the FA-1 site(p)

Parks and Aquaculture Facilities

Sumter National 

Forest

371,000-ac national forest. About 3.5 mi northwest 

of FA-1 boundary

Currently managed by 

U.S. Forest Service(q)
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-47 NUREG-1939

Table 9-6. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Parr Hydro Wildlife 

Management Area

4400-ac wildlife management area About 5.4 mi southsouthwest of FA-1Currently managed by 

SCDNR(c)

Other parks, forests, 

and reserves

Several parks, recreation, and 

conservation areas are located within 

the 50-mi region. Examples of such 

areas include Lake Wateree, the 

Catawba River, Monticello and Parr 

reservoirs, Broad River, Lake Murray, 

Dreher Island State Park, Lake 

Greenwood, Riverbanks Zoo and 

Garden, Congaree National Park, 

Harbison State Forest, and 

Sesquicentennial State Park.

Throughout region Currently managed by 

various local, State, and 

Federal agencies and 

organizations.

Santee-Cooper Basin 

Diadromous Fish 

Passage Restoration 

Plan and the Santee 

River Basin Accord

Focus on restoring habitat 

connectivity for diadromous fish that 

were historically present within the 

basin, and includes installation of fish 

passage facilities at dams on the 

Broad River

Broad River basin Currently managed by 

various State and 

Federal agencies(w)

Other Actions/Projects

SCE&G Combined 

Site Emergency 

Operations Facility

A new combined-site emergency 

operations facility 

10 mi from VCSNS Operational(v)

City of Columbia Municipal water withdrawals from the 

Broad River

About 30 mi southeast 

of FA-1

Ongoing(c)

Various hospitals Medical isotopes Within 50 mi of FA-1 Operational in 

Columbia, Lexington, 

Newberry, Rock Hill, 

Lancaster, Laurens, 

Greenwood, and

Camden

Cone Mills Carlisle 

Finishing Co.

Fabric finisher About 16.5 mi north of 

FA-1 on Broad River

Currently operational(r)

Chemtrade 

Performance 

Chemicals, LLC

Industrial inorganic chemicals About 17.5 mi north of 

FA-1 on Broad River

Currently operational(s)

Newberry County 

Water & Sewer 

Authority 

(NCW&SA)/Cannons 

Creek Waste Water 

Treatment Plant 

(WWTP)

Wastewater treatment About 8.3 mi southwest 

of FA-1

Currently operational(t)
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-48 April 2011

Table 9-6. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

NCW&SA Broad 

River Wastewater 

Treatment Facility 

(WWTF) Phase 1

WWTF currently maintains a nonmajor NPDES permit.About 12 mi west of FA1Currently operational(u)

Future Urbanization Construction of housing units and 

associated commercial buildings; 

roads, bridges, and railroad; 

construction of water- and/or 

wastewater-treatment and distribution 

facilities and associated pipelines, as 

described in local land-use planning 

documents. There is a low-tomoderate potential for increase 

urbanization within the Broad River 

watershed in Newberry and Fairfield 

Counties, South Carolina. The 

highest potential for development 

would be associated with residential 

development around the reservoirs, 

the Towns of Prosperity and 

Pomaria, and the City of Newberry 

Sumter National Forest would limit 

urbanization north of FA-1.

Throughout region Construction would 

occur in the future, as 

described in State and 

local land-use planning 

documents

(a) Source: NRC 2004

(b) Source: SCE&G 2011

(c) Source: SCE&G 2010b

(d) Source: NRC 2007

(e) Source: NRC 2009a 

(f) Source: NRC 2009b 

(g) Source: NRC 2009c

(h) Source: NRC 2009e 

(i) Source: NRC 2009f 

(j) Source: NRC 2009d 

(k) Source: EPA 2009g 

(l) Source: Duke 2009b 

(m) Source: Greenwood County 2008 

(n) Source: Westinghouse 2009

(o) Source: SCDHEC 2009c 

(p) Source: SCDOT 2009 

(q) Source: USFS 2004

(r) Source: EPA 2009c 

(s) Source: EPA 2009a 

(t) Source: EPA 2009h, k 

(u) Source: EPA 2009b 

(v) Source: SCE&G 2010e

(w) Source: FWS 2001
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-49 NUREG-1939

As discussed in Sections 2.2.2 and 4.1.2, the applicant updated its original preliminary corridor 

routing for the VCSNS site. The updated transmission-line routes run within or parallel to 

existing transmission-line corridors or other existing utility corridors over the majority of the 

necessary length. Prior to this change and because of its proximity to the VCSNS site, the FA-1 

alternative site and its related transmission lines had impact levels similar to the VCSNS site.

The review team determined that the revised routing for the VCSNS site is not a discriminator in 

the comparison between the VCSNS site and the FA-1 site, because it did not change the 

impact level for any resource area. The comparison of impacts between the VCSNS site and 

the FA-1 site would not change because the impact level for the VCSNS did not change.

Therefore, the review team did not update the transmission-line numbers for the FA-1 site.

The FA-1 site is a privately owned, undeveloped greenfield site located on the eastern bank of 

the Broad River approximately 2 mi north of the Parr Reservoir, and 1 mi to the west of 

Monticello Reservoir. Figure 9-3 shows the FA-1 alternative site region.

As an undeveloped greenfield site, FA-1 is primarily forested land composed of rolling hills and 

steep stream valleys, interspersed with limited amounts of open water and forested wetlands. 

The site also contains a limited number of residences primarily on the eastern boundary of the 

site. The site is bounded on the east by County Road 3, on the west by the Broad River, and on 

the north by State Highway 301 (SC-301). The Sumter National Forest lies to the immediate 

north of the site. 

Locally, the area supports several small, rural, unincorporated communities located within 5 mi 

of the site. The site is located about 31 mi northwest of Columbia, South Carolina, and 

approximately 45 mi southwest of Rock Hill, South Carolina. 

9.3.3.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors

In addition to land-use impacts from building and operations at the FA-1 site, the cumulative 

analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

contribute to the cumulative land-use impacts, including other Federal and non-Federal projects 

and the projects listed in Table 9-6. For the analysis of land-use impacts at the FA-1 site, the 

geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the FA-1 site plus 

any transmission-line corridors that extend beyond that range. Most but not all of the 

transmission-line corridors’ length does fall within a 50-mi radius of the site. Land-use planning 

for transmission-line routing over wide areas must consider land-use plans of adjoining counties 

and other land-managing agencies, rather than considering one county in isolation. 

Furthermore, in predominantly rural settings such as that surrounding the FA-1 site, land-use 

changes occurring substantial distances away from a project site can substantially influence 

land-use planning decisions close to the site. Roads and other public facilities and services in 

rural areas tend to serve people who are spread thinly but broadly over large portions of the 

landscape. Therefore, land-use changes can affect roads and other facilities at greater 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-50 April 2011

Figure 9-3. FA-1 Alternative Site Region
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-51 NUREG-1939

distances than similar changes in more densely populated areas. The FA-1 site presently is 

undeveloped and predominantly forested. It is located in a sparsely populated, largely rural 

area, with forests and small farms composing the dominant land use. Historically, most upland 

areas have been used for crop production, but presently are used for silviculture. Several 

electric transmission lines, State routes, and interstate highways currently traverse the region. 

The current comprehensive land-use plan for Fairfield County (V&A 1997) indicates that the 

FA-1 site is currently zoned as “Residential Conservation and Development” and links the area 

with the shoreline of both Monticello Reservoir and the Parr Reservoir, which also have this 

zoning. A change in zoning would be required to develop the FA-1 site because current zoning 

discourages nonresidential development from this area (V&A 1997)

Based on GIS analysis of information provided by the applicant (SCE&G 2010a) and the review 

team’s independent assessment, development of the proposed new units on the FA-1 site 

would convert existing land uses on about 300 ac of currently forested land to utility uses for the 

nuclear facility and associated structures and infrastructure. The applicant estimated that five

new transmission-line routes would be required, each of which would occupy a 100-ft-wide 

transmission-line corridor (SCE&G 2010b). Table 9-8 summarizes expected land-use impact 

parameters for the FA-1 site and transmission lines. The review team used geographic 

information system data provided by the applicant (SCE&G 2010a) to estimate expected land 

disturbance. The review team used the most recent information provided by the applicant 

(SCE&G, 2010b), except where the design data provided in earlier Santee-Cooper 

documentation (2009c) was not reflected in the revised SCG&E application.

Table 9-7. Land-Use Impact Parameters for the FA-1 Site

Parameter Value Source

Required onsite project area (ac) 1141 SCE&G 2010a, 2011

Estimated land-disturbance area (ac) 300 SCE&G 2010a, 2011 and review 

team analysis

Number of new transmission-line routes – SCE&G

(number of routes)

3 SCE&G 2010b

Number of new transmission-line routes – Santee Cooper 

(number of routes)

2

Number of new transmission line routes – total 

(number of routes)

5

Transmission-line corridor distance – SCE&G (mi) 205 SCE&G 2010b for SCE&G; 

Transmission-line corridor distance – Santee Cooper (mi) 242 SCE&G 2009c for Santee Cooper

Transmission-line corridor distance – total (mi) 447

Transmission-line corridor area – SCE&G (ac) 2237 SCE&G 2010b for SCE&G; 

review team estimate based on 

SCE&G 2009c for Santee Cooper

Transmission-line corridor area – Santee Cooper (ac) 3605

Transmission-line corridor area – total (ac) 5942
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-52 April 2011

Based on information provided by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009c, d, 2010a) describing dimensions of 

conceptual transmission-line corridors for the FA-1 site, 447 mi covering about 5942 ac of land 

would be needed. The proposed routing would use existing corridors to the extent practicable, 

so that although the linear runs extend 447 mi, somewhat less than that distance would require 

entirely new corridor. The actual area of land disturbance, used for assessing impacts on 

terrestrial ecology and cultural resources, is therefore substantially lower than suggested by the 

overall land-use requirements. The review team concludes that the land-use impact of the 

transmission-line installation activities would be generally similar to those described for the 

VCSNS site in Section 4.1.2. SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with nuclear 

facility and transmission-line development would be conducted according to Federal, State, and 

local regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G or Santee Cooper procedures, good 

construction practices, and established BMPs (SCE&G 2010b).

Because the other projects described in Table 9-6 do not include any significant reasonably 

foreseeable changes in land-use types within 50 mi of the FA-1 site, there would not be any 

significant additional cumulative impacts on land use from those activities.

As described above, installation of new transmission-line corridors to support the new units 

could need as much as 5942 ac over 447 mi of length. If additional transmission lines are built 

from other energy projects, there would be a cumulative land-use impact from the additional 

amount of land converted to utility corridor use for transmission lines. Because transmission 

lines are often co-located and are relatively narrow, the review team expects that the cumulative 

impact would be consistent with the land-use plans and zoning regulations of the affected 

counties. Nonetheless, consistent with the review team’s analysis in Sections 4.1 and 7.1, 

multiple new transmission-line corridors could noticeably alter the land-use classification 

acreage proportions, both within the vicinity of the FA-1 site and within the 50-mi region.

Cumulative land-use impacts within the region would be consistent with existing land-use plans, 

and the necessary zoning change is not expected to be difficult to obtain. However, due to 

potential impacts of transmission-line development crossing numerous individual properties, 

especially where the corridor would not fall within or parallel existing transmission-line corridors 

and reclassification of acreage within the region caused by transmission-line development, the 

review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts associated with the proposed 

project at the FA-1 site, related transmission-line corridor development, and other projects in the 

geographic area of interest would be MODERATE. Considering the land needs noted above, 

building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would be a significant contributor 

to these impacts.

9.3.3.2 Water Use and Quality

The FA-1 site is a greenfield site located approximately 5 mi from the existing VCSNS site near 

the eastern bank of the Broad River (see Figure 9-3). The site hydrology, water use, and water 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-53 NUREG-1939

quality are discussed in SCE&G (2009e, 2010b) and this section of the EIS draws its 

information from those sources. Given the FA-1 site’s close proximity to the VCSNS site, 

SCE&G takes the same water-use approach and considers surface water to be the primary 

source of water for building and operations. In particular, SCE&G proposes using the same 

waterbodies for both withdrawal (Monticello Reservoir) and discharge (Parr Reservoir) as 

proposed for the VCSNS site. This approach results in impacts on water use, supply, and 

quality that are essentially identical to the impacts discussed in Sections 4.2, 5.2, and 7.2 for the 

VCSNS site.

The differences between the proposed action and the FA-1 alternative with respect to water use 

and quality are (1) the alternative intake structure from Monticello Reservoir would be from the 

northern shore rather than the proposed southern shore, (2) the alternative discharge structure 

would be approximately 5 mi further upstream than the proposed discharge structure, and 

(3) the alterations to the topography would differ between the alternative and proposed sites. 

Although detailed analysis would be required to quantify the localized impact differences 

between the sites for water use and quality in the Broad River or Monticello Reservoir, the 

impacts that would be different are minor local impacts. There are no notable tributary flows to 

the Broad River between the alternative and proposed discharge locations aside from the 

SCE&G Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility (FPSF).

Similar to the discussion in Section 5.2.2.1, surface water at the site is available from the 

Monticello Reservoir as supplied by the Broad River through the FPSF. Representative 

historical flow data for water is available for Broad River near Alston, South Carolina (USGS 

2008a) (see Table 2-5). Table 9-8 lists the reduction in flow for the Broad River that would 

occur as a result of being the sole water source for the operation of two units at this site. This 

table also includes the assessed impact levels. Because withdrawal of surface water to meet 

the needs of the proposed units would create a reduction of less than 5 percent of the mean 

annual flow, the associated water-use impact is assessed to be minimal.

Table 9-8. Broad River Reduction in Flow and Assessed Impact Levels

Broad River Flow 

Condition

River Flow 

Rate (cfs)

Normal Consumptive 

Use (cfs)

Percent Flow 

Reduction Impact Level

Annual mean flow 6302 62 1.0 Minimal

Lowest annual flow 2153 62 2.9 Minimal

Because all the water needed to support the building and operation of two new units at FA-1 

would come from Monticello Reservoir, groundwater-use impacts would be restricted to aquifer 

dewatering during the building phase. Because this assessment is similar to the one found in 

Section 4.2.2.2, in that (1) the underlying aquifers demonstrate generally low permeability and 

(2) excavation dewatering is likely to be temporary and of limited volume, the impact is 

considered minimal.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-54 April 2011

Building and operational activities that could affect surface-water quality include hydrologic 

alterations (e.g., creek or stream drainages or realignment), and water-treatment plant and 

cooling-tower blowdown discharges. As discussed in Section 4.2.3.1, the development of a 

stormwater pollution prevention plan with its call for implementation of BMPs would minimize 

water-quality impacts. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.1, the requirements of a NPDES-permitted 

outfall would ensure the protection of water quality through compliance with the Clean Water 

Act. Given the implementation of BMPs and the need for a SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit, the 

impact on surface-water quality is assessed to be minimal. The impacts of the building and 

operation of two new units at FA-1 on groundwater quality may occur due to leaching of spilled 

pollutants and effluents into the subsurface. However, based on experience with other similar 

facilities, the staff concludes that, with the implementation of BMPs, the impacts on 

groundwater quality from building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would 

likely be minimal.

Cumulative Impacts

In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

cumulative impacts analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that affect the same environmental resources. For the analysis of cumulative impacts 

on surface water, the geographic area of interest for the FA-1 site is considered to be the 

drainage basin of the Broad River upstream and downstream of the site because this is the 

resource that would be affected by the proposed project. Key actions that have past, present, 

and future potential impacts on surface-water supply and surface-water quality in the Broad 

River basin include operation of VCSNS Unit 1, operation of the FPSF that connects Monticello 

Reservoir with Parr Reservoir, the Newberry County Water and Sewer Authority (NCW&SA), 

Broad River Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), the NCW&SA Cannons Creek WWTP, and 

the SCE&G Parr Hydroelectric Generating Station (or Plant). These are the same as those 

identified as having potential impacts on surface-water supply and surface-water quality in the 

Broad River with the proposed action, which are described in Section 7.2.

Increases in consumptive use of water in the Broad River drainage are anticipated in the future 

and discussed in Section 7.2.1. This earlier discussion notes that Duke Energy is proposing to 

build two nuclear reactors at the William States Lee III Nuclear Station in Cherokee County, 

South Carolina (Duke 2009b). Duke has prepared an assessment of water availability and 

projected use for Broad River to determine the availability of water to support expansions of 

Duke’s generating capability (Duke 2007). Duke considered future agriculture and irrigation 

projects, power projections, public water supplies and wastewater projections, and future 

industrial use. Duke also considered future trends in water use such as water reuse, water 

conservation, and changes in regulations and the regional economy. The Duke study does not 

consider the impact of climate change. The study states that consumptive water use would 

increase in the Broad River drainage from the 241.5 cfs in 2006 to 412.9 cfs by 2070. Duke 

asserts that the study will enable it to plan for water needs and develop water-storage facilities 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-55 NUREG-1939

necessary to support the operation of its proposed facilities. Similarly, SCE&G asserts that the 

impact of consumptive use by VCSNS Units 1, 2, and 3 during low flows can be mitigated by 

using water from Monticello Reservoir.

As discussed in Section 7.2, the review team is aware of the potential climate changes that 

could affect the water resources available for cooling and the impacts of reactor operations on 

water resources for other users. Because the alternative sites are in the same region, the 

impact of climate change may be similar for all them.

The surface-water-use impacts of building and operating two nuclear power plants at FA-1 are 

dominated by the increased demands that would occur under normal operation relative to the 

no-action option for this site. The projected consumptive water use of proposed units is 

expected to be about 62 cfs or about 1 percent of the average river discharge just downstream 

of Parr Reservoir. Consequently, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of 

surface-water use would be SMALL.

As discussed in Section 7.2.1, groundwater supplies less than 10 percent of the water used for 

public supplies in Fairfield County (SCDHEC 2007) and no industrial, agricultural, or power 

generation uses are identified for groundwater in Fairfield County. Because groundwater-use 

impacts are limited to the temporary aquifer dewatering during the building phase, the review 

team concludes that the cumulative impacts of groundwater use would be SMALL. Waterquality information presented above for the impacts of building and operating two new units at 

the FA-1 alternative site would also apply to evaluation of cumulative impacts. As mentioned 

above, a SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit would be required to operate the two new nuclear 

units at this site. Effluent discharge through an NPDES-permitted outfall would ensure that the 

discharges complied with the Clean Water Act. Such permits are designed to ensure the 

protection of water quality. The staff also concludes that with the implementation of BMPs, the 

impacts on groundwater quality from building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 

site would likely be minimal. Of the projects listed in Table 7-1, only the SCE&G FPSP lies 

between the alternative and proposed discharge structures. There are no notable cumulative 

impacts anticipated with FPSP and FA-1. Given these factors, the review team concludes the 

cumulative impact on surface-water and groundwater quality would be SMALL.

9.3.3.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources

Site Description 

The following analysis includes impacts from building and operating the proposed new facilities 

on terrestrial ecology resources. The analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that affect the terrestrial ecological resources, including other Federal 

and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6. For the analysis of terrestrial 

ecological impacts at the FA-1 site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be a 6 miwide area centered on the FA-1 site, plus the associated transmission-line corridors. The 6-mi 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-56 April 2011

radius is expected to encompass the ecologically relevant landscape features and species. 

Because both sites are located in western Fairfield County and the transmission-line corridors 

for both projects traverse the same general landscape, the FA-1 area of interest substantially 

overlaps the VCSNS region described in Section 2.2.3.

The FA-1 site is surrounded by a mosaic of forests and farmland, typical of the Piedmont 

physiographic province. This province begins in the southernmost portion of New York State and 

stretches in a southwestward direction to approximately mid-Alabama (Godfrey 1980). The 

Piedmont has been heavily farmed and cultivated, which altered the pre-settlement landscape 

considerably (Kirkman et al. 2007). The FA-1 site and vicinity is primarily a human-altered 

landscape that has changed dramatically since the damming of the Broad River and Frees 

Creek, which created Parr and Monticello reservoirs, respectively. The FA-1 site and associated 

transmission-line corridors consist of forests, wetlands, open water, and residential areas. The 

landscape is predominately rural and habitats are typical of the Southern Outer Piedmont 

ecoregion, consisting of planted and naturally vegetated pine, mixed pine-hardwood, and 

hardwood forests. Common canopy species include white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak 

(Quercus falcata), black oak (Quercus velutina), mockernut (Carya alba), and pignut 

(Carya glabra) hickories, intermixed with some loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and shortleaf pine 

(Pinus echinata). Beech (Fagus grandifolia), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), tulip poplar 

(Liriodendron tulipifera), and red maple (Acer rubrum) are found on more mesic sites 

(Griffith et al. 2002). 

The associated proposed transmission-line corridors begin in the Southern Outer Piedmont 

ecoregion and cross the Sandhills into the Coastal Plain ecoregion (see Section 2.4.1.2). 

Vegetation community types in the Sandhills ecoregion include grassland and early successional 

habitats, Sandhills pine woodland, seepage slopes, ponds and depressions, blackwater stream 

systems, and river bottoms (SCDNR 2005). The sandy soils create a xeric environment that 

supports a distinctive type of vegetation dominated by longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) and turkey 

oaks (Quercus laevis). The Coastal Plain, the largest ecoregion in South Carolina, includes 

bottomland hardwood forest consisting of bottomland oaks, red maple, sweetgum, green ash 

(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), and cypress-gum swamps 

dominated by water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), bald cypress 

(Taxodium distichum), and pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) (Griffith et al. 2002).

Common wildlife associated with the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion that may occur on the 

FA-1 site and associated transmission-line corridors includes white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), 

opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Various bird, reptile, and 

amphibian species also reside on the FA-1 site and associated proposed transmission-line 

corridors (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009; SCDNR 2005). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-57 NUREG-1939

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which is delisted from the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) but still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, occurs in Fairfield and 

Newberry Counties. One Federally listed species is known to occur in Newberry County – the 

endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana). The proposed transmission-line corridors would 

cross Aiken, Chester, Colleton, Dorchester, Fairfield, Hampton, Lancaster, Lexington, 

Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, and Saluda Counties to connect to the proposed St. George 

substation in Colleton County (SCE&G, 2010b). Table 9-9 lists all Federally and State-listed 

species that occur on the FA-1 site and in the vicinity, as well as in the counties crossed by the 

proposed transmission-line corridors. SCE&G has stated that on-the-ground field surveys 

would be conducted prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities on the site or 

transmission-line corridors (SCE&G 2010b). 

Table 9-9. Federally and State-Listed Species That May Occur on the FA-1 Alternative Site, 

Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors

Scientific Name Common Name

Legal 

Status County

Mammals

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s big-eared bat SE Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Hampton, Orangeburg, Richland

Birds

Charadrius melodus Piping plover FT/ST Colleton

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson’s plover ST Colleton 

Elanoides forficatus American swallow-tailed 

kite

SE Dorchester

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Bald eagle BGEPA/SE Aiken, Chester, Colleton, 

Dorchester, Fairfield, Hampton, 

Lancaster, Lexington, Newberry, 

Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda

Mycteria americana Wood stork FE/SE Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Hampton, Lexington, Newberry, 

Richland

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker FE/SE Aiken, Chester, Colleton, 

Dorchester, Hampton, Lexington, 

Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda

Sterna antillarum Least tern ST Colleton

Reptiles

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle ST Aiken, Colleton, Hampton

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise SE Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Hampton
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-58 April 2011

Table 9-9. (contd)

Scientific Name Common Name

Legal 

Status County

Amphibians

Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods salamander FT/SE Orangeburg

Hyla andersonii Pine barrens treefrog ST Richland

Plethodon websteri Webster’s salamander SE Saluda

Pseudobranchus striatus Dwarf siren ST Hampton, Orangeburg

Rana capito Gopher frog SE Aiken, Dorchester, Hampton

Vascular Plants

Amphianthus pusillus Pool sprite FT/ST Lancaster, Saluda

Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower FE/SE Aiken, Lancaster, Lexington, 

Richland

Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz’s sunflower FE/SE Lancaster, Lexington

Isoetes melanospora Black-spored quillwort FE/SE Lancaster

Lindera melissifolia Pondberry FE/SE Dorchester

Lysimachia asperulifolia Rough-leaved loosestrife FE/SE Richland

Oxypolis canbyi Canby’s dropwort FE/SE Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, 

Orangeburg, Richland

Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella FE/SE Aiken, Saluda

Trillium reliquum Relict trillium FE/SE Aiken

Sources: SCE&G 2009d; SCDNR 2010; FWS 2010 

BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FE = Federally listed as endangered; FT = Federally listed as 

threatened; SE = State listed as endangered; ST = State listed as threatened

Building Impacts

Based on a preliminary site layout of the footprint provided by SCE&G, approximately 3.1 ac of 

wetlands present on the site would be affected during building activities for the two proposed 

units (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G states that the nuclear facility would be sited to avoid wetlands 

whenever possible and potential impacts on wetlands near building zones would be minimized 

through the use of established BMPs (SCE&G 2010b).

Table 9-8 provides information about the number, route, and area of the proposed transmissionline corridors that would serve the proposed new facilities at the FA-1 alternative site. Acreages 

were determined by calculating the total number of miles and acres of clearing required for rightof-way widening and/or building activities (SCE&G 2009d). SCE&G and Santee Cooper would 

both have a portion of the new transmission lines and details are provided in Table 9-10 and 

Table 9-11 (SCE&G 2009d). SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with nuclear facility 

and transmission-line creation would be conducted according to Federal, State, and local 

regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper procedures, good 

construction practices, and established BMPs (SCE&G 2010b). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-59 NUREG-1939

Table 9-10. SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the FA-1 Alternative Site

Transmission-Line 

Segment

Length of 

Corridor 

(mi)

Acres of 

Corridor

Acres of 

Forested 

Wetlands

Acres of 

Nonforested 

Wetlands

Acres of 

Open Water

Fairfield-St. George 137 1535 214 41 19

Fairfield-Lake Murray 24 64 1 -- 2

Fairfield-VCSNS 6 186 2 -- 6

Fairfield-Killian 39 452 21 -- 1

Total 206 2237 238 41 28

Source: SCE&G 2009d

NOTE: Acreages were determined by calculating the total number of miles and acres of clearing required for 

right-of-way widening and/or building activities.

Table 9-11. Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the FA-1 Alternative Site

Wetlands Estimate

New Corridor 

(21 mi, 255 ac)

Existing Corridor 

(217 mi, 3302 ac)

Total Corridor 

(3557 ac)

Acres

Percent of 

Corridors Acres

Percent of 

Corridors Acres

Percent of 

Corridors

Hydric soils 20 8 1134 34 1154 32

NWI wetlands 14 5 244 7 258 7

Source: SCE&G 2009d

NOTE: Acreages were determined by calculating the total number of miles and acres of clearing required for right-ofway widening and/or building activities.

NWI = National Wetlands Inventory

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have influenced terrestrial resources include 

the development and operation of VCSNS Unit 1, located approximately 5.5 mi south-southwest 

of the FA-1 site. The building of Unit 1 required the creation of Monticello Reservoir by 

damming Frees Creek. This reservoir flooded approximately 6800 ac of terrestrial habitat 

(SCE&G 2010b). The development of the SCE&G Parr Hydroelectric Generating Station (or 

Plant), located approximately 6.9 mi downstream on the Broad River, dammed the Broad River 

and created Parr Reservoir. This reservoir flooded approximately 4400 ac of terrestrial habitat. 

The Vulcan Materials Company/Blair Quarry, approximately 5 mi north of the FA-1 site and the 

FPSF, approximately 4.1 mi downstream on the Broad River, also contributed to the loss of 

terrestrial habitat. There are no major current projects in the geographic area of interest that 

would cumulatively affect terrestrial ecological resources in a similar way.

Proposed future actions that would affect terrestrial resources in a similar way to development 

at the FA-1 site include the proposed SCE&G Combined Site Emergency Operations Facility, 

which is expected to be sited as close as 5 mi from the proposed FA-1 alternative site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-60 April 2011

Transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the designated geographic region of 

interest and future urbanization would also be expected to occur. There are, however, several 

areas within the geographic region of interest that would continue to be managed for the benefit 

of wildlife, including (but not limited to) Sumter National Forest and Parr Hydro Wildlife 

Management Area. 

Impacts on wildlife habitat from building two nuclear units and supporting facilities would be 

unavoidable. Activities that would affect wildlife include land clearing and grading (temporary 

and permanent), filling and or draining of wetlands, increased human presence, heavy 

equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, and fugitive dust. These activities would 

likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the development areas. Some wildlife, including 

important species, would perish or be displaced during land clearing for any of the above 

projects as a consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation, and competition for remaining 

resources. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be 

at greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, many of which 

would be displaced to adjacent communities. Undisturbed land adjacent to the project could 

provide habitat to support displaced wildlife, but increased competition for available space and 

resources could affect population levels.

Wildlife would also be subjected to impacts from noise and traffic, and birds could be injured if 

they collide with tall structures. The impact on wildlife from noise is expected to be temporary 

and minor. The creation of new transmission-line corridors could be beneficial for some 

species, including those that inhabit early successional habitat or use edge environments, such 

as white-tailed deer, northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), eastern meadowlark 

(Sturnella magna), and the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Birds of prey, such as redtailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) would likely exploit newly created hunting grounds. Forested 

wetlands within the corridors would be converted to and maintained in a herbaceous or scrubshrub condition that could provide improved foraging habitat for some waterfowl and wading 

birds. However, fragmentation of forests could adversely affect species that are dependent on 

large tracts of continuous forested habitat.

The review team concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from building two new 

nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the FA-1 site would be noticeable, but not 

destabilizing.

Operational Impacts

Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the FA-1 

site are primarily attributable to the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines. 

Impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants from cooling-tower drift cannot be 

evaluated in detail in the absence of information about the type (mechanical or natural draft), 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-61 NUREG-1939

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 about the type 

(mechanical or natural draft for a wet cooling system; dry for a dry system) and number of 

cooling towers at the 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 nuclear power plants in general, including those with various numbers and types of cooling 

towers. On this basis, the review team 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 would be minor.

For mechanical draft cooling towers, the anticipated noise level from cooling-tower operation is 

anticipated to be 55 dBA at 1000 ft (SCE&G 2010b). This noise level is well below the 80 to 

85 dBA threshold at which birds and small mammals are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 

1980). Thus, noise from operating cooling towers at the FA-1 site would not be likely to disturb 

wildlife beyond 1000 ft from the source. Consequently, the review team concludes that the 

impacts of cooling-tower noise on wildlife would be minimal.

The impacts associated with transmission-line operation consist of bird collisions with 

transmission lines and the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on flora and fauna. The 

impacts associated with transmission-line corridor maintenance activities include alteration of 

habitat due to cutting and herbicide application, in floodplains and wetlands as well as uplands.

Transmission lines and associated structures pose a potential avian collision hazard. Bird 

collisions with transmission lines are recognized as being of minor significance at operating 

nuclear power plants, including transmission-line corridors 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 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.

EMFs are unlike other agents (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation) that have an adverse 

impact in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

exist, are subtle (NRC 1996). A 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 recognized as being of small significance at operating 

nuclear power plants, including transmission systems with variable numbers of power lines 

(NRC 1996). Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed by addition of new transmission 

lines for new nuclear units would be negligible.

Existing roads providing access to the existing transmission-line corridors at the alternative sites 

would likely be sufficient for use in any expanded corridors; however, new roads would be 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-62 April 2011

required during the building of new transmission-line corridors. Management activities (cutting 

and herbicide application) related to transmission-line corridors and related impacts on 

floodplains and wetlands in transmission-line corridors are recognized as being of minor 

significance at operating nuclear power plants, including those with transmission-line corridors 

of variable widths (NRC 1996). The review team assumes that the same methods of building 

and vegetation management of corridors currently used by SCE&G and Santee Cooper would 

be used in the establishment and maintenance of the new corridors. Consequently, the 

incremental effects of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and associated impacts on 

floodplains and wetlands posed by expanding existing corridors or the addition of a new 

transmission-line corridor for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

No other past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that 

would significantly affect terrestrial habitat and wildlife, including important species in ways 

similar to those associated with the operation of two new units at the FA-1 site.

The review team concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from operating two new 

nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the FA-1 site would be minimal.

Summary Statement

Impacts on terrestrial ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

SCE&G and the review team’s independent review. There are past, present and future 

activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect terrestrial ecology in ways similar to 

the building of two nuclear units at the FA-1 site (Table 9-6). The FA-1 site and some of the 

associated transmission–line corridors are natural habitats that would be substantially altered by 

development and maintenance activities, noticeably affecting the level and movement of 

terrestrial wildlife populations in the area of interest. Other anticipated development projects 

would further alter wildlife habitats and migration patterns in the surrounding landscape. The 

review team therefore concludes that the cumulative impacts on baseline conditions for 

terrestrial ecological resources would be MODERATE. The contribution to the impacts from 

building and operating the proposed units would not, however, likely result in destabilization of 

terrestrial resources or populations. Unlike at the VCSNS site, where onsite development 

activities would affect mostly planted pine forest with soils previously disturbed from building 

VCSNS Unit 1, site preparation on the FA-1 would affect substantial areas of natural vegetation 

on undisturbed soils. Building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would

therefore be a significant contributor, together with the transmission-line impacts, to the 

MODERATE impact conclusion.

9.3.3.4 Aquatic Resources

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

aquatic ecology resources. The FA-1 site is a greenfield site located approximately 5 mi from 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-63 NUREG-1939

the existing VCSNS on the eastern bank of the Broad River. As described by SCE&G (2009e), 

the Monticello Reservoir would be used to supply makeup water at the FA-1 alternative site, and 

the blowdown line would be located near the upper extent of Parr Reservoir in the Broad River. 

The geographic area of interest is considered to be same as for VCSNS as described in Section 

7.3.2 and includes the Broad River drainage basin upstream and downstream of the site,

Monticello Reservoir, and corresponding intermittent and seasonal streams on the VCSNS site. 

In addition, waterbodies crossed by the transmission-line corridors are considered as described 

for terrestrial resources in Section 9.3.3.1, and include the Santee River basin, Broad River 

basin, Catawba River basin, Ashepoo, Combahee, Edisto river basin, and Pee Dee River basin.

Historically, the Parr Reservoir was created in 1914 by installing a 2000-ft-long dam across the 

Broad River at Parr Shoals (Figure 2-3) SCE&G (2010b). Before 1977, the surface area of the 

reservoir was 1850 ac. In 1977, the reservoir level was raised 9 ft, which increased the surface 

area to approximately 4400 ac. Parr Reservoir is approximately 7 mi long and has an average 

water depth of 15 ft (SCE&G 2010b). Because of the operation of the FPSF, hydrologic 

patterns in the Parr Reservoir are variable. Generally, water from the Monticello Reservoir is 

released through the FPSF into Parr Reservoir throughout the day and early evening to provide

hydroelectric power at the FPSF, resulting in a net southward flow in Parr Reservoir. During the 

night, when electrical demand is lower, water from the Parr Reservoir is pumped upward into 

the Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2010b).

Flow conditions and the 4-day retention time of water in Parr Reservoir generally promote high 

dissolved-oxygen levels and turbid conditions SCE&G (2010b). According to SCDHEC (2007), 

water conditions are not optimal for supporting aquatic life at the two SCDHEC water-quality 

monitoring stations on Parr Reservoir, located near the FPSF and near Parr Shoals Dam, 

respectively. The total phosphorus concentrations upstream of the site above the 

intake/discharge canal for the FPSF were found to exceed the standards for supporting aquatic 

life uses (SCDHEC 2007). At the downstream station near Parr Shoals Dam, elevated copper 

concentrations were deemed to exceed the aquatic life criterion; therefore, conditions are not 

optimal for supporting aquatic life at this site. There are no fish-consumption advisories in Parr 

Reservoir (SCDHEC 2007).

Monticello Reservoir

The Monticello Reservoir was formed by damming Frees Creek, a small tributary of the Broad 

River that flowed into Parr Reservoir approximately 1 mi upstream of Parr Shoals Dam (SCE&G 

2010b). The reservoir is hydraulically connected to Parr Reservoir via the FPSF, and it serves 

both as an upper pool for the FPSF and as a cooling pond for VCSNS Unit 1 (Figure 2-1). To 

the northeast, the reservoir contains a subimpoundment (Figure 2-3), which is a 300-ac area 

owned by SCE&G and co-managed by SCE&G and SCDNR (SCE&G 2010b; SCDNR 2002). 

The subimpoundment fishery is managed differently from the main reservoir in that SCDNR 

regulates lower allowable catch limits and limits boat operations to electric motors (SCDNR 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-64 April 2011

2002). The Monticello Reservoir, excluding the subimpoundment, is approximately 6 mi long 

with a total surface area of 6500 ac. The average water depth is 59 ft and the maximum depth 

is 126 ft (SCE&G 2010b).

Between 2000 and 2004, SCDHEC evaluated the water quality within the Broad River basin to 

assess the overall health and conditions of aquatic areas throughout the basin. As part of this 

assessment, SCDHEC monitored four stations in Monticello Reservoir (Figure 2-12). The 

closest station to the proposed FA-1 site, Station B-328, yielded water-quality parameters 

(e.g., dissolved oxygen, pH, toxins, turbidity, nutrients) that met the compliance criteria and 

standards for supporting aquatic life. Throughout the 5-year monitoring period, Station B-328 

yielded indications of improving conditions via a reduction in 5-day biochemical oxygen demand, 

turbidity, fecal coliform, and total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations (SCDHEC 2007). 

Based on analysis of fish tissue, there are no fish consumption advisories on Monticello 

Reservoir (SCDNR 2009c).

A comprehensive list of aquatic species present in Parr and Monticello reservoirs for proposed 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 has been established in Section 2.4.2.3 of this EIS. Due to the close 

proximity of the FA-1 alternative site to the existing VCSNS site, the community composition of 

aquatic biota associated with the FA-1 site is likely similar to the existing VCSNS site.

Recreationally Important Species

The identification of species deemed to be recreationally important was derived from published 

creel surveys (Christie and Stroud 1998, 1999) and game fish outlined in the SCDNR freshwater 

fishing rules and regulations document (SCDNR 2009e). Section 2.4.2.3 provides a detailed 

description of some of these species and their life histories associated with Monticello 

Reservoir. 

In South Carolina, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) are among the most sought-after 

sport fish (Bulak and Crane 2009). While largemouth bass occur within waters near the VCSNS 

site and accounted for 15 to 19 percent of the fishing effort in Monticello Reservoir during the 

late 1990s, SCDNR creel surveys indicate that fishing effort in Monticello Reservoir was 

primarily directed at channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and blue catfish (I. furcatus) (Christie 

and Stroud 1998, 1999). Data pertaining to fishing efforts do not exist for Parr Reservoir; 

however, efforts purportedly target catfish species in this reservoir as well (Hayes 1999).

Invasive Species

Of the list of invasive species considered to be a management concern within South Carolina, 

two plant species, two fish species, and one mollusk species are known to occur in the Parr and 

Monticello reservoirs and are listed in Table 9-12.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-65 NUREG-1939

Table 9-12. Aquatic Invasive Species Documented to Occur in the Vicinity of the FA-1 

Alternative Site

Common Name

Scientific 

Name Type Invasive Attributes

Occurrence at 

the VCSNS Site

Alligatorweed Alternanthera 

philoxeroides

Freshwater 

plant

Aggressive, rapidly colonizing 

plant, impacts flow and uptake of 

water

Parr Reservoir

Water primrose Ludwigia 

uruguayensis

Freshwater 

plant

Rhizomatous, chokes shorelines, 

affects water use and access, 

decreases flow, clogs waterintake structures

Parr Reservoir

Blue catfish Ictalurus 

furcatus

Freshwater 

fish

Can tolerate a range of 

environmental conditions, 

piscivorous, competes for prey 

resources with native catfish

Parr Reservoir, 

Monticello 

Reservoir

White perch Morone 

americana

Freshwater 

fish

Competes with recreationally 

important fish such as white bass 

and crappie

Parr Reservoir, 

Monticello 

Reservoir

Asian clam Corbicula 

fluminea

Freshwater 

clam

Competes with native mollusks 

for food and space, alters 

substrate conditions, high 

densities clog water-intake 

structures 

Parr Reservoir

Sources: SCDNR 2008; SCE&G 2010b

Survey efforts included multiple methodologies and spanned multiple spatial and temporal scales.

Critical Habitats

No critical habitat has been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the 

vicinity of the FA-1 site. However, critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona 

decorata) is present in waterbodies proposed for transmission-line crossing in Chester and 

Lancaster Counties. Designated critical habitat includes 103.2 km of streams and rivers in 

South Carolina that occur in conjunction with the known populations. The lateral boundaries of 

the critical habitats for the Carolina heelsplitter are denoted by the ordinary high-water mark 

along channel edges (67 FR 44502). 

Federally and State-Listed Species

There are no known occurrences of threatened or endangered species at the FA-1 alternative 

site. However, activities to create new transmission-line corridors could potentially affect 

Federally, proposed Federally, and State-listed freshwater species and would require 

appropriate Federally or State-mandated mitigation. The proposed transmission-line corridors 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-66 April 2011

would cross five counties in the South Carolina Piedmont eco-region (Chester, Fairfield, 

Lancaster, Newberry, and Saluda) and seven counties in the South Carolina Coastal Plain

(Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, Lexington, Orangeburg, and Richland) (SCE&G 2010b).

Table 9-13 lists all Federally, proposed Federally, and State-listed species that may occur on 

the FA-1 site, the vicinity, and in the counties crossed by the proposed transmission lines.

Table 9-13. Federally, Proposed Federally, and State-Listed Aquatic Species and Critical 

Habitat That May Occur on the FA-1 Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and 

Associated Transmission-Line Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name Status County

Reptiles

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle FT/ST Colleton

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle FE Colleton

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle FE Colleton

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley sea turtle FE Colleton

Fish

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon FE/SE Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, 

Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland

Acipenser oxyrinchus

oxyrinchus

Atlantic sturgeon PFE Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, 

Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland

Etheostoma collis Carolina darter SE Fairfield, Richland 

Mollusks

Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter FE/SE Chester, Fairfield, Lancaster, Richland, 

Newberry, Saluda, Lexington

Critical Habitat

Lasmigona decorata Flat Creek CH Lancaster

Sources: SC&EG 2010b; MACTEC 2008; FWS 2010; SCDNR 2010; 67 FR 44502, 75 FR 61904

FE = Federally Endangered, SE = State Endangered, FT = Federally Threatened, PFE = Proposed Federally,

ST = State Threatened, CH = Critical Habitat

Santee Cooper has stated that on-the-ground field surveys would be conducted prior to 

commencement of ground-disturbing activities within transmission-line corridors 

(MACTEC 2008).

There are four Federally listed species of sea turtles in South Carolina. The loggerhead sea 

turtle (Caretta caretta) is listed as threatened, whereas the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas),

leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys 

kempii) are listed as endangered (FWS 2008). The loggerhead sea turtle is also listed as a 

State threatened species for Colleton County (SCDNR 2010). The siting of the FA-1-Varnville 

transmission-line corridor is projected to run to the west of Interstate Highway 95 (I-95), which is 

well over 50 mi from the coastline, and will not cross any marine habitats (SCE&G 2009d). 

Therefore, although the four species of sea turtles occur in Colleton County, no activities 

associated with installation of a new transmission-line corridor for the FA-1 site would affect 

these species.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-67 NUREG-1939

The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is a State and Federal endangered species 

(FWS 2008). The shortnose sturgeon has not been reported to occur in the vicinity of the FA-1 

site, but the routing of transmission-line corridors for this alternative site is proposed to occur 

within seven South Carolina counties that are associated with the occurrence of shortnose 

sturgeon: Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, Lexington, Orangeburg, and Richland 

Counties. The shortnose sturgeon was initially listed as a Federally endangered species in 

1967 and is designated as a species of highest conservation priority by SCDNR (McCord 2006; 

NMFS 1998). This amphidromous species uses freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats to 

complete its life cycle (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006; NMFS 1998). In South Carolina, 

populations of shortnose sturgeon exist in the Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto rivers (flowing 

to St. Helena Sound); the Pee Dee, Waccamaw, and Black rivers (flowing to Winyah Bay); and 

the Savannah, Cooper, and Santee rivers. There is also a small landlocked population of 

shortnose sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper Lake system (Collins et al. 2003).

In freshwater habitats, shortnose sturgeon are associated with soft bottom substrates in deep 

water. In South Carolina, spawning occurs in freshwaters characterized by low-to-moderate 

velocities and over substrates that include clay, sand, gravel, and woody debris (Rohde et al. 

2009; McCord 2006). Eggs are adhesive and survival is reportedly dependent on water having 

little turbidity (McCord 2006).

The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) is not currently listed either Federally 

or by the State of South Carolina. However, on October 6, 2010, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) published in the Federal Register (75 FR 61904) a proposed rule for listing the 

Carolina and South Atlantic distinct population segments of the Atlantic sturgeon as endangered 

under the ESA. In light of this proposed listing, the review team is now considering the Atlantic 

sturgeon in its analysis. 

Characteristics of the early life-history attributes of Atlantic sturgeon, such as age at seaward 

migration and residence time in freshwater habitats, varies within natal streams as well as 

across geographic regions (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Juveniles migrate from spawning 

areas toward saline habitats where individuals spend months to years rearing in estuarine 

environments. In marine environments, Atlantic sturgeon make extensive migrations from their 

natal estuary presumably to productive foraging grounds (ASSRT 2007). Spawning is believed 

to occur in flowing water between the salt wedge and the fall line of large rivers. Like the 

shortnose sturgeon, spawning adults generally migrate upriver during the spring (February to 

March) in southern rivers. While Atlantic sturgeon have been noted to occur in many South 

Carolina coastal rivers during the past several decades, specific information detailing population 

records for each of these rivers is not readily available. There appears to be little quantitative 

evidence linking the occurrence of Atlantic sturgeon in specific streams and rivers to spawning 

populations in South Carolina. South Carolina rivers with recent documented occurrences of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-68 April 2011

Atlantic sturgeon include Waccamaw, Pee Dee, Santee, Cooper, Edisto, Combahee, 

Coosawatchie, and Savannah Rivers (ASSRT 2007).

The Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis) is listed as a State threatened species in Richland 

County and as a State endangered species in Fairfield County (SCDNR 2010). While there are 

reported accounts pertaining to the distribution of the Carolina darter within the Piedmont 

ecoregion, the overall abundance of this species is unknown (Hayes and Bettinger 2006).

The Carolina heelsplitter is a Federally listed aquatic species (FWS 2008). This species has 

never been found in Monticello Reservoir, Parr Reservoir, or in nearby streams or creeks in the 

vicinity of the proposed alternative site. However, there are six known populations of the 

Carolina heelsplitter within the state defined by geographic location: (1) Savannah River 

tributaries in Edgefield and McCormick Counties, (2) Cuffeytown Creek in Greenwood and 

McCormick Counties, (3) Lynches River and Flat Creek in Chesterfield, Kershaw, and Lancaster 

Counties, (4) Gills Creek in Lancaster County, (5) Fishing Creek in Chester County, and (6) Bull 

Run Creek in Chester County (SCDNR 2006b; 67 FR 44502).

Building Impacts

Building impacts at the FA-1 alternative site would include a new intake structure located on the 

north end of Monticello Reservoir and a new discharge structure in Parr Reservoir on the Broad 

River. In addition, activities that include land clearing associated with new infrastructure (roads, 

site footprint) and upgrading existing features (rail lines) would affect approximately 5344 linear 

feet of a total of approximately 32,463 linear feet of onsite streams by increasing the number of 

stream crossings, or by filling streams and removing riparian corridors to accommodate site 

infrastructure (SCE&G 2010a). Building activities would also affect 1.4 ac of a total of 133.8 ac 

of open water present on the proposed FA-1 site (SCE&G 2010a). Building impacts would likely 

include impacts on water quality stemming from direct (e.g., dredging, shoreline excavation) and 

indirect sources (e.g., stormwater runoff, sedimentation). Impacts from building activities in and 

near water resources would be minimized through the use of established BMPs (SCE&G 2010b). 

Transmission lines and corridors are described in Section 9.3.3.1. For SCE&G lines, 

approximately 36,075 linear feet of streams and 28 ac of open water are located within the new 

transmission-line rights-of-way (SCE&G 2009d). The Santee Cooper transmission-line corridors 

associated with the FA-1 site would include new crossings at an estimated seven stream

crossings, three of which would be State navigable waters (MACTEC 2009). One transmissionline corridor would fall within the jurisdiction of the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management 

Act (SC Code Ann. 48-39-10), thus requiring additional review and certification. SCE&G stated 

that all land clearing associated with transmission-line creation would be conducted according to 

Federal State, and local regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G or Santee Cooper 

procedures, good construction practices, and established BMPs (SCE&G 2010b). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-69 NUREG-1939

Cumulative impacts that could result from the building of two new units at the FA-1 site would be 

similar to those discussed in Section 7.3.2 of this EIS because the affected waterbodies are the 

same. Impacts on aquatic biota are expected to be localized and short-term. Past actions in 

the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected aquatic resources include the 

building of VCSNS Unit 1, construction of the FPSF that connects Monticello Reservoir with Parr 

Reservoir, and the creation of Parr Reservoir to provide a pool for the original Parr Hydroelectric 

Plant located on the Broad River approximately 7 mi southwest of proposed FA-1 alternative 

site. Proposed future actions that have potential to affect aquatic resources include 

transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the designated geographic region of 

interest, and future urbanization.

Operational Impacts

Aquatic impacts associated with operation of the FA-1 alternative site would be associated 

primarily with intake-related impingement and entrainment losses of aquatic biota within the 

Monticello Reservoir, water-quality impacts on Parr Reservoir stemming from the discharge line, 

and stormwater drainage impacts. Specifications associated with the intake structure would 

include a closed-cycle cooling system designed to meet the EPA’s 316(b) Phase I requirements 

for new facilities (66 FR 65256). The maximum through-screen velocity at the cooling-water 

intake would be less than 0.5 fps and the intake would not be located near critical habitat. Thus, 

if the proposed units were located at the FA-1 site, the anticipated impacts on aquatic 

communities from impingement and entrainment within Monticello Reservoir would be minor.

Operational impacts associated with water quality and discharge cannot be precisely 

determined without additional detailed analysis. However, based on the review team’s 

experience with other facilities such as the VCSNS Unit 1, the review team concludes that, with 

proper design, the impacts on aquatic resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the 

FA-1 site would be minimal.

Habitat restoration activities may result in the re-introduction of diadromous species in Parr 

Reservoir (FWS 2001). Six diadromous species targeted for restoration in the Broad River 

basin have not been documented in the vicinity of the Parr Reservoir. However, it is possible 

that the American eel (Anguilla rostrata), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring 

(A. aestivalis), hickory shad (A. mediocris), shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon may 

establish spawning habitat in Parr Reservoir following restoration activities. Reevaluation of 

water-flow criteria to accommodate spawning activities by diadromous fish may be needed, as 

described for the striped bass in Section 5.3.2.1. However, impacts from thermal, chemical, and 

physical scouring of discharge are expected to be minimal to reintroduced diadromous fish 

species, as previously described in Section 5.3.2.1.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-70 April 2011

The review team also concludes that operational impacts on aquatic biota from maintenance 

of the transmission-line corridors would also be minimal assuming that appropriate BMPs 

are used.

Cumulative impacts that could result from the operation of two new units at the FA-1 site would 

be similar to those discussed in Section 7.3.2 for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Past, present, or future 

actions in the geographic area of interest that would affect aquatic ecological resources include 

aquatic biota impacts from the operation of the following facilities: VCSNS Unit 1; the FPSF; the 

NCW&SA Broad River WWTP; NCW&SA Cannons Creek WWTP; Blair Quarry; SCE&G’s Parr 

Hydroelectric Plant; five licensed hydropower facilities upstream of Parr Reservoir; the proposed 

William States Lee III Nuclear Station in Cherokee County, South Carolina (Lee Nuclear 

Station); as well as the implementation of the Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage 

Restoration Plan (FWS 2001) and the Santee River Basin Accord (SRBA 2008). Anthropogenic 

activities such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of the nuclear facility 

may also contribute to cumulative impacts.

Summary Statement

Impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

SCE&G, the State of South Carolina, the FWS, NMFS, and the review team’s independent 

review. There are past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect 

aquatic ecology resources in ways similar to the building and operation of two units at the FA-1 

site. The existence of Parr and Monticello reservoirs that would be used by the FA-1 site for 

cooling eliminates much of the potential impact associated with water development needed for 

closed-cycle cooling for a new site. Due to the close proximity of the FA-1 site to VCSNS and 

the potential reliance of both sites on Monticello and Parr reservoirs for cooling, many of the 

potential impacts on aquatic resources in the two reservoirs would be the same. Proper siting of 

associated transmission lines, avoiding habitat for protected species, minimizing interactions 

with waterbodies and watercourses along the transmission-line corridors, and using BMPs 

during corridor preparation and tower placement would minimize impacts related to the 

transmission system. Based on the information provided by SCE&G, the State of South 

Carolina, FWS, NMFS, and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team 

concludes that the cumulative impacts of building and operating two new reactors on the FA-1 

site combined with other past, present, and future activities on aquatic resources in the Broad 

River drainage would be SMALL. 

9.3.3.5 Socioeconomics 

For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the FA-1 site, the geographic area of interest is 

considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the FA-1 site with special consideration of a fourcounty area, including Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, because that is 

where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts would be the greatest. In evaluating the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-71 NUREG-1939

socioeconomic impacts of site development and operation at the FA-1 site near Dawkins in 

Fairfield County, the review team undertook a reconnaissance survey of the region using readily 

obtainable data from the ER, the alternative site audit, and Federal, State, and local government 

agencies. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that could affect the same environmental resources, including other Federal and nonFederal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6. Impacts from both building and station 

operation are discussed.

Physical Impacts

Many of the physical impacts of building and operation would be similar regardless of the site. 

Building activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor, 

vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting (if used), and dust emissions. The use of public 

roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport materials and equipment. 

Offsite areas that would support building activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, and disposal 

sites) would be expected to already be permitted and operational. 

Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and 

visual intrusions (the latter are discussed under aesthetics and recreation). New units would 

produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling towers, transformers, turbines, generators, 

and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site also would be a source of noise. The review team 

assumed that the same standard noise protection and abatement procedures proposed for the 

VCSNS site would be used to control noise coming from the FA-1 site. This practice also would 

be expected to apply to all alternative sites. 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 alternative site.

The new units at the FA-1 site would likely 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. 

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that the physical impacts of building and operating Units 1 and 2 at 

the FA-1 site would be minimal.

Demography

The FA-1 site is located in Fairfield County in South Carolina, approximately 31 air mi northwest 

of the closest economic center, Columbia, South Carolina (2007 population 124,818). Due to 

the close proximity of FA-1 site to the VCSNS site, the review team assumed the in-migrating 

project workforce would be similarly distributed. Because 95 percent of the VCSNS workforce 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-72 April 2011

live in one of four counties – Fairfield (2007 population 23,333), Lexington (2007 population 

243,270), Newberry (2007 population 37,633), and Richland (2007 population 357,734) – these 

counties compose the economic impact area and are the focus of the following analysis (see 

Table 2-23). 

The construction of VCSNS Unit 1 provides additional context for what the potential cumulative 

impacts of building the new units at the FA-1 site would be. The NRC was completing its Final 

Environmental Statement (FES) for the operating license (OL) for VCSNS Unit 1 just as final 

construction of that unit was winding down over the 1979–1981 period. As such, the OL FES 

provides a glimpse at the observed socioeconomic impacts from that construction project. 

At that time the review team noted that the construction contractor commissioned a workforce 

survey to ascertain information such as the residence pattern of the construction workers. 

Of the approximately 2400 workers surveyed, 1913, or about 80 percent, came from within the 

VCSNS region, and 927, or nearly 50 percent, came from either Lexington or Richland Counties 

(NRC 1981). The review team also observed that more than 70 percent of the workers came 

from the Central Midlands area, with the remainder coming from outside the region. Currently, 

36.8 percent of the VCSNS workforce is located in Lexington County, 18.9 percent in Newberry 

County, 34.7 percent in Richland County, and 9.5 percent in Fairfield County. The in-migrating 

population would be expected to reside within this four-county area in the same pattern as the 

VCSNS workforce. At peak project employment, SCE&G would expect the onsite workforce to 

be 3600. Based on the close proximity of the FA-1 site to the VCSNS site, the review team 

used similar labor force assumptions and estimated that 50 percent of the workforce associated 

with site development (1800) would migrate to the four-county area with their families. Using 

South Carolina’s average household size of 2.53, this would bring the total in-migrating 

population to 4554. Considering that the estimate of the in-migrating population would be less 

than 1 percent of the 2007 population estimates for the four-county area, the regional and local 

demographic impacts of building the proposed two new units at the FA-1 site are expected to be 

minimal. Once the facility is operational, the workforce would include 930 operations and 

support workers. The review team expects that as much as 50 percent of these workers would 

migrate to the four-county area. The review team expects the demographic impacts would be 

similar to those estimated for the VCSNS site, based on the close proximity of the FA-1 site. 

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that the demographic impacts of building and operating two new 

nuclear units at the FA-1 site would be minimal. 

Taxes and Economy

Using reconnaissance-level information, the review team assumed that if the proposed nuclear 

facility were located at the FA-1 site, taxes and fee-in-lieu-of-taxes agreements would be similar 

to those estimated to occur at the VCSNS site. Corporate and personal income taxes along 

with sales and use taxes would be collected during both building and operations; however 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-73 NUREG-1939

property taxes would not be paid until operations begin. Once operations begin, SCE&G likely 

would have entered into a fee-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement with Fairfield County. Based on the 

agreement SCE&G has with the County in regard to VCSNS, which has an assessment ratio of 

4 percent and a special revenue credit of 20 percent of the fee-in-lieu-of-taxes payments during 

the first 20 years, SCE&G estimates VCSNS annual payments to be between $13.7 million and 

$31.6 million over 40 years of the license period. The review team does not expect significant 

growth in the Fairfield County tax base between now and the start of operations that could 

otherwise diminish the scale of the tax impact on county revenue. The contribution to the total 

property tax revenue for Fairfield County would increase by 150 percent to an amount that is 

more in each year than the current overall total property tax revenue of the county. Therefore, 

the review team concludes that property tax revenue impacts would be substantial and 

beneficial for Fairfield County. 

The four-county economic impact area had 313,374 people in the labor force in 2009 with an 

unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, somewhat under the State average of 11.7 percent. Fairfield 

and Newberry Counties have the smallest economies with a predominantly manufacturing base 

while Lexington and Richland Counties have larger service-based economies. The wages and 

salaries of the project workforce would have a multiplier effect that could result in increases in 

business activity, particularly in the retail and service sectors. 

SCE&G acquired Regional Input-Output Model System (RIMS) II economic multiplier values 

specific to this economic impact area from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2006). 

Using the RIMS multiplier of 2.04 (for utility construction industries), the influx of 1800 

construction jobs would create 1872 indirect jobs in the economic impact area. This would have 

a positive impact on the business community and could provide (1) opportunities for new 

businesses to get started and (2) increased job opportunities for local residents. Once the new 

units are operational, approximately 930 new operations and support jobs would be added to 

the local economy. Using the RIMS multiplier of 3.13 (for utility operations industries), an influx 

of 930 operations and support jobs would create 1981 indirect and induced jobs for a total of 

2911 jobs supported within the four-county economic impact area (see Section 5.4.3.1). The 

new jobs would constitute a minor beneficial impact on the four-county economic impact area. 

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that the economic and tax base impacts of building and operating 

two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would be minor in the four-county area, but would be 

substantial in Fairfield County.

Transportation and Housing 

A new access road would be constructed to access the FA-1 site. The plant entrance road 

would be accessed from SR-34 via Pearson Road and Dawkins Road. SC-34 is an east-west 

paved two-lane highway with a 2008 annual average daily traffic (AADT) count of 1600 vehicles 

between the Fairfield County line and SC-215, the closest segment measured by SCDOT 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-74 April 2011

(SCDOT 2009). SC-34 connects with SC-215 to the east and I-26 and US-176 to the west. A 

rail spur from the existing Norfolk Southern railroad would be constructed adjacent to the site. 

Based on the analysis in Section 4.5, an additional 1800 cars could be on the road at shift 

change. Also, project deliveries of 100 trucks per day are expected (SCE&G 2010a). Because 

access to the FA-1 site would be provided using two-lane county roads through the Dawkins 

area, the review team estimates traffic volumes during the project would likely represent a 50- to 

125-percent increase or more above baseline levels of affected roadways, based on analysis of 

the VCSNS site (see Section 4.4.4.1). The review team concludes that these impacts would be 

significant and would likely be especially acute during periods of shift change. These impacts 

would be further exacerbated by truck traffic and site delivery traffic that have no other route 

options available. The review team expects these impacts would be of short duration and 

temporary, and would be substantially mitigated by traffic management planning by SCE&G, but 

they would be noticeable in the local vicinity. Operation impacts would be significantly lower 

than the building phase impacts of traffic due to the much smaller workforce and because roads 

likely would have been improved during the building phase. 

Approximately 1800 construction workers are predicted to migrate into the region during peak 

project employment. Approximately 400 operations workers could migrate into the region by the 

time the facility becomes operational. Construction workers may choose to buy housing, rent, 

use mobile homes, or stay in a hotel/motel, while operations workers would likely choose to 

buy a house. According to the 2000 U.S. Census there were 246,119 housing units in the fourcounty economic impact area, of which 7738 in Lexington County, 2779 in Newberry County, 

9692 in Richland County, and 1416 in Fairfield County were vacant, for a total of 21,625 vacant 

units (SCE&G 2010b). The review team expects that the in-migrating workforce could be 

absorbed fairly easily by the region and the impacts would likely be minimal during both 

building and operation. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that transportation and housing impacts 

of building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would be minor across the 

four-county area, and would be noticeable in Fairfield County, though not destabilizing.

Public Services and Education

In-migrating construction workers and plant operations workers would likely affect local 

municipal water, wastewater treatment facilities, and other public services in the region. The 

in-migrating workers represent a small portion of the total population of Fairfield County and 

likely would not have a noticeable impact on their public services. During operations the impact 

on public services would likely be minimal. 

Within the four-county area there are 162 public schools serving almost 111,000 students, with an 

average student-to-teacher ratio of 13.3 to 1, as discussed in Section 2.5.2.7. The total number of 

students in the public school systems surrounding the FA-1 site has grown over the past decade 

as the population of the region as a whole has grown. The largest public school districts in the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-75 NUREG-1939

area plan to construct new schools prior to the start of major site-development activities. The 

number of in-migrating workers and their families is not likely to be significant and would be 

dispersed across the four-county area in roughly the proportion of the current operations 

workforce for VCSNS Unit 1 (see Table 4-5). Based on visits to the region and consultations with 

local officials, the review team expects that project-related students that would enter the local 

school systems would not noticeably alter current growth projections. During operation, this 

impact on schools would be significantly less due to the lower number of in-migrating students. 

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

review team concludes that the public services and education impacts of building and operating 

two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would be minor. 

Aesthetics and Recreation

The four-county area is a defined tourism region called Capital City/Lake Murray Country. The 

region includes Congaree National Park, parts of Sumter National Forest, and several large 

State Recreation Areas (see Table 2-26). Near the FA-1 site are several trails and State 

heritage preserves that offer wildlife viewing, hunting, camping, boating, fishing, and other 

recreational activities. The site is close to the Sumter National Forest. No recreation would 

take place on the FA-1 site during the project or over the life of the plant (SCE&G 2010b).

Most development would occur near the center of the property and wouldn’t be visible from afar 

except from elevated areas. The intake and outfall structures on the Broad River would be 

visible. During certain weather conditions, cooling-tower plumes may also be visible. The 

review team concludes that the visual impact of a nuclear facility on this site would be minor on 

the aesthetics and recreational resources in the area. The impacts would be similar to those at 

the VCSNS site. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that public aesthetics and recreation 

impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would be minimal.

Summary of Project-Related Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on existing buildings, 

transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span 

issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. In summary, 

on the basis of information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that the impacts of building and operating a new nuclear plant at the 

FA-1 site on socioeconomics would be minimal and adverse for most of the region but could be 

noticeable but not destabilizing for Fairfield County in terms of transportation impacts during the 

building phase. During operation, these impacts are expected to be minimal. Impacts on 

aesthetics are expected to be minor. The impacts on the Fairfield County tax base during 

operations likely would be substantial and beneficial; however only minor beneficial impacts 

would result in the rest of the region. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-76 April 2011

Cumulative Impacts

The projects identified in Table 9-6, particularly the future urbanization of the Columbia 

metropolitan area, have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, economic climate, 

and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased urbanization and 

industrialization. Because the projects within the review area identified in Table 9-6 would be 

consistent with applicable land-use plans and control policies, the review team considers the 

cumulative socioeconomic impacts from the projects to be minimal.

For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the FA-1 site, the geographic area of interest is 

considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the FA-1 site, with special consideration of 

Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, because that is where the review team 

expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. 

The FA-1 site is located in a rural area of western Fairfield County. The site itself is near the 

Monticello Reservoir, which is surrounded by wetlands and pine forest, with sparse residential 

development. The site is near metropolitan Columbia, the Richland County Seat and capital of 

South Carolina. However, Fairfield County is much more rural than Richland County, and is 

governed from the County Seat of Winnsboro. As the economic hub of the Central Midlands, the 

City of Columbia is the center of government and industry for a wide area in central South 

Carolina. Relatively recently, the I-26 corridor has seen significant commercial and residential 

development in the areas of West Columbia and Irmo. The University of South Carolina and 

several regional medical facilities have attracted a well-educated workforce to this area. Fort 

Jackson, a large military installation in Columbia, is supported by nearly 4000 civilian employees.

The cumulative impact analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions that could contribute to the cumulative socioeconomic impacts on a given region, 

including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6. The 

projects identified in Table 9-6 have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, 

economic climate, and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased 

urbanization and industrialization. Adverse cumulative impacts would include physical impacts 

(on workers and the local public, buildings, transportation, and visual aesthetics) and impacts on 

local infrastructures and community services (transportation; recreation; housing; water and 

wastewater facilities; police, fire, and medical services; social services; and schools).

The FA-1 site is located in Fairfield County, within 5 mi of the VCSNS site. As such, the 

economic impacts associated with the FA-1 site are expected to be similar to those analyzed in 

Sections 4.4 and 5.4, which are cumulative by nature. As indicated in Section 7.4, the 

economic impacts associated with activities listed in Table 9-6 have already have been 

considered as part of the socioeconomic baseline presented in Section 2.5. For example, the 

economic impacts of existing enterprises such as mining, other electrical utilities, etc., are part 

of the base used for establishing the RIMS II multipliers. Regional planning efforts and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-77 NUREG-1939

associated demographic projections formed the basis for the review team’s assessment of 

reasonably foreseeable future impacts. Thus, there are no cumulative impacts associated with 

building and operating the two proposed units at the FA-1 site beyond those already evaluated 

in Sections 4.4 and 5.4 for the VCSNS site.

The review team concludes there would be a SMALL and beneficial cumulative impact on tax 

revenues in the four county area and a LARGE and beneficial cumulative impact on tax 

revenues in Fairfield County. The review team also identified a MODERATE and adverse 

cumulative impact on the transportation in the Dawkins area that would be localized and 

temporary (limited to only “rush hour” traffic and the peak building employment period). The 

review team concludes that cumulative impacts on other socioeconomic impact categories 

would be SMALL and adverse. Building and operating a new plant at the FA-1 site would make 

a significant incremental contribution to both adverse and beneficial impact levels.

9.3.3.6 Environmental Justice

In addition to impacts from building and operations, the review team considered other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations at the FA-1 site, including 

other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6. For this analysis, 

the geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the FA-1 site. 

Because both sites are located in western Fairfield County, the FA-1 region substantially 

overlaps the VCSNS region described in Section 2.2.3.

The FA-1 site is located in a rural area of western Fairfield County. The site itself is near the 

Monticello Reservoir, which is surrounded by wetlands and pine forest, with sparse residential 

development. The site is near metropolitan Columbia, the Richland County Seat and capital of 

South Carolina. However, Fairfield County is much more rural than Richland County and is 

governed from the County Seat of Winnsboro. The immediate vicinity of the FA-1 site was 

affected substantially by the VCSNS Unit 1 construction and the creation of Monticello Reservoir 

as part of the FPSF project as land was acquired and cleared for development. 

From an environmental justice perspective, the review team determined there is a potential for 

minority populations to experience disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts. 

Although Richland County and immediately adjacent counties are urban population centers, 

there are a number of farms within the region. The review team found low-income, African 

American and aggregated minority populations that exceed the percentage criteria established 

in Section 2.6.1 and required further consideration in the environmental justice analysis. 

Several of these populations are clustered in the vicinity of the FA-1 site (see Figure 9-4 and 

Figure 9-5).
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-78 April 2011

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

Justice Selection Criteria at the FA-1 Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-79 NUREG-1939

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

Selection Criteria at the FA-1 Site
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-80 April 2011

Because the other projects described in Table 9-6 do not include any significant reasonably 

foreseeable changes in socioeconomic impacts within 50 mi of the FA-1 site, the review team 

concluded there would not be any significant additional cumulative environmental justice 

impacts in the region from those activities. Any economic impacts associated with activities 

listed in Table 9-6 already have been considered as part of the socioeconomic baseline 

presented in Section 2.5. For example, the economic impacts of existing enterprises such as 

mining, other electrical utilities, etc., are part of the base used for establishing the RIMS II 

multipliers. Regional planning efforts and associated demographic projections formed the basis 

for the review team’s assessment of reasonably foreseeable future impacts. 

Because of the proximity of the FA-1 site to the proposed VCSNS site, the review team relied 

upon its analysis and conclusions for the proposed site (see Sections 4.5 and 5.5 of this EIS) in 

determining the hypothetical impacts of construction at the FA-1 site. The review team based 

its environmental justice determinations on the methodology discussed in Section 2.6.1, 

including a closer look at potential areas of interest using a series of health and physical 

considerations. As found for the VCSNS site, the review team determined the only 

consideration that required greater scrutiny at the FA-1 site was related to roads and traffic. 

Under the limitations of a reconnaissance-level analysis, the review team found no other health 

or physical considerations and no unique characteristics or practices that could lead to a 

disproportionately high and adverse impact on any minority or low-income community within the 

FA-1 region.

Because access to the FA-1 site would be provided using two-lane roads through the Dawkins 

community, the review team estimates traffic volumes during building activities are likely to 

represent a 50- to 125-percent increase or more above baseline levels of affected roadways, 

based on analysis of the VCSNS site (see Section 4.4.4.1). The review team concludes that 

these impacts would be significant and would likely be especially acute during periods of shift 

change. These impacts would be further exacerbated by truck traffic and site delivery traffic that 

have no other route options available. The review team expects these impacts would be of 

short duration and temporary. Because the review team concluded noticeable impacts from 

project activities could occur in an area with an environmental justice population of interest, the 

activities would constitute a disproportionately high and adverse impact on local environmental 

justice populations. However, these impacts would be of short duration and temporary. 

Based on the above considerations, information provided by SCE&G, visits to the site, and the 

review team’s independent review, the review team concludes that within the context of the 

wider region, locating the proposed action at the FA-1 site would not contribute additional 

cumulative impacts beyond impacts described in Chapters 4 and 5 for the VCSNS site. The 

review team did not identify any other environmental pathways by which disproportionately high

and adverse impacts could affect minority or low-income populations or communities. The 

review team concludes that local disproportionately high and adverse impacts do not increase 

expected cumulative impacts on minority and low-income populations across the wider region. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-81 NUREG-1939

Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that cumulative environmental justice 

impacts associated with building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would be 

SMALL, with the exception of a limited MODERATE disproportionately high and adverse impact 

from traffic during peak project employment. Building two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site 

would be a significant contributor to these impacts.

9.3.3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources

The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating two new nuclear 

generating units at the FA-1 site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect cultural resources, including other 

Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6. For the analysis of 

cultural impacts at the FA-1 site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the Area of 

Potential Effect (APE) that would be defined for this proposed undertaking. This includes the 

physical APE, defined as the area directly affected by the site-development and operation 

activities at the site and transmission lines, and the visual APE. The visual APE is defined as 

an additional 1-mi radius around the physical APE as a reasonable assumption for defining a 

maximum distance from which the structures can be seen.

Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. For example, 

these activities include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of 

cultural resources. However, in developing its EISs, the review team relies upon 

reconnaissance-level information to perform its alternative site evaluation. Reconnaissancelevel information is data that are readily available from agencies and other public sources. It 

can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. To identify the historic and 

cultural resources at the FA-1 site the following information was used:

• SCE&G ER (SCE&G 2010b) – including the National Park Service National Register 

Information

• NRC Alternative Sites Visit, March 2009 (NRC 2010b).

The FA-1 site is a greenfield site that is forested and primarily undeveloped. Historically, the 

site and vicinity were largely undisturbed and likely contained intact archaeological sites 

associated with the past 10,000 years of human settlement. Over time, the FA-1 site has been 

disturbed by forestry practices (SCE&G 2009e). The physical and visual APEs for a proposed 

plant at the FA-1 site do not appear to have any historic properties located within the area likely 

to be affected by building or operating new plants. No archaeological and/or architectural 

surveys have been conducted at the FA-1 site.

Two significant cultural resources are known to be located within 2 mi of the FA-1 site (SCE&G 

2009e). These two sites are the McMeekin Rock Shelter and the Blair Mound, both of which are 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or the National Register) (SCE&G 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-82 April 2011

2009e). The project has the potential to affect resources through visual impacts from buildings 

and transmission lines. Impacts on these resources may occur as a result of significant 

alterations to the visual landscape within the geographic area of interest.

The footprint and land required to accommodate the building of two nuclear units on the FA-1 

site are described in Section 9.3.3.1. SCE&G has stated that as part of the site-selection 

process known cultural resource locations would be considered as avoidance areas (SCE&G 

2009f, g). SCE&G has also stated that if the proposed project was sited at the FA-1 site, 

identification of cultural resources would be accomplished through cultural resource surveys. 

The results would be used in the site-planning process to avoid cultural resource impacts. If 

significant cultural resources were identified by these surveys, SCE&G would also develop 

protective measures similar to what they have in place for the VCSNS site. In addition, 

inadvertent discovery procedures would be developed if cultural resources were discovered 

during site-development activities (SCE&G 2009f). 

The transmission lines associated with the two nuclear units on the FA-1 site are described in 

Section 9.3.3.1. If the proposed project was sited at the FA-1 site, the review team assumes 

SCE&G and Santee Cooper would conduct their transmission-line-related cultural resource 

activities in ways similar to what they have committed to do for the VCSNS site, as described in 

Section 4.6.

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected historic and cultural 

resources include forestry practices at the FA-1 site and any road development and logging 

activities associated with those practices. No current or planned projects were identified in 

Table 9-6 that may contribute to cumulative impacts on historic and cultural resources in the 

geographic area of interest. Activities associated with building two nuclear units and supporting 

facilities that can potentially directly affect historic and cultural resources include land-clearing, 

excavation, and grading activities. Given SCE&G’s site-planning process and no known cultural 

resources at the FA-1 site based on reconnaissance-level information, the impacts on cultural 

resources due to site-development activities would be negligible.

In addition, visual impacts from transmission lines may result in significant alterations to the 

visual landscape within the geographic area of interest. Given that there are no known cultural 

resources where the historic setting and character of the resources are important, the visual 

impacts would be negligible. The review team assumes that SCE&G and Santee Cooper would 

develop management agreements in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) similar to the ones that have been developed for VCSNS.

Impacts on historic and cultural resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the FA-1 

site include those associated with the operation of new units and maintenance of 

transmission lines. The review team assumes that the same procedures currently used by 

SCE&G and Santee Cooper would be used for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-83 NUREG-1939

Consequently, the incremental effects of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and 

operations of the two new units and associated impacts on cultural resources would be 

negligible in the physical and visual APEs.

Table 9-6 identifies projects within the geographic area of interest and includes transmission 

lines; transportation improvements described in the South Carolina Strategic Corridor System 

Plan (SCDOT 2009); other parks, forests, and reserves; and future urbanization. These 

projects could affect historic and cultural resources in a manner similar to those associated with 

the operation of two new units.

Cultural resources are nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

is cumulative. Based on the information provided by the applicant and the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building 

and operating two new nuclear generating units on the FA-1 site would be SMALL. This impactlevel determination reflects no known cultural resources that could be affected; however, if the 

FA-1 site was to be developed, then cultural resource surveys may reveal important historic 

properties that could result in greater cumulative impacts.

9.3.3.8 Air Quality

Because FA-1 is located only 5.5 mi from the VCSNS site, the air quality impacts of building and 

operating a nuclear facility at the FA-1 site would be similar to the air quality impacts at the 

VCSNS site. As described in Sections 4.7 and 5.7, the review team determined that the 

impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units on air quality at the VCSNS site would 

be SMALL. Therefore, the impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units on air 

quality at the FA-1 site would be minimal.

The FA-1 site is located in the Columbia Intrastate Air Quality Control Region, which is 

designated as being unclassified or in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQSs) (40 CFR 81.108). The resource area defined for this evaluation is 

Fairfield County, South Carolina. A single county was selected because designations of 

attainment or non-attainment are made on a county-by-county basis. As listed in Table 9-6, 

sources of gaseous emissions in Fairfield County include the VCSNS Unit 1 and the SCE&G 

Parr Steam Combustion Facility. Gaseous emissions from Unit 1 include sulfur oxides, carbon 

monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides associated with the intermittent operation of 

diesel generators (NRC 2004). The SCE&G Parr Combustion Facility located approximately 

2 mi south of the VCSNS site and uses four natural-gas turbines to generate electricity. 

Gaseous emissions from the Parr Combustion Facility include sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, 

hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Future development of the region around the VCSNS site 

could lead to increases in gaseous emissions related to transportation. Table 7-1 lists low-tomoderate potential for growth within Fairfield County. Given the intermittent operation of the 

diesel generators at both the existing Unit 1 and proposed Units 2 and 3, the low-to-moderate 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-84 April 2011

potential for growth in the county, and given the area is currently in attainment, the review team 

concludes the cumulative impacts, including the impacts from building and operating two new 

units on air quality, would be SMALL for criteria pollutants. 

Greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. As 

pointed out in Chapter 7, the impacts of the emissions are independent of emission location. 

Consequently, the discussions in the previous chapters and in Section 9.2.5 are applicable to 

two AP1000 reactors located at the FA-1 site. The impacts of greenhouse gas emissions at the 

FA-1 site considered in isolation would be minor, and the cumulative impact of greenhouse gas 

emissions would also be MODERATE, primarily due to national and world-wide impacts of 

emissions of greenhouse gases. Building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site 

would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impact.

9.3.3.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts

The following analysis considers nonradiological health impacts from building and operating the 

proposed new facilities. The analysis also includes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions that impact the nonradiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal 

projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6. For the analysis of nonradiological health impacts 

at the FA-1 site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the 6-mi area centered on 

the FA-1 site and the associated transmission-line corridors. The 6-mi radius is expected to 

encompass all nonradiological health impacts. Because the FA-1 site is located in close 

proximity to the VCSNS site, the geographic areas of interest overlap each other somewhat and 

are substantially the same in terms of characteristics. The VCSNS site vicinity (6-mi radius) is 

described in detail in Chapter 2.

Building Impacts

Nonradiological health impacts from building two new nuclear units on construction workers and 

members of the public at the FA-1 alternative site would be similar to those evaluated in 

Section 4.8. They include occupational injuries, noise, vehicle exhaust, and dust. Applicable 

Federal and State regulations on air quality and noise would be complied with during the sitepreparation and building phase. The FA-1 site is located in a rural area and building impacts 

would likely be negligible on the surrounding populations that are classified as medium- and 

low-population areas. 

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected nonradiological health 

include the development and operation of the VCSNS Unit 1, located approximately 5.5 mi 

south-southwest of the FA-1 site; the development of the SCE&G Parr Hydroelectric Plant, 

located approximately 6.9 mi downstream on the Broad River; the Vulcan Materials 

Company/Blair Quarry, approximately 5 mi north of the FA-1 site; and the FPSF, approximately 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-85 NUREG-1939

4.1 mi downstream on the Broad River. There are no major current projects in the geographic 

area of interest that would have a cumulative impact on nonradiological health in a similar way.

Proposed future actions that would affect nonradiological health in a similar way to development 

at the FA-1 site include the SCE&G Combined Site Emergency Operations Facility that may be 

located as close as 5 mi from the proposed FA-1 alternative site. Transmission-line creation 

and/or upgrading throughout the designated geographic region of interest and future 

urbanization would also be expected to occur. The review team concludes that the cumulative 

impacts on nonradiological health from building two new nuclear units and associated 

transmission lines at the FA-1 site would be minimal.

Operational Impacts

Occupational health impacts on operational employees would include those associated with the 

operation of cooling towers and transmission lines and they are fully described in Section 5.8. 

Based on the configuration of the proposed new units at the FA-1 site (closed-cycle, wet cooling 

system with mechanical draft cooling towers), etiological agents would not likely increase the 

incidence of waterborne diseases in the vicinity of the site. Impacts on workers health from 

occupational injuries, noise, and EMFs would be similar. Noise and EMFs would be monitored 

and controlled in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) regulations.

No past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

significantly affect nonradiological health in ways similar to those associated with the operation 

of two new units at the FA-1 site. The review team therefore concludes that the impacts on 

nonradiological health from operating two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines 

at the FA-1 site would be minimal.

Summary Statement

Impacts on nonradiological health from building and operation of two new units at the FA-1 site 

are estimated based in the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent 

evaluation. The review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts on construction 

workers and the public resulting from the building of two new nuclear units and associated 

transmission lines at the FA-1 site would be minimal. The review team also expects that the 

occupational health impacts on the operations employees and the public of two new nuclear 

units at the FA-1 site would be minimal. Finally, the review team concludes that cumulative 

impacts from related past, present, and future actions in the geographic area of interest to 

nonradiological health would be SMALL. The staff is not able to come to conclusions about the 

chronic impacts of EMFs on public health.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-86 April 2011

9.3.3.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts on the public and workers from 

building activities and operations for two nuclear units at the FA-1 alternative site. The analysis 

also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect 

radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-6. As described in Section 9.3.3, the FA-1 site is a greenfield site; there are currently 

no nuclear facilities on the site. The geographic area of interest is the area within a 50-mi radius 

of the FA-1 site. Facilities potentially affecting radiological health within this geographic area of 

interest are the existing VCSNS Unit 1, the proposed independent spent fuel storage (ISFSI) 

facility at the VCSNS Unit 1, the proposed Lee Units 1 and 2, and the Westinghouse Fuel 

Fabrication Plant outside of Columbia, South Carolina. In addition, there are likely to be 

hospitals and industrial facilities within 50 mi of the FA-1 site that use radioactive material.

The radiological impacts of building and operating the proposed two AP1000 plants at the FA-1 

site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These 

pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be well below 

regulatory limits. The impacts are expected to be similar to those at the VCSNS site.

The radiological impacts of the VCSNS Unit 1 include doses from direct radiation and liquid and 

gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways would result in low doses to people and biota 

offsite that would be well below regulatory limits as demonstrated by the ongoing radiological 

environmental monitoring program conducted around VCSNS Unit 1. In addition, the ongoing 

radiological environmental monitoring program conducted around VCSNS Unit 1 indicates that 

there are no significant cumulative radiological impacts from operation of the Westinghouse 

Fuel Fabrication Plant. The proposed ISFSI would produce negligible direct radiation offsite as 

discussed in Section 4.9.1. The ER submitted to the NRC as part of the application for the 

proposed plants at the Lee site indicates that operation of the proposed Lee reactors would 

result in radiological impacts from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. 

The Lee ER indicates that these pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite 

that would be well below regulatory limits (Duke 2009b). The NRC staff concludes that the dose 

from direct radiation and effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive 

material would be an insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact around the FA-1 site. 

This conclusion is based on data from the radiological environmental monitoring programs 

conducted around currently operating nuclear power plants. Based on the information provided 

by SCE&G and the NRC staff’s independent analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the 

cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the two proposed AP1000 plants 

and other existing and planned projects and actions in the geographic area of interest around 

the FA-1 site would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-87 NUREG-1939

9.3.3.11 Postulated Accident Impacts

The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from 

operations for two nuclear units at the FA-1 alternative site. The analysis also considers other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health from 

postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-6. As described in Section 9.3.3, the FA-1 site is a greenfield site; there currently are 

no nuclear facilities on the site. The geographic area of interest considers all existing and 

proposed nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted 

consequences (i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the FA-1 

alternative site. Existing facilities potentially affecting radiological accident risk within this 

geographic area of interest are the existing VCSNS Unit 1; H.B. Robinson Unit 1; Oconee 

Units 1, 2, and 3; Catawba Units 1 and 2; McGuire Units 1 and 2; and Vogtle Units 1 and 2. 

Other proposed reactors within this geographic area of interest include two AP1000 reactors at 

the Lee Nuclear Station and two AP1000 reactors at the Vogtle site. The Westinghouse 

Fuel Fabrication Plant outside of Columbia, South Carolina, is also within the geographic area 

of interest.

As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

of design basis accidents (DBAs) at the VCSNS site would be minimal for AP1000 reactors. 

DBAs are addressed specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet 

NRC safety criteria. The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions and the meteorology 

of the FA-1 and VCSNS sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

environmental consequences of DBAs at the FA-1 site would be minimal. Because the 

meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the FA-1 alternative site are expected to 

be similar to the proposed VCSNS site, risks from a severe accident for an AP1000 reactor 

located at the FA-1 alternative site are expected to be similar to those analyzed for the 

proposed VCSNS site. These risks for the proposed VCSNS site are presented in Tables 5-17 

and 5-19 and are well below the median value for current-generation reactors. In addition, as 

discussed in Section 5.11.2, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent cancer 

fatality risks are well below the Commission’s(a

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

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

) safety goals (51 FR 30028). For existing plants 

within the geographic area of interest (VCSNS Unit 1; H.B. Robinson Unit 1; Oconee Unit 1, 2, 

and 3; Catawba Units 1 and 2; McGuire Units 1 and 2; and Vogtle Units 1 and 2), the 

Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents 

are small (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). Finally, according to the Lee Nuclear 

Station Environmental Report (Duke 2009a) and the EIS for the Vogtle Early Site Permit (ESP) 

(NRC 2008a), the risks from these proposed sites are also well below current-generation 

reactors and meet the Commission’s safety goals. There is no irradiated fuel at the 

Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant, and the plant is designed to prevent inadvertent 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-88 April 2011

criticalities; therefore, the additional risk is not significant in the evaluation of the cumulative 

severe accident risk for a nuclear power plant at the FA-1 site. On this basis, the NRC staff 

concludes that the cumulative risks from severe accidents at any location within 50 mi of the 

FA-1 alternative site would be SMALL.

9.3.4 The Cope Generating Station Site 

This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

a two-unit nuclear power plant at the Cope Generating Station (CGS) site located in Orangeburg 

County, South Carolina, 1.5 mi southwest of the town of Cope. The following sections describe 

a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major resource area. The specific 

resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects of the proposed 

action if it were implemented at the CGS site and other actions in the same geographic area 

were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of NRC-authorized construction, 

operations, and preconstruction activities. Also included in the assessment are other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that could have 

meaningful cumulative impacts when considered together with the proposed action if 

implemented at the CGS site. Other actions and projects considered in this cumulative analysis 

are described in Table 9-14.

The CGS is located in a predominantly rural area. The undeveloped sections on the site consist 

primarily of mixed pine and hardwood stands, wetland mixed hardwood forest, and cypress-gum 

swamplands. Wetlands are predominantly located along the floodplain of the Edisto River 

(South Fork), which crosses the SCE&G property 1 mi south of the CGS. A conservation 

easement granted to the Congaree Land Trust encompasses and protects 400 ac of wetlands 

located along the Edisto River at the site. Figure 9-6 shows the CGS alternative site region.

Table 9-14. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

Considered in the Cope Generating Station Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Energy Projects

Cope Generating Station A 430-MW(e) coal-fired 

electrical generating plant

In same general location Operational(a)

VCSNS Unit 1 VCSNS Unit 1 consists of 

one 996-MW(e) nuclear 

power generating plant. 

About 65 mi north of Cope Operational(b)

Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant (VEGP)

Nuclear power generating 

plant with 2 units, VEGP 1 

(1109 MW(e)) and VEGP 2 

(1127 MW(e))

Within 50 mi of Cope Operational(c)
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-89 NUREG-1939

Table 9-14. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

VEGP Units 3 and 4 Nuclear power generating 

plant with two 

Westinghouse AP1000 

pressurized water reactors 

About 45 mi west-southwest 

of Cope

Proposed(d) (Preconstruction activities have 

commenced. NRC Limited 

Work Authorization has 

been issued.)

H.B. Robinson Steam 

Electric Plant, Unit 2

Nuclear power generating 

plant with one 710-MW(e) 

unit

About 90 mi northeast of 

Cope

Operational(e)

Westinghouse Fuel 

Fabrication Plant in 

Columbia, South Carolina

Design and fabricate 

completed nuclear fuel 

assemblies and fuel-related 

products 

About 40 mi north of Cope Operational(f)

Savannah River Site Mixed 

Oxide (MOX) Fuel 

Fabrication Facility

Nuclear fuel fabrication About 40 mi west of Cope Construction of the MOX 

facility began in August 

2007; operation is expected 

to begin in 2016(g)

Other Actions/Projects: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Savannah River Site

Research and industrial 

complex 

About 40 mi west of Cope Operational(h)

Barnwell Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Disposal 

Facility

Low-level radioactive waste 

disposal

About 25 mi west of Cope Operational(i)

Charleston Naval Weapons 

Station

Radiological materials About 65 mi east-southeast 

of Cope

Operational(j)

Various hospitals Medical isotopes Within 50 mi of Cope Operational in Orangeburg, 

Berkeley, Calhoun, 

Bamberg, Dorchester, 

Barnwell, Allendale, 

Richland and Lexington 

Counties. 

Kaiser Agricultural 

Chemicals

Chemical facility About 1 mi east-northeast 

of Cope

Listed on the EPA Facility 

Registry System

Rockland-Bamberg 

Industries

Fabric coating mill About 5 mi south-southwest 

of Cope

Operational(k)

Town of Norway Sewage Treatment System 

Discharge

About 8 mi northwest of 

Cope

Operational(l)

Future Urbanization Construction of housing 

units and associated 

commercial buildings; 

roads, bridges, and railroad; 

construction of waterand/or wastewatertreatment and distribution 

facilities and associated 

pipelines, as described in 

local land-use planning 

documents. 

Throughout region. Construction would occur in 

the future, as described in 

State and local land-use 

planning documents 

(a) Source: SCE&G 2009h
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-90 April 2011

Table 9-14. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

(b) Source: NRC 2004 

(c) Source: NRC 2009e 

(d) Source: NRC 2009f 

(e) Source NRC 2009b 

(f) Source: Westinghouse 2009 

(g) Source: DOE 2009a 

(h) Source: DOE 2009b 

(i) Source: South Carolina Energy Office 2009 

(j) Source: SCE&G 2010b

(k) Source: EPA 2009e 

(l) Source: EPA 2009f 

The CGS, and an adjacent greenfield site, were originally identified in a 1974 siting evaluation 

for facilities development. The current CGS site has an existing 430-MW(e) coal-fired plant that 

has been in commercial operation since 1996. As a currently operational power plant, existing 

infrastructure includes rail access, transmission and distribution systems, and developed water 

resources. The existing power plant and associated support facilities are located on 

approximately 550 ac. The primary source of cooling water for the CGS is pumped 

groundwater, with supplemental water supply provided through withdrawal of excess flow from 

the Edisto River. No additional land would need to be acquired for an expansion of generating 

capacity at the site (SCE&G 2010b). 

9.3.4.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors

In addition to land-use impacts from building and operations, the cumulative analysis for the 

CGS site considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

contribute to the cumulative land-use impacts, including other Federal and non-Federal projects 

and the projects listed in Table 9-14. For the analysis of land-use impacts at the CGS site, the 

geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the CGS site, plus 

any transmission-line corridors that extend beyond that range. Most but not all of the 

transmission-line corridor length falls within a 50-mi radius of the site. Land-use planning for 

transmission-line routing over wide areas must consider land-use plans of adjoining counties 

and other land-managing agencies, rather than considering one county in isolation. 

Furthermore, in predominantly rural settings such as that surrounding the CGS site, land-use 

changes occurring substantial distances away from a project site can substantially influence 

land-use planning decisions close to the site.

Roads and other public facilities and services in rural areas tend to serve people who are 

spread thinly but broadly over large portions of the landscape. Therefore land-use changes can 

affect roads and other facilities at greater distances than similar changes in more densely 

populated areas
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-91 NUREG-1939

Figure 9-6. The CGS Alternative Site Region
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-92 April 2011

The CGS site is located in a sparsely populated, largely rural area, with forests and small farms 

composing the dominant land use. Historically, the area has been used for crop production, and 

agriculture and silviculture are the dominant land uses in the vicinity. Several electric 

transmission lines, State routes, and interstate highways currently traverse the region. Because 

the site already hosts a power station, the review team believes location of nuclear units there 

would not be inconsistent with existing zoning.

Based on information provided by the applicant and the review team’s independent assessment, 

development of the proposed new units would require about 200 ac on the CGS site that would 

be configured to fit generally within the existing developed footprint with the current CGS coal 

plant. Table 9-15 summarizes expected land-use impact parameters for the CGS site and 

transmission lines. The review team used GIS data provided by the applicant (SCE&G 2010a) 

to estimate expected land disturbance. The review team used the most recent information 

provided by the applicant (SCE&G, 2010b), except where the design data provided in earlier 

Santee-Cooper documentation (2009c) was not reflected in the revised SCE&G application.

Table 9-15. Land-Use Impact Parameters for the CGS Site

Parameter Value Source

Required onsite project area (ac) 1143 SCE&G 2010a, 2011

Estimated land-disturbance area (ac) 200 SCE&G 2010a, 2011 and 

review team analysis

Number of new transmission-line routes – SCE&G

(number of routes)

2 SCE&G 2010b

Number of new transmission-line routes – Santee Cooper 

(number of routes)

3

Number of new transmission-line routes – total 

(number of routes)

5

Transmission-line corridor distance – SCE&G (mi) 56 SCE&G 2010b

Transmission-line corridor distance – Santee Cooper (mi) 106

Transmission-line corridor distance – total (mi) 162

Transmission-line corridor area – SCE&G (ac) 377 SCE&G 2010b

Transmission-line corridor area – Santee Cooper (ac) 802

Transmission-line corridor area – total (ac) 1179

SCE&G estimates that the new units would require the addition of five 230-kV transmission 

lines, each of which would occupy a 100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor. Based on 

information provided by SCE&G (2010d) describing dimensions of conceptual transmission-line 

corridors for the CGS site, approximately 162 mi covering about 1179 ac of land would be 

affected. The review team concludes that the land-use impacts of the transmission-line 

installation activities would be generally similar to those described for the VCSNS site in 

Section 4.1.2. SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with nuclear facility and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-93 NUREG-1939

transmission-line development would be conducted according to Federal, State, and local 

regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G or Santee Cooper procedures, good 

construction practices, and established BMPs (SCE&G 2010b).

Because the other projects described in Table 9-14 do not include any reasonably foreseeable 

changes in land-use types within 50 mi of the CGS site, there would not be any significant 

additional cumulative impacts on land use from those activities.

As described above, installation of new transmission-line corridors to support the new units 

have the potential to affect as much as 1179 ac over 162 mi of length. If additional transmission 

lines are built from other energy projects, there would be a cumulative land-use impact from the 

additional amount of land converted to utility corridor use for transmission lines. Because 

transmission lines are often co-located and are relatively narrow, the review team expects that 

the cumulative impact would be consistent with the land-use plans and zoning regulations of the 

affected counties. Nonetheless, consistent with previous discussions, multiple new 

transmission-line corridors could noticeably alter the land-use classification acreage proportions, 

both within the vicinity of the CGS and within the 50-mi region. 

Cumulative land-use impacts within the region would be consistent with existing land-use plans 

and zoning. However, due to the potential reclassification of acreage within the region caused 

by the transmission-line development, the review team concludes that the cumulative land-use 

impacts associated with the proposed project at the CGS site, related transmission-line corridor 

development, and other projects in the geographic area of interest would be MODERATE. 

Considering the land needs noted above, building and operating two new nuclear units at the 

CGS site would be a significant contributor to these impacts.

9.3.4.2 Water Use and Quality

The CGS site hydrology, water use, and water quality are discussed in ER Section 9.3.3.2 

(SCE&G 2010b); this section draws from information presented in the ER. Additional material 

for this alternative site is available in the Nuclear Plant Site Selection Study Report (Tetra Tech 

NUS, Inc. 2009). SCE&G currently uses groundwater as the primary source of water for 

operations and surface water as a backup source for the existing CGS. Groundwater is 

currently withdrawn on the site from the Middendorf aquifer and the Black Creek aquifer to 

support operation of the 430-MW(e) coal-fired plant onsite. These aquifers have high 

transmissivities and local well yields exceed 1000 gpm (2.2 cfs) (SCE&G 2010b). Two 

additional units at the CGS site would require an additional 83 cfs of total water withdrawal 

resulting in a 62-cfs consumptive loss through evaporation in the cooling towers and a 21-cfs 

return to the Edisto River as blowdown. Reliance solely on groundwater to meet station water 

demand would require an additional 28 groundwater wells, which would likely draw down the 

aquifer and result in interference with other local wells. Conversely, using the surface water 

from the adjacent South Fork Edisto River as the sole water source to support two new units at 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-94 April 2011

the site would exceed the 5-percent withdrawal limit of the river’s annual mean flow required by 

EPA’s Phase I regulations in 40 CFR 125.84(b)(3)(i). While the CGS site hydrology poses 

some challenges to supporting the building and operation of two new units, these challenges 

could be met by using both groundwater and surface water in combination with other watersaving mitigation strategies, such as hybrid or dry cooling towers, or the construction of a 

cooling-water storage reservoir. Specific water consumption and mitigation strategies could 

include 5-percent consumptive use from the South Fork Edisto River, makeup groundwater 

withdrawn at a sustainable level, and the use of dry cooling towers and/or hybrid cooling towers 

to make up for any cooling-water shortfalls.

Representative historical flow data for water years 1991–2008 is available for the South Fork 

Edisto River near Cope, South Carolina (USGS 2008b). The average flow is slightly lower than 

what is reported in the ER for this station due to the difference in periods covered. Table 9-16

lists the South Fork Edisto River reduction in flow that would occur if 5 percent of the annual 

mean flow of the river was relied on as a partial water source for the operation of two units at 

this site. 

Table 9-16. South Fork Edisto River Reduction in Flow and Assessed Impact Levels

South Fork Edisto 

River Flow Condition

River Flow 

Rate (cfs)

Withdrawal 

Rate (cfs)

Percent River 

Flow Reduction

Annual mean flow 678 34 5 

Lowest annual flow 304 34 11.2

Withdrawal of water from the South Fork Edisto River would be limited to 5 percent of the mean 

annual flow. Withdrawal of enough groundwater to meet the needs of the proposed units would 

likely create significant drawdowns at other local wells and might be difficult to sustain. Wateruse impacts would likely require some mitigation, such as the use of dry cooling towers or 

hybrid cooling towers, or the construction of a cooling-water storage reservoir to supplement 

water requirements during certain times of the year. 

SCE&G does not describe its proposed method for disposing of cooling-tower blowdown, but 

indicates that a SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit would be required to operate the nuclear 

project at this site. Effluent discharge through an NPDES-permitted outfall would ensure that 

the discharges complied with the Clean Water Act. Such permits are designed to ensure the 

protection of water quality, and therefore the impact on water quality from station blowdown to 

the Edisto River is assessed to be minimal.

Impacts of building and operation of the proposed units on groundwater quality may occur due to 

leaching of spilled pollutants and effluents. However, based on the review team’s experience 

with other facilities, the review team concludes that, with the implementation of BMPs, the 

impacts on groundwater quality from building and operating two new nuclear units at the CGS 

site would likely be minimal.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-95 NUREG-1939

Cumulative Impacts

In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

cumulative analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect the same environmental resources. For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface 

water, the geographic area of interest for the CGS site is considered to be the drainage basin of 

the South Fork Edisto River upstream and downstream of the site, because this is the resource 

that would be affected by the proposed project. Key actions that have past, present, and future 

potential impacts on water supply and water quality in the South Fork Edisto River basin include 

the building and operation of the existing coal-fired plant at CGS, the sewage-treatment plant 

discharge for the town of Norway, and industrial activities in the South Fork Edisto River basin. 

For the cumulative analysis of impacts on groundwater, the geographic area of interest for the 

CGS site is considered to be the areas of the Middendorf and Black Creek aquifers up-gradient 

and down-gradient of the site.

The surface-water-use impacts of building and operating two nuclear power plants at this site 

are dominated by the water demands associated with station operation. The projected surfacewater withdrawal for the proposed units is expected to be no more than 34 cfs or a maximum of 

5 percent of the average river discharge of 678 cfs near the site, and therefore the surfacewater-use impacts are assessed to be SMALL. 

Increases in consumptive use of water in the South Fork Edisto River drainage is anticipated in 

the future. The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-14 within this resource’s geographic 

area of interest are considered in the analysis included above or would have little or no impact 

on surface-water use.

Impacts on groundwater use would be localized and temporary during building. Potential 

impacts on groundwater use during operations are anticipated to be significant because the two 

additional units on the CGS site would rely on groundwater to meet a significant portion of its 

water-supply needs. Because withdrawal of enough groundwater to meet the needs of the 

proposed units would adversely affect other local wells by noticeably drawing down the 

groundwater levels over time, water-use impacts are assessed to be MODERATE. Using both 

surface water and groundwater may require some mitigation such as the use of dry cooling 

towers, hybrid cooling towers, or the construction of a cooling-water reservoir. Building and 

operating two new nuclear units at the CGS site would be a significant contributor to the 

MODERATE impact. As discussed in Section 7.2, the review team is aware of the potential 

climate changes that could affect the water resources available for cooling and the impacts of 

reactor operations on water resources for other users. The impact of climate change would be 

similar for all the alternative sites. 

Point and non-point sources have affected the water quality of the South Fork Edisto River 

upstream and downstream of the CGS site, including the impact of operating the CGS, the 

sewage-treatment plant discharge for the town of Norway, and industrial activities in the South 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-96 April 2011

Fork Edisto River valley. Water-quality information presented above for the impacts of building 

and operating two new units at the CGS would also apply to evaluation of cumulative impacts. 

The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-14 are either considered in the analysis included 

above or would have little or no impact on surface-water quality. As mentioned above, a 

SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit would be required to operate the nuclear project at this site 

including disposing of cooling-tower blowdown. Effluent discharge through an NPDESpermitted outfall would ensure that the discharges complied with the Clean Water Act. Such 

permits are designed to ensure the protection of water quality. The review team also concludes 

that with the implementation of BMPs, the impacts on groundwater quality from building and 

operating two new nuclear units at the CGS site would likely be minimal, and therefore 

concludes that the cumulative impact on surface and groundwater quality would be SMALL.

9.3.4.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources

Site Description 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building and operating the proposed new 

facilities on terrestrial ecology resources. The analysis also considers past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect the terrestrial ecological resources, including 

other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-14. For the analysis of 

terrestrial ecological impacts at the CGS site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be 

the 6-mi region centered on the CGS site, plus the associated transmission-line corridors. 

This 6-mile radius is expected to encompass the ecologically relevant landscape features 

and species.

The CGS site would be in the same general location as the existing CGS 430-MW(e) coal-fired 

electrical generating plant (SCE&G 2010b). Habitats present on the proposed CGS site and 

associated transmission-line corridors are typical of those found in the Middle Atlantic Coastal 

Plain ecoregion. The southern floodplain forests include bottomland hardwood forest 

(bottomland oaks, red maple, sweetgum, green ash, bitternut hickory) and cypress-gum swamp 

(water tupelo, swamp tupelo, bald cypress, and pond cypress) (Griffith et al. 2002). Understory 

vegetation in the cypress-gum swamp community is sparse; however, a variety of wildlife 

species use this habitat, from amphibians to mammals. The CGS site includes primarily 

cypress-gum swamp, wetland mixed hardwoods, planted pine, and old fields (SCE&G 2010b).

Common wildlife species present on the CGS project site (and in the vicinity) include many 

game species: white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, opossum, and raccoon, wild 

turkey (Meleagris gallpavo), northern bobwhite quail, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), red 

fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), wood duck (Aix sponsa), mink 

(Mustela vision), otter (Lontra canadensis), and beaver (Castor canadensis) (SCE&G 2010b).
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-97 NUREG-1939

SCE&G has not conducted any on-the-ground studies to determine whether threatened or 

endangered species occur on the proposed CGS project site; however, four Federally listed 

species are known to occur in Orangeburg and Bamberg Counties. These species include the 

delisted bald eagle (still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act), and 

endangered species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the wood stork, 

the threatened flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), and one vascular plant, the 

Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi).

In addition to the Federally listed species, the State of South Carolina has several listed species 

known to occur in the counties of the proposed site and vicinity, including those crossed by 

transmission lines. They include one mammal, two birds, two reptiles, and two amphibians (see 

Table 9-17 below), including endangered species such as Rafinesque's big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus rafinesquii), the gopher tortoise, and the gopher frog (Rana capito) and State 

threatened species such as Wilson's plover (Charadrius wilsonia), least tern (Sterna antillarum), 

spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), and the dwarf siren (Pseudobranchus striatus).

Table 9-17. Federally and State-Listed Species That May Occur on the CGS Alternative Site, 

Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors

Scientific Name Common Name

Legal 

Status County

Mammals

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's bigeared bat

SE Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, 

Dorchester, Hampton, Orangeburg

Birds

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Bald eagle BGEPA/

SE

Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, 

Dorchester, Hampton, Orangeburg

Mycteria americana Wood stork FE/SE Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Colleton, 

Dorchester, Hampton

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded 

woodpecker

FE/SE Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, 

Hampton, Orangeburg

Sterna antillarum Least tern ST Dorchester

Reptiles

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle ST Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Hampton

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise SE Aiken, Allendale, Dorchester, 

Hampton
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-98 April 2011

Table 9-17. (contd)

Scientific Name Common Name

Legal 

Status County

Amphibians

Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods salamander FT/SE Orangeburg

Rana capito Gopher frog SE Hampton, Orangeburg

Pseudobranchus striatus Dwarf siren ST Hampton, Orangeburg

Vascular Plant

Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower FE/SE Aiken, Allendale

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort FE/SE Allendale, Bamberg, Dorchester, 

Hampton, Orangeburg

Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella FE/SE Aiken

Trillium reliquum Relict trillium FE/SE Aiken

Sources: SCE&G 2009d; SCDNR 2010; FWS 2010

BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FE = Federally listed as endangered; FT = Federally listed as 

threatened; SE = State listed as endangered; ST = State listed as threatened

SCE&G has stated that on-the-ground field surveys would be conducted prior to 

commencement of any ground-disturbing activities on the site or transmission-line corridors as 

part of the permitting process (SCE&G 2010b). 

Building Impacts

SCE&G stated that the proposed project could be designed and sited to fit generally into 

previously disturbed land within the existing CGS site boundary (SCE&G 2010b). Based on a 

preliminary site layout of the footprint provided by SCE&G, approximately 15.9 ac of wetlands 

present on the site would be affected during building activities for the two proposed units 

(SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G states that the nuclear facility would be sited to avoid wetlands 

whenever possible and potential impacts on wetlands near building zones would be minimized 

through the use of established BMPs (SCE&G 2010b). 

Table 9-15 provides information about the number, route, and area of the proposed 

transmission-line corridors that would serve the proposed new facilities at the CGS alternative 

site. SCE&G and Santee Cooper would both have a portion of the new transmission lines and 

details are provided in Table 9-18 and Table 9-19 below (SCE&G 2009d). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-99 NUREG-1939

Table 9-18. SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the CGS Alternative Site

TransmissionLine SegmentLength of 

Corridor (mi)

Acres of 

Corridor

Acres of 

Forested 

Wetlands

Acres of 

Nonforested 

Wetlands

Acres of 

Open Water

Cope-Orangeburg 22 32 0.3 1 --

Cope-St. George 34 345 103 42 0.4

Total 56 377 104 43 0.4

Source: SCE&G 2009d

Table 9-19. Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the CGS Alternative Site

Wetlands Estimate

New Corridor

(106 mi, 802 ac)

Existing Corridor

(0 ac)

Total Corridor

(802 ac)

Acres

Percent of 

Corridors Acres

Percent of 

Corridors Acres

Percent of 

Corridors

Hydric soils 471 59 0 NA 471 59

NWI wetlands 138 17 0 NA 138 17

Source: SCE&G 2009d

NA = Not applicable; NWI = National Wetlands Inventory

One of the transmission lines would be in the Coastal Zone region of South Carolina, which 

would require review and certification under the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act. 

Due to the routing in the coastal zone and the amount of wetlands present within the proposed 

corridors, new lines could incur substantial wetland impacts. SCE&G stated that all land 

clearing associated with transmission-line development would be conducted according to 

Federal, State, and local regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

procedures, and established BMPs (SCE&G 2010b). 

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected terrestrial resources 

include the development and operation of the CGS, located in the same general location as the 

CGS site. The building of the existing CGS facilities resulted in the clearing of approximately 

550 ac of terrestrial resources to accommodate the power plant and associated buildings. The 

Kaiser Agricultural Chemical Company, located less than 1 mi east-northeast of the CGS site, 

also contributed to the loss of terrestrial habitat in the region. There are no major current 

projects in the geographic area of interest that would have a cumulative impact on terrestrial 

ecological resources in a similar way.

Proposed future actions that would affect terrestrial resources in a similar way to development 

at the CGS site would include transmission-line development and/or upgrading throughout the 

designated geographic region of interest, and future urbanization would also be expected to 

occur. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-100 April 2011

Impacts from building two nuclear units and supporting facilities on wildlife habitat would be 

unavoidable, and activities that would affect wildlife include land clearing and grading 

(temporary and permanent), filling and or draining of wetlands, increased human presence, 

heavy equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, and fugitive dust. These activities 

would likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the development areas. Some wildlife, 

including some individuals of important species, would perish or be displaced during land 

clearing for any of the above projects as a consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation, and 

competition for remaining resources. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and 

small mammals, would be at greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such 

as birds, many of which would be displaced to adjacent communities. Undisturbed land 

adjacent to the project could provide habitat to support displaced wildlife, but increased 

competition for available space and resources could affect population levels. Wildlife would also 

be subjected to impacts from noise and traffic, and birds could be injured if they collide with tall 

structures. The impact on wildlife from noise is expected to be temporary and minor. The 

creation of new transmission-line corridors could be beneficial for some species, including those 

that inhabit early successional habitat or use edge environments, such as white-tailed deer, 

northern bobwhite quail, eastern meadowlark, and the gopher tortoise. Birds of prey, such as 

red-tailed hawks, would likely exploit newly created hunting grounds. Forested wetlands within 

the corridors would be converted to and maintained in a herbaceous or scrub-shrub condition 

that could provide improved foraging habitat for some waterfowl and wading birds. However, 

fragmentation of forests could adversely affect species that are dependent on large tracts of 

continuous forested habitat.

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent review, the 

review team concludes that the impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from the building of 

two new nuclear units at the CGS site could be minimal. Because of the uncertainty about the 

possible routing of new transmission-line corridors, the review team concludes that the 

terrestrial resource impacts associated with the building of new transmission lines for the CGS 

site could be noticeable, although not ecologically destabilizing.

Operational Impacts

Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from the operation of two new nuclear units at the 

CGS site primarily include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. Impacts 

resulting from the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines are discussed in detail in 

Section 9.3.3.3 and would apply to the CGS site.

No other past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that 

would significantly affect terrestrial habitat and wildlife, including important species, in ways 

similar to those associated with the operation of two new units and the associated transmission 

lines at the CGS site. The review team concludes that the impacts of operating two new units 

and associated transmission lines at the CGS site on terrestrial resources and wetlands would 

be minimal.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-101 NUREG-1939

Summary Statement

Impacts on terrestrial ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

SCE&G and the review team’s independent review. Past and future activities in the geographic 

area of interest could affect wildlife and wildlife habitat in ways similar to the building of two units 

at the CGS site. Although much of the land disturbance would occur within existing developed 

areas on the CGS site, other affected areas on the site as well as some of the associated 

transmission-line corridors are natural habitats that would be substantially altered by 

development and maintenance activities, noticeably affecting the level and movement of 

terrestrial wildlife populations in the area of interest. Other anticipated development projects 

would further alter wildlife habitats and migration patterns in the surrounding landscape. The 

review team concludes that cumulative impacts on baseline conditions for terrestrial resources

would be MODERATE. 

9.3.4.4 Aquatic Resources

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

aquatic ecology resources. The CGS alternative site is located between Roberts Swamp and 

Snake Swamp (Sam Branch), which drain into the South Fork Edisto River watershed 

(SCDHEC 2004a; SCE&G 2010b), which falls within Orangeburg, Barnwell, and Bamberg 

Counties. This 164,149-ac watershed lies within the Upper and Lower Coastal Plain ecoregions 

of South Carolina (SCDHEC 2004a). Within the South Fork Edisto River watershed (Hydrologic 

Unit Code [HUC] 03050204-050), 18.7 percent of the area is classified as forested wetland 

swamps. Water and nonforested wetland marshes make up less than 1 percent of the land 

cover in this watershed (SCDHEC 2004a). The geographic area of interest is the South Fork 

Edisto River watershed because this region is the most likely to show impacts on water quality 

relative to the water-quality criteria for aquatic biota affected by CGS site activities. 

Historically, water-quality conditions within the South Fork Edisto River region have been and

still are influenced by natural conditions and land-use practices. With no impoundments, the 

Edisto River is one of the longest blackwater rivers in the United States (SCDHEC 2005). A 

blackwater system is characterized by water-quality conditions that are characterized by 

naturally low pH and dissolved oxygen concentrations (SCDHEC 2004a). Near the vicinity of 

the proposed CGS alternative site, the upstream and downstream SCDHEC monitoring stations 

meet the water-quality criteria optimal for supporting aquatic life and have no restrictions for 

recreational use. However, a trend in increasing fecal coliform concentrations has been noted 

(SCDHEC 2004a), and elevated mercury concentrations within the watershed have resulted in a 

fish-consumption advisory. The SCDHEC (2009a) advises no consumption of bowfin 

(Amia calva), chain pickerel (Esox niger), and largemouth bass, and suggests limited 

consumption of redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) and redbreast sunfish (L. auritus) from 

the South Fork Edisto River. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-102 April 2011

Recreationally Important Species

The South Fork Edisto River is a known fishing area with largemouth bass, flat bullhead 

(Ameiurus platycephalus), and channel catfish being the most sought-after sport fish on the river 

(Angler Guide 2009). Catfish species are prized recreationally for consumption, and while adult 

catch sizes are modest (30–60 cm), channel catfish have been caught in excess of 1 m in 

length (Rohde and Parnell 1994).

Invasive Species

No invasive or nuisance species have been specifically identified within the South Fork Edisto 

River near the proposed CGS site. 

Critical Habitats

No critical habitat has been designated by the FWS in the vicinity of the CGS site.

Federally and State-Listed Species

Federally, proposed Federally, and State-listed threatened and endangered species that may 

occur in the vicinity of the CGS site or in aquatic habitats crossed by the proposed transmissionline corridors are listed in Table 9-20. The proposed transmission-line corridors would cross 

Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Dorchester, Hampton, and Orangeburg Counties which lie mostly 

within the South Carolina coastal plain (SCE&G 2010b). SCE&G has stated that on-the-ground 

field surveys would be conducted upon determination of final routes and prior to 

commencement of any building activities related to the site or transmission-line corridors as part 

of the permitting process (SCE&G 2010b). 

Table 9-20. Federally, Proposed Federally, and State-Listed Aquatic Species That May 

Occur on the CGS Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated 

Transmission-Line Corridors: 

Scientific Name Common Name Status County

Fish

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon FE/SE Aiken, Allendale, Dorchester, 

Hampton, Orangeburg, 

Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus

Atlantic sturgeon PFE Aiken, Allendale, Dorchester, 

Hampton, Orangeburg

Sources: SCE&G 2009d; FWS 2010; SCDNR 2010; 75 FR 61904

FE = Federally Endangered, SE = State Endangered, PFE = Proposed Federally Endangered

The shortnose sturgeon is the only Federally listed aquatic species known to occur in 

Orangeburg County. The shortnose sturgeon is a State and Federal endangered species 

(FWS 2008). It is unknown whether the shortnose sturgeon occurs in the immediate vicinity of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-103 NUREG-1939

the proposed alternative site; however, populations are known to reside downstream in the 

Edisto River. It is unknown whether shortnose sturgeon migrate up the South Fork Edisto River, 

and no reliable records are available to document this species for this sub-basin. The shortnose 

sturgeon was initially listed as a Federally endangered species in 1967 and is designated as a 

species of highest conservation priority by SCDNR (McCord 2006; NMFS 1998). This 

amphidromous species uses freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats to complete its life cycle 

(Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006; NMFS 1998). 

In South Carolina, populations of shortnose sturgeon exist in the Ashepoo, Combahee, and 

Edisto rivers (flowing to St. Helena Sound); the Pee Dee, Waccamaw, and Black rivers 

(flowing to Winyah Bay); and the Savannah, Cooper, and Santee rivers. There is also a 

small landlocked population of shortnose sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper Lake system 

(Collins et al. 2003). 

In freshwater habitats, shortnose sturgeon are associated with soft bottom substrates in deep 

water. In South Carolina, spawning occurs in fresh waters characterized by low-to-moderate 

velocities and over substrates that include clay, sand, gravel, and woody debris (Rohde et al. 

2009; McCord 2006). Eggs are adhesive and survival is reportedly dependent on water having 

little turbidity (McCord 2006). 

The Atlantic sturgeon is not currently listed either Federally or by the State of South Carolina. 

However, on October 6, 2010, the NMFS published in the Federal Register (75 FR 61904) a 

proposed rule for listing the Carolina and South Atlantic distinct population segments of the 

Atlantic sturgeon as endangered under the ESA. In light of this proposed listing, the -review 

team is now considering the Atlantic sturgeon in its analysis. 

Characteristics of the early life-history attributes of Atlantic sturgeon, such as age at seaward 

migration and residence time in freshwater habitats, varies within natal streams as well as 

across geographic regions (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Juveniles migrate from spawning 

areas toward saline habitats where individuals spend months to years rearing in estuarine 

environments. In marine environments, Atlantic sturgeon make extensive migrations from their 

natal estuary presumably to productive foraging grounds (ASSRT 2007). Spawning is believed 

to occur in flowing water between the salt wedge and the fall line of large rivers. Like the 

shortnose sturgeon, spawning adults generally migrate upriver during the spring (February to 

March) in southern rivers. While Atlantic sturgeon have been noted to occur in many South 

Carolina coastal rivers during the past several decades, specific information detailing population 

records for each of these rivers is not readily available. There appears to be little quantitative 

evidence linking the occurrence of Atlantic sturgeon in specific streams and rivers to spawning 

populations in South Carolina. South Carolina rivers with recent documented occurrences of 

Atlantic sturgeon include Waccamaw, Pee Dee, Santee, Cooper, Edisto, Combahee, 

Coosawatchie, and Savannah Rivers (ASSRT 2007).
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-104 April 2011

Building Impacts

The proposed alternative site would be located within the existing footprint of the CGS, adjacent 

to the coal-fired facility. SCE&G (2010b) has indicated that the makeup water for the cooling 

system would be derived from groundwater sources, but may also include water from the South 

Fork Edisto River. The CGS alternative site requires additional intake and discharge structures 

that are discrete from the existing structures associated with the CGS and installation activities 

may impose temporary, localized impacts on aquatic biota in the South Fork Edisto River. 

Impacts on water quality would stem from direct (e.g., dredging, shoreline excavation) and 

indirect sources (e.g., stormwater runoff, sedimentation). Building associated with new 

infrastructure (e.g., roads, site footprint) and upgrading existing features (e.g., railroad lines) 

would affect approximately 432 linear feet out of a total of approximately 16,041 linear feet of 

onsite streams; however, there would be no impacts on the approximately 9.8 ac of open water 

on the site (SCE&G 2010a).

Because the CGS alternative site footprint would likely occupy previously disturbed land 

adjacent to the existing coal facility, impacts on aquatic biota in nearby streams or ponds would 

likely be minimized during building activities. However, site-specific information pertaining to 

aquatic habitat and/or important aquatic biota is unavailable. Based on the absence of 

occurrence information, building in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures may result 

in impacts on important species, but impacts are likely to be temporary and largely mitigated by 

the use of appropriate water-quality BMPs. 

Table 9-15 provides information about the number, route, and area of the proposed 

transmission-line corridors that would serve the proposed new facilities at the CGS alternative 

site. Installation of the new transmission lines may include upgrading existing transmission-line 

corridors, or the development of new transmission-line corridors. One transmission-line corridor 

would fall within the jurisdiction of the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act, thus 

requiring additional review and certification. Transmission-line corridors would be maintained by 

either SCE&G or Santee Cooper. For SCE&G lines, approximately 4363 linear feet of streams 

and 0.4 ac of open water are located within the new transmission-line rights-of-way (SCE&G 

2009d). The new Santee Cooper transmission-line corridors associated with the CGS site 

would include an estimated 72 stream crossings, 4 of which would cross State navigable 

waters, such as the South Fork Edisto River, and the Salkehatchie River (MACTEC 2009). 

SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with transmission-line creation would be 

conducted according to Federal, State, and local regulations, permit requirements, existing 

SCE&G or Santee Cooper procedures, good construction practices, and established BMPs 

(SCE&G 2010b). 

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have affected aquatic resources, including 

important species, in ways similar to those associated with the building of two new units at the 

CGS alternative site include the construction of the existing CGS coal-fired plant, located 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-105 NUREG-1939

adjacent to the CGS alternative site. Proposed future actions that would affect aquatic 

resources in a similar way to development at the CGS alternative site would include 

transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the designated geographic area of 

interest, and future urbanization.

Operational Impacts

Operational impacts expected to occur at the CGS alternative site would be dependent on sitespecific characteristics that include plant specifications (e.g., water sources, discharge design) 

as well as the occurrence of important aquatic biota. Impacts on aquatic biota within the South 

Fork Edisto River as a result of intake-related impingement and entrainment losses would 

depend on the final source of makeup water. If groundwater were to be used as the source of 

cooling-water makeup, impingement and entrainment would be nonexistent. However, if water 

were to be withdrawn from the river using conventional technology, there would be impingement 

and entrainment losses to aquatic biota. Several intake/discharge configurations are designed 

to minimize impacts on aquatic biota. SCE&G has stated that “[t]he design of the intake 

structure would comply with the requirements of Section 316(b) [Phase I regulations] of the 

Clean Water Act, thereby reducing the potential impacts of entrainment and impingement to 

sensitive species.” Nevertheless, there is still the potential for noticeable impacts on aquatic 

resources due to water withdrawal for cooling-system makeup water from the South Fork Edisto 

River as described in Section 9.3.4.2; it is dependent upon the degree to which the South Fork 

Edisto River would be used as a cooling-water source.

Operational impacts associated with water quality and discharge cannot be precisely 

determined without additional detailed analysis. However, based on the review team’s 

experience with other facilities, the review team concludes that, with proper design, the thermal 

and chemical impacts on aquatic resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the CGS 

site would likely be minimal except during periods of low flow or drought conditions when 

impacts on aquatic biota from discharge of station blowdown to the river could be noticeable.

The review team also concludes that operational impacts on aquatic biota from maintenance of 

the transmission-line corridors would be minimal assuming that appropriate BMPs are used.

Cumulative impacts that could result from the operation of two new units at the CGS site would 

include intake-related impingement and entrainment losses and chemical and thermal discharge 

from station blowdown. Past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest that 

would affect aquatic ecological resources include aquatic biota impacts from the operation of a 

sewage-treatment plant for the town of Norway, South Carolina, located approximately 7.6 mi to 

the northwest of the CGS alternative site, which discharges into the Willow Swamp area of the 

South Fork Edisto River, and the CGS coal-fired plant, located immediately adjacent to the 

proposed CGS site, which discharges into the South Fork Edisto River. Both plants are 

compliant with NPDES permitting for discharges (SCE&G 2010b). Thermal and chemical 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-106 April 2011

discharges from the proposed nuclear units, when combined with the effluents from the existing 

coal-fired plant, may create significant NPDES challenges because the portion of the Edisto 

River adjacent to the site is relatively narrow, with low river velocities. Detailed information 

necessary to address these unknowns is not available, nor is site-specific information 

regarding the presence of important aquatic biota. Anthropogenic activities such as residential 

or industrial development near the vicinity of the nuclear facility may also contribute to 

cumulative impacts.

Summary Statement

Impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

SCE&G, the State of South Carolina, FWS, NMFS, and the review team’s independent review. 

There are past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect aquatic 

ecology resources in ways similar to the building and operation of two units at the CGS site. 

Overall, the cumulative impact of building and operating two new units at the CGS site is 

expected to be SMALL to MODERATE. Effects on aquatic biota may be SMALL if habitat for 

protected species is avoided through proper siting; BMPs are used during building, both at the 

site and along the new transmission lines; and groundwater is used for part of the station 

cooling water. However, if siting of buildings or ancillary services and transmission-line corridor 

routing is unable to avoid waterbodies with known populations of protected species, there may 

be noticeable effects on populations of these important organisms. In addition, due to the 

relatively low-flow rates in the South Fork Edisto River, the use of river water for station cooling 

could adversely affect aquatic biota due to intake-related impingement and/or entrainment 

losses, as well as from station blowdown effects, particularly during periods of drought. 

Therefore, it is possible that aquatic biota may be noticeably altered due to the building and 

operating of two additional units at the CGS, thereby resulting in a MODERATE impact. 

Building and operating two new nuclear units at the CGS would be a significant contributor to 

the MODERATE impact.

9.3.4.5 Socioeconomics 

For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the CGS site, the geographic area of interest is 

considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the CGS site with special consideration of 

Orangeburg, Bamberg, Lexington, Colleton, Aiken, and Barnwell Counties, because that is 

where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. In evaluating the 

socioeconomic impacts of project development and operation at the CGS site in Orangeburg 

County, just north of the town of Bamberg, South Carolina, the review team undertook a 

reconnaissance survey of the region using readily obtainable data from the ER, the alternative 

site audit, and Federal, State, and local government agencies. The analysis also considers 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect the same 

environmental resources, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects 

listed in Table 9-14. Impacts from both building and station operation are discussed. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-107 NUREG-1939

Physical Impacts

Many of the physical impacts of building and operation would be similar regardless of the site. 

Building activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor, 

vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting (if used), and dust emissions. The use of public 

roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport construction materials and 

equipment. Offsite areas that would support building activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, and 

disposal sites) would be expected to be already permitted and operational. 

Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and 

visual intrusions (the latter are discussed under aesthetics and recreation). New units would 

produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling towers, transformers, turbines, generators, 

and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site also would be a source of noise. The review team 

assumed that the same standard noise protection and abatement procedures used for the 

VCSNS site would be used to control noise coming from the CGS site. This practice also would 

be expected to apply to all alternative sites. 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 alternative site.

The new units at the CGS site would likely 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. 

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that the physical impacts of building and operating two new nuclear 

units at the CGS site would be minimal.

Demography

The CGS is located in Orangeburg County, South Carolina, approximately 35 air mi from 

Columbia, South Carolina (2007 population 124,818), the closest major economic center. The 

2007 population of Orangeburg County was 89,952, Bamberg County was 15,452, Lexington 

County was 243,270, Colleton County was 38,903, Aiken County was 152,307, and Barnwell 

County was 22,975 for a total population of 562,859 for the six counties (see Table 2-23). 

Ninety percent of the current CGS workforce resides in Orangeburg, Bamberg, Lexington, 

Colleton, Aiken, and Barnwell Counties. The review team expects the in-migrating population 

would reside within this six-county area in about the same pattern as the existing CGS 

workforce. However, because of the proximity of the town of Bamberg to the site, the review 

team expects Bamberg County would receive a noticeable influx of workers (SCE&G 2010b). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-108 April 2011

Therefore, these six counties compose the economic impact area and are the focus of the 

following analysis. Because of the rural nature of the two sites and the fact that the CGS site 

also hosts an existing power plant, development of the proposed new units on the CGS site 

would have similar socioeconomic impacts in most respects to adding two new units to the 

VCSNS site. Building the new units would require 3600 workers at the peak of the project. The 

review team believes that because the economic impact area includes portions of two larger 

metropolitan areas (Aiken and Columbia), migration patterns would be similar to those expected 

at the VCSNS site. About 50 percent of the construction workforce or 1800 workers would 

migrate to the economic impact area in rough proportion to the current operating workforce of 

the CGS. The demographic impacts of the project are expected to be minor, with the exception 

of Bamberg County, where the impact likely would be noticeable. As the building period winds 

down, the operations staff would be hired, eventually reaching a workforce of 930. Based on 

review team assumptions for the VCSNS site and similarity of the economic impact areas, the 

review team expects that 50 percent of the operations workforce or 465 employees would 

migrate to the region. The review team expects the demographic impact during operations to 

be minimal. 

Taxes and Economy

Using reconnaissance-level information, the review team assumed that if the proposed nuclear 

facility were located at the CGS site, taxes and fee-in-lieu-of-taxes agreements would be similar 

to those estimated to occur at the VCSNS site. Corporate and personal income taxes along 

with sales and use taxes would be collected during both building and operation, but property 

taxes would not be paid until operations begin. Once operations begin, SCE&G likely would 

have entered into a fee-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement with Orangeburg County. Based on the 

agreement SCE&G has with Fairfield County in regard to VCSNS, which has an assessment 

ratio of 4 percent and a special revenue credit of 20 percent of the fee-in-lieu-of-taxes payments 

during the first 20 years, SCE&G estimates VCSNS annual payments to be between 

$13.7 million and $31.6 million over 40 years of the license period. The review team does not 

expect significant growth in the Orangeburg County tax base between now and the start of 

operations that could diminish the scale of the tax impact on county revenue. If SCE&G entered 

into a similar agreement for the CGS site, the tax payments would increase Orangeburg County 

property tax revenues (currently $86.5 million (SCBCB 2007)) by 16 to 37 percent. The total 

fee-in-lieu-of-taxes payments to Orangeburg County are expected to be substantial and 

beneficial during operations. 

Aiken, Bamberg, Colleton, and Lexington Counties have service-based economies while the 

Barnwell and Orangeburg County economies are dominated by manufacturing (SCE&G 2010b). 

Aiken and Lexington Counties have the largest economies followed by Orangeburg and 

Barnwell Counties, and the smallest economies are in Bamberg and Colleton Counties. The 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-109 NUREG-1939

wages and salaries of the workforce would have a multiplier effect that could result in increases 

in business activity, particularly in the retail and service sectors. 

SCE&G acquired RIMS II economic multiplier values specific to this economic impact area from 

the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2006; SCE&G 2010b), which permit detailed 

examination of potential economic impacts with individual multipliers attributable to construction 

activities and plant operations activities. Using the RIMS multiplier of 1.34, the 3600 

construction jobs would create 1224 indirect jobs in the economic impact area, for a total of 

4824 jobs supported by the project. Because the review team assumes 50 percent of the 

project workforce would migrate to the region, the approximate net employment effect of the 

project would be 2412 new jobs spread over the six counties. This would have a beneficial but 

temporary impact on the business community and could provide (1) opportunities for new 

businesses to get started and (2) increased job opportunities for local residents. Once the new 

units are operational, approximately 930 new operations jobs would be added to the local 

economy. Using a multiplier of 1.70 jobs, the 930 operations and support jobs would create 651 

indirect jobs in the economic impact area, for a total of 1581 jobs supported by plant operations. 

Because the review team assumes 50 percent of the workforce would migrate to the region, the 

approximate net employment effect of operations would be 790 new jobs spread over the six 

counties. The new jobs from project-related activities would constitute a minor beneficial impact 

on the six-county economic impact area, but these impacts would be noticeable in Orangeburg 

and Bamberg Counties. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the combination of economic and tax 

base impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the CGS site would be minor 

in the six-county area, but would be substantial in Orangeburg County and noticeable in 

Bamberg County.

Transportation and Housing 

The CGS is accessed by US-301/601, SC-193, and the plant entrance road. US-301/601 is a 

four-lane divided highway that runs north-south through Orangeburg and Bamberg Counties. 

SC-193 is a paved two-lane road that has been upgraded between the plant entrance and 

US-301/601 to accommodate existing plant traffic. The 2005 AADT count for US-301/601 was 

7800 south of the site and 7600 north of the site. The second nuclear facility access route is via 

SC-332, SC-1144, and the plant entrance road. SC-332 is a paved two-lane east-west route 

north of the site with an AADT count of 500 vehicles. Based on the analysis in Section 4.5, an 

additional 1800 cars could be on the road at shift change. Also, project-related deliveries of 

100 trucks per day are expected (SCE&G 2010b). Access to the site would be from one of 

three approaches depending on worker residence. Several routes link the various cities and 

towns in the economic impact area with the CGS site. The review team expects that although 

the peak workforce represents significant vehicle traffic, the availability of multiple access routes 

would help disperse site-related traffic, and impacts would be less noticeable than at the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-110 April 2011

VCSNS site. Because the review team expects these impacts would be of short duration and 

temporary, and would be substantially mitigated by traffic management planning by SCE&G, the 

review team concludes traffic-related impacts would be minor.

Approximately 1800 construction workers could migrate into the region during peak project 

employment. Approximately 465 operations workers could migrate into the region by the time 

the facility becomes operational. Construction workers may choose to buy housing, rent, use 

mobile homes, or stay in a hotel/motel, while operations workers would likely choose to buy a 

house. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 227,719 housing units in the six-county 

area, of which 6400 in Aiken County, 1007 in Bamberg County, 1170 in Barnwell County, 3659 

in Colleton County, 7738 in Lexington County, and 5186 in Orangeburg County were vacant, for 

a total of 25,160 vacant units (SCE&G 2010b). Based on the information provided by SCE&G 

and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that transportation 

and housing impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the CGS site would be 

minimal across the six-county area and the wider region. 

Public Services and Education

In-migrating construction workers and plant operations workers would likely affect local 

municipal water, wastewater treatment facilities, and other public services in the region. The 

in-migrating workers represent a small portion of the total population of Orangeburg County and 

likely would not have a noticeable impact on their public services. During operations the impact 

on public services would likely be minimal.

SCE&G reports in its ER (SCE&G 2010b) that during the 2004–2005 school year, Aiken County 

had 40 preschool through 12th grade (PK-12) schools, Bamberg County had 7 schools, 

Barnwell County had 11 schools, Colleton County had 12 schools, Lexington County had 66 

schools, and Orangeburg County had 30 schools. Total enrollment for Aiken, Bamberg, 

Barnwell, Colleton, Lexington and Orangeburg Counties for the 2004–2005 school year was 

25,299, 2744, 4721, 6592, 51,276, and 15,449, respectively. A maximum of 938 students are 

expected to migrate into the six-county area during peak project employment and this number 

would decline to 484 during operations. This would increase the student population during peak 

project employment in Aiken County by 0.3 percent, Bamberg County by 7.9 percent, Barnwell 

County by 1.3 percent, Colleton County by 0.2 percent, Lexington County by 0.2 percent, and 

Orangeburg County by 2.4 percent. During operations, the student body population increase in 

Aiken, Bamberg, Barnwell, Colleton, Lexington, and Orangeburg Counties would be 0.2 percent, 

4.1 percent, 0.8 percent, 0.7 percent, 0.1 percent, and 1.3 percent, respectively (SCE&G 

2010b). Building and operating a nuclear facility on the CGS site would have a minor impact on 

education, with the exception of a more noticeable impact on Bamberg County during peak 

project employment. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that public services and education impacts
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-111 NUREG-1939

of building and operating two new nuclear units at the CGS site would be minor, except for a 

noticeable impact on education services in Bamberg County during peak project employment. 

Aesthetics and Recreation

No recreational facilities exist within the site boundary. There are nine State parks and one 

national recreational area (Congaree National Park) within 50 mi of the plant. With the 

exception of the South Fork Edisto River, there are no national and State recreational areas 

within 6 mi of the site. The North and South Fork Edisto rivers merge 10 mi from the site to form 

the Edisto River. These three rivers provide numerous recreational activities such as fishing, 

hunting, boating, and nature study. 

The visual aesthetics of the site have already been altered by the existing coal-fired unit. The 

upper portions of the stacks are visible from most of the surrounding area, while other existing 

facilities are visible from nearby roads and from the South Fork Edisto River. The proposed 

project would be visible from some offsite locations and the cooling towers would be visible 

during operations. Project activities would increase the noise level at the site, but given the 

rural nature in the vicinity of the proposed site, this would likely not have a significant impact. 

The CGS site is already connected to the electric grid with existing transmission lines traversing 

mostly agricultural land, and the addition of new lines would not add significantly to the existing 

visual impact. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that public aesthetics and recreation 

impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the CGS site would be minimal. 

Summary of Project-Related Socioeconomics 

Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on existing buildings, 

transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span 

issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. In summary, 

on the basis of information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that the adverse impacts of building and operating a new nuclear 

plant at the CGS site on socioeconomics would be minimal for most of the region but could be 

noticeable, but not destabilizing, for Bamberg County in terms of education system impacts 

during peak project employment. Noticeable demographic impacts may be possible in 

Orangeburg and Bamberg Counties during the building phase, depending on worker settlement 

patterns. During operations, these impacts are expected to be minimal. Impacts on aesthetics 

are expected to be minor. The impacts on the Orangeburg County tax base during operations

likely will be substantial and beneficial; however only minor beneficial tax impacts would result in 

the rest of the region. The new jobs from project-related activities would constitute a minor 

beneficial impact on the six-county economic impact area, and these impacts would be most 

noticeable in Orangeburg and Bamberg Counties. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-112 April 2011

Cumulative Impacts

The projects identified in Table 9-14, particularly the future urbanization of the Columbia, South 

Carolina, and Augusta, Georgia, metropolitan areas, have contributed or would contribute to the 

demographics, economic climate, and community infrastructure of the region and generally 

result in increased urbanization and industrialization. Because the projects within the review 

area identified in Table 9-14 would be consistent with applicable land-use plans and control 

policies, the review team considers the cumulative socioeconomic impacts from the projects to 

be minimal.

For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the CGS site, the geographic area of interest is 

considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the CGS site, with special consideration of 

Orangeburg, Bamberg, Lexington, Colleton, Aiken, and Barnwell Counties, because that is 

where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. 

The CGS site is located in a rural area of southern Orangeburg County. The site currently hosts 

a 430-MW(e) coal-fired power station that is surrounded by wetlands and pine forest, with 

residential and agricultural development in the vicinity. The site is about 4.5 mi north of 

Bamberg (2007 population 3463), the Bamberg County Seat and about 13.5 mi southwest of 

Orangeburg (2007 population 12,756), the Orangeburg County Seat. The 50-mi region includes 

Columbia and Aiken, South Carolina, two larger urban areas. The economy of the region has 

been and continues to be largely agriculture-based. Most of the current CGS workforce 

(90 percent) lives in Orangeburg, Bamberg, Lexington, Colleton, Aiken, and Barnwell Counties 

(SCE&G 2010b). The review team believes these six counties make up the economic impact 

area. The review team expects the project workforce would be distributed within the economic 

impact area in approximately the same proportion as the existing CGS workforce. 

The cumulative impact analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions that could contribute to the cumulative socioeconomic impacts on a given region, 

including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-14. The 

projects listed in Table 9-14 have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, 

economic climate, and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased 

urbanization and industrialization. Adverse cumulative impacts would include physical impacts 

(on workers and the local public, buildings, transportation, and visual aesthetics) and impacts on 

local infrastructures and community services (transportation; recreation; housing; water and 

wastewater facilities; police, fire, and medical services; social services; and schools).

Economic impacts associated with activities listed in Table 9-14 already have been considered 

as part of the socioeconomic baseline used for establishing the RIMS II multipliers. Regional 

planning efforts and associated demographic projections available at a reconnaissance level 

formed the basis for the review team’s assessment of reasonably foreseeable future impacts. 

Therefore, the review team concludes there would be a LARGE and beneficial cumulative 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-113 NUREG-1939

impact on tax revenues in Orangeburg County. The review team also identified a MODERATE 

and adverse cumulative demographic and education system impacts in Orangeburg and 

Bamberg Counties. The review team concludes that cumulative impacts on other 

socioeconomic impact categories would be SMALL and adverse. Building and operating a new 

plant at the CGS site would make a significant incremental contribution to both adverse and

beneficial impact levels.

9.3.4.6 Environmental Justice

In addition to environmental justice impacts from building and operations, the cumulative 

analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

contribute to disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income 

populations, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-14. For the analysis of environmental justice impacts at the CGS site, the geographic 

area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the CGS site. 

The CGS site is located in a rural area of southern Orangeburg County. The site currently hosts 

a 430-MW(e) coal-fired power station that is surrounded by wetlands and pine forest, with 

residential and agricultural development in the vicinity. The site is about 4.5 mi north of 

Bamberg (2007 population 3463), the Bamberg County Seat, and about 13.5 mi southwest of 

Orangeburg (2007 population 12,756), the Orangeburg County Seat. The 50-mi region includes 

Columbia and Aiken, South Carolina, two larger urban areas. The economy of the region has 

been and continues to be largely agriculture-based. Most of the current CGS workforce 

(90 percent) lives in Orangeburg, Bamberg, Lexington, Colleton, Aiken, and Barnwell Counties 

(SCE&G 2010b). 

From an environmental justice perspective, the review team determined there is a potential for 

minority and low-income populations to experience disproportionately high and adverse

environmental impacts. In and around the town of Bamberg, the review team found low-income, 

African American and aggregated minority populations that exceed the percentage criteria 

established in Section 2.6.1 and required further consideration in the environmental justice 

analysis. Furthermore, several of these populations are clustered in the vicinity of the CGS site 

(see Figure 9-7 and Figure 9-8).

Because the other projects described in Table 9-14 do not include any significant reasonably 

foreseeable changes in socioeconomic impacts within 50 mi of the CGS site, the review team 

concluded there would not be any significant additional cumulative environmental justice 

impacts in the region from those activities. Any economic impacts associated with activities 

listed in Table 9-14 already have been considered as part of the socioeconomic baseline. For 

example, the economic impacts of existing enterprises such as mining, other electrical utilities, 

etc., are part of the base used for establishing the RIMS II multipliers. Regional planning efforts 

and associated demographic projections formed the basis for the review team’s assessment of 

reasonably foreseeable future impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-114 April 2011

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

Justice Selection Criteria at the CGS Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-115 NUREG-1939

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

Selection Criteria at the CGS Site
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-116 April 2011

The review team based its environmental justice determinations on the methodology discussed 

in Section 2.6.1, including a closer look at potential areas of interest using a series of health and 

physical considerations. Because of the rural nature of the two sites and the fact that the CGS 

site also hosts an existing power plant, the review team determined the hypothetical 

development of the proposed new units on the CGS site would have similar environmental 

justice impacts in most respects to adding two new units to the VCSNS site. However, as 

discussed in Section 9.3.4.6, the traffic-related impacts expected at the VCSNS site and the 

FA-1 site would not be expected at the CGS site because of the extensive road network 

providing access to the site from many directions. Under the limitations of a reconnaissancelevel analysis, the review team found no other health or physical considerations and no unique 

characteristics or practices that could lead to a disproportionately high and adverse impact on 

any minority or low-income community at the CGS site.

Based on the above considerations, information provided by SCE&G, visits to the site, and the 

review team’s independent review, the review team concludes that when viewed in the context 

of the wider region, locating the proposed action at the CGS site would not contribute additional 

cumulative impacts beyond the impacts described in Chapters 4 and 5 for the VCSNS site. 

Furthermore, the based on the above discussion, the review team determined any traffic-related 

impacts would be less than those described in Chapters 4 and 5 for the VCSNS site. The 

review team concluded that the environmental justice impacts would be minimal locally and 

would not create pathways to increase expected cumulative impacts on minority and lowincome populations in the region. Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that 

cumulative environmental justice impacts associated with building and operating two new 

nuclear units at the CGS site would be SMALL.

9.3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources

The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating two new nuclear 

generating units at the CGS Site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could impact cultural resources, including other 

Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-14. For the analysis of 

cultural impacts at the CGS site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the APE 

that would be defined for this proposed undertaking. This includes the physical APE, defined as 

the area directly affected by the site-development and operation activities at the site and 

transmission lines, and the visual APE. The visual APE is defined as an additional 1-mi radius 

around the physical APE as a reasonable assumption for defining a maximum distance from 

which the structures can be seen.

Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. For example, 

these activities include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of 

cultural resources. However, in developing its EISs, the review team relies upon 

reconnaissance-level information to perform its alternative site evaluation. Reconnaissance-
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-117 NUREG-1939

level information is data that are readily available from agencies and other public sources. It 

can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. To identify the historic and 

cultural resources at the CGS site the following information was used:

• SCE&G ER (SCE&G 2010b) – including records held by the South Carolina Institute of 

Archeology and Anthropology and the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, 

which include the results of a cultural resource survey completed in 1991 prior to 

construction of the CGS.

• NRC Alternative Sites Visit, March 2009.

Historically, the CGS site and vicinity was largely undisturbed by land development and likely 

contained intact archaeological sites associated with the past 10,000 years of human 

settlement. Over time, the CGS site has been disturbed first by forestry practices and later by 

development of the coal-fired facility (SCE&G 2009g, 2010b). Eight standing structures were 

identified in 1991, none were determined to be eligible for the National Register. The closest 

archaeological sites identified near the CGS include a ceramic scatter and a lithic scatter that 

are located 5 mi away. The physical and visual APEs for a proposed plant at the CGS site do 

not appear to have any significant historic properties located within the area likely to be affected 

by building or operating new plants. The Cope Depot is the closest significant National 

Register-listed resource to the CGS site (within 6 mi of the CGS site) (SCE&G 2010b). In 

addition, SCE&G found that there are 94 historic sites listed in the National Register within 

several counties in the vicinity of the CGS site (SCE&G 2010b).

The footprint and land required to accommodate the building of two nuclear units on the CGS 

site are described in Section 9.3.4.1. SCE&G has stated that if the proposed project was sited 

at the CGS site, the project would be developed in previously disturbed areas (SCE&G 2010b). 

SCE&G has also stated that identification of cultural resources would be accomplished through 

cultural resource surveys. The results would be used in the site-planning process to avoid 

cultural resource impacts. If significant cultural resources were identified by these surveys, 

SCE&G would also develop protective measures similar to what it has in place for the VCSNS 

site. In addition, inadvertent discovery procedures would be developed if cultural resources 

were discovered during site-development activities (SCE&G 2009f).

The transmission lines associated with the two nuclear units on the CGS site are described in 

Section 9.3.4.1. If the proposed project is located at the CGS site, the staff assumes SCE&G 

and Santee Cooper would conduct their transmission-line-related cultural resource activities in 

ways similar to what they committed to do for the VCSNS site described in Section 4.6.

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected historic and cultural 

resources include forestry practices at the CGS site, road development and logging activities 

associated with those practices, development of the coal-fired plant, and ground-clearing 

associated with building the Kaiser Agricultural Chemical Plant. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-118 April 2011

Activities associated with building two nuclear units and supporting facilities that can potentially 

affect historic and cultural resources include land clearing, excavation and grading activities. 

Given SCE&G’s site-planning process, and the lack of significant cultural resources known to 

exist at the CGS site based on reconnaissance-level information and the land disturbance 

where the new plant would be located, the impacts on cultural resources due to sitedevelopment activities would be negligible.

In addition, visual impacts from transmission lines may result in significant alterations to the 

visual landscape within the geographic area of interest. Given that there are no known cultural 

resources where the historic setting and character of the resources are important, the visual 

impacts would be negligible. The staff assumes that SCE&G and Santee Cooper would 

develop management agreements in consultation with the SHPO similar to the ones that have

been developed for VCSNS. 

Impacts on historic and cultural resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the CGS 

site include those associated with the operation of new units and maintenance of transmission 

lines. The review team assumes that the same procedures currently used by SCE&G and 

Santee Cooper would be used for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the 

incremental effects of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and operations of the two 

new units and associated impacts on cultural resources would be negligible in the physical and 

visual APEs.

Table 9-14 identifies projects within the geographic area of interest and includes the CGS, 

Kaiser Agricultural Chemical, and future urbanization. These projects could affect historic and 

cultural resources in a manner similar to those associated with the operation of two new units.

Cultural resources are nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

is cumulative. Based on the information provided by the applicant and the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building 

and operating two new nuclear generating units on the CGS site would be SMALL. This impactlevel determination reflects no known cultural resource surveys, which may reveal important 

historic properties that could result in greater cumulative impacts. 

9.3.4.8 Air Quality

Because the CGS site is located in a climate regime similar to the VCSNS site, the air quality 

impacts of building and operating a nuclear facility at the CGS site would be similar to the air 

quality impacts at the VCSNS site. As described in Sections 4.7 and 5.7, the review team 

determined that the impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units on air quality at the 

VCSNS site would be SMALL. Therefore, the impacts of building and operating two new 

nuclear units on air quality at the CGS site would be minimal.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-119 NUREG-1939

The CGS site is located in the Augusta-Aiken Interstate Air Quality Control Region, which is 

designated as being in attainment with the NAAQSs (40 CFR 81.341) (SCE&G 2010b). The 

resource area defined for this evaluation is Orangeburg County, South Carolina. A single 

county was selected because designations of attainment or non-attainment are made on a 

county-by-county basis. As listed in Table 9-14, sources of gaseous emissions near the 

proposed location include the CGS. The CGS is a 430-MW(e) coal-fired electrical generating 

plant, and emissions include sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen 

oxides. Given the intermittent operation of the diesel generators at the proposed two new units, 

and that Orangeburg County is currently in attainment, the review team concludes the 

cumulative impacts, including the impacts from building and operating two new units on air 

quality, would be SMALL. 

Greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. As 

pointed out in Chapter 7, the impacts of the emissions are independent of emission location. 

Consequently, the discussions in the previous chapters and in Section 9.2.5 are applicable to 

two AP1000 reactors located at the CGS site. The impacts of greenhouse gas emissions at the 

CGS site considered in isolation would be minor, and the cumulative impact of greenhouse gas 

emissions would be MODERATE, primarily due to national and world-wide impacts of emissions 

of greenhouse gases. Building and operating two new nuclear reactor units at the CGS site 

would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impact.

9.3.4.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts

The following analysis includes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from building and 

operating the proposed new facilities. The analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that impact the nonradiological health resources, including other 

Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-14. For the analysis of 

nonradiological health impacts at the CGS site, the geographic area of interest is considered to 

be the 6-mi area centered on the CGS site and the associated transmission-line corridors. This 

6-mi radius is expected to encompass all nonradiological health impacts. 

Building Impacts

Nonradiological health impacts from building two new nuclear units on construction workers and 

members of the public at the CGS site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8. 

They include occupational injuries, noise, vehicle exhaust, and dust. Applicable Federal and 

State regulations on air quality and noise would be complied with during the site-preparation 

and building phase. The CGS site is located in a rural area and building impacts would likely 

be negligible on the surrounding populations that are classified as medium- and lowpopulation areas. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-120 April 2011

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected nonradiological 

resources include the development and operation of the CGS, located in the same general 

location as the CGS site, and the Kaiser Agricultural Chemical Company, located less than 1 mi 

east-northeast of the CGS site. There are no major current projects in the geographic area of 

interest that would cumulatively impact nonradiological health in a similar way.

Proposed future actions that would affect nonradiological health in a similar way to development 

at the CGS site would include transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the 

designated geographic region of interest, and future urbanization would also be expected to 

occur. The review team concludes that the impacts on nonradiological health from building two 

new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the CGS site would be minimal.

Operational Impacts

Occupational health impacts on operational employees would include those associated with the 

operation of cooling towers and transmission lines, as described in Section 5.8. Based on the 

configuration of the proposed new units at the CGS site (closed-cycle, wet cooling system with 

mechanical draft cooling towers), etiological agents would not likely increase the incidence of 

waterborne diseases in the vicinity of the site. Impacts on workers health from occupational 

injuries, noise, and EMFs would be similar. Noise and EMFs would be monitored and controlled 

in accordance with applicable OSHA regulations.

No past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

significantly affect nonradiological health in ways similar to those associated with the operation 

of two new units at the CGS site. The review team therefore concludes that the impacts on 

nonradiological health from operating two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines 

at the CGS site would be minimal.

Summary Statement

Impacts on nonradiological health from development and operation of two new units at the CGS 

site are estimated based in the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s 

independent evaluation. The review team concludes that health impacts on construction 

workers and the public resulting from the development of two new nuclear units at the CGS site 

would be SMALL. The review team expects that the occupational health impacts on the 

operations employees of two new nuclear units at the CGS site would be SMALL. Similarly, 

impacts on public health of two new nuclear units operating at the CGS site would be expected 

to be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-121 NUREG-1939

There are past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect 

nonradiological health in ways similar to the building of two units at the CGS site. The review 

team concludes, however, that cumulative impacts from past, present, and future actions on 

nonradiological health from building and operating two new units at the CGS would be SMALL.

The staff is not able to come to conclusions about the chronic impacts of EMFs on public health.

9.3.4.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts on the public and workers from 

building activities and operations for two nuclear units at the CGS alternative site. The analysis 

also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect 

radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-14. As described in Section 9.3.4, a 430-MW(e) coal-fired generating plant is located at 

the CGS site along with an adjacent greenfield site; there are currently no nuclear facilities on 

the site. The geographic area of interest is the area within a 50-mi radius of the CGS site. 

Facilities potentially affecting radiological health within this geographic area of interest are the 

operating Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 1 and 2, the proposed VEGP Units 3 

and 4, DOE’s Savannah River Site (SRS), the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility at 

the SRS, the Energy Solutions (Barnwell) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, and 

the Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant outside of Columbia, South Carolina. In addition, 

there are likely to be hospitals and industrial facilities within 50 mi of the CGS site that use 

radioactive material.

The radiological impacts of building and operating the proposed two AP1000 plants at the CGS 

site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These 

pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be well below 

regulatory limits. The impacts are expected to be similar to those estimated for the VCSNS site.

The radiological impacts of existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 also include doses from direct radiation 

and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways result in low doses to people and 

biota offsite that are well below regulatory limits as demonstrated by the ongoing radiological 

environmental monitoring program conducted around the Vogtle site. The EIS for proposed 

VEGP Units 3 and 4 indicates that operation of the proposed reactors would result in 

radiological impacts form direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. The EIS 

indicates that these pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be 

well below regulatory limits (NRC 2008b).

SRS, the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility at SRS, the Barnwell Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Disposal Facility, and the Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant are all located 25 mi or more 

from the CGS site. The NRC staff concludes that these non-reactor facilities are located far 

enough from the CGS site that there would be no significant cumulative radiological impact. 

This conclusion is consistent with the results of the ongoing radiological environmental 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-122 April 2011

monitoring program conducted around the Vogtle site. In addition, the NRC staff concludes that 

the dose from direct radiation and effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities that use 

radioactive material would be an insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact around the 

CGS site. This conclusion is based on data from the radiological environmental monitoring 

programs conducted around currently operating nuclear power plants. 

The NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating 

the two proposed AP1000 plants and other existing and planned projects and actions in the 

geographic area of interest around the CGS site would be SMALL.

9.3.4.11 Postulated Accident Impacts

The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from 

operations for two nuclear units at the CGS alternative site. The analysis also considers other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health from 

postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-14. As described in Section 9.3.4, a 430-MW(e) coal-fired generating plant is located at 

the CGS site along with an adjacent greenfield site; there are currently no nuclear facilities on 

the site. The geographic area of interest considers all existing and proposed nuclear power 

plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risks)

from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the CGS alternative site. Existing facilities 

potentially affecting radiological accident risk within this geographic area of interest are the 

existing VCSNS Unit 1, H.B. Robinson Unit 1, and VEGP Units 1 and 2. In addition, two 

AP1000 reactors have been proposed at the Vogtle site. DOE’s SRS, the MOX Fuel 

Fabrication Facility at the SRS, the Energy Solutions (Barnwell) Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Disposal Facility, and the Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant outside of Columbia, South 

Carolina are also within the geographic area of interest.

As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

of DBAs at the VCSNS site would be minimal for AP1000 reactors. DBAs are addressed 

specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC safety criteria. 

The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions, and the meteorology of the CGS 

alternative and VCSNS sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

environmental consequences of DBAs at the CGS alternative site would be minimal. Because 

the meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the CGS alternative site are expected 

to be similar to the proposed VCSNS site, risks from a severe accident for an AP1000 reactor 

located at the CGS alternative site are expected to be similar to those analyzed for the 

proposed VCSNS site. These risks for the proposed VCSNS site are presented in Tables 5-17 

and 5-19 and are well below the median value for current-generation reactors. In addition, as 

discussed in Section 5.11.2, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent cancer 

fatality risks are well below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For existing plants 

within the geographic area of interest (VCSNS Unit 1, H.B. Robinson Unit 1, and VEGP Units 1 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-123 NUREG-1939

and 2), the Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe 

accidents are small (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). According to the Vogtle ESP 

(NRC 2008b), the risks from this proposed site are also well below current-generation reactors 

and meet the Commission’s safety goals. 

There are no reactors currently operating at DOE’s SRS; however, there is some severe 

accident risk associated with the spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes that 

may be processed or stored at SRS. The severe accident risks associated with stored spent 

fuel at operating nuclear power plants are lower than the risks for severe accidents involving the 

reactor core. Likewise, the severe accident risks associated any spent reactor fuel or other 

high-level radioactive waste processed or stored at SRS would be lower than the risks for 

severe accidents involving the reactor core. There is no irradiated fuel at the Westinghouse 

Fuel Fabrication Plant or the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility at SRS, and these facilities are 

designed to prevent inadvertent criticalities. Other facilities at SRS and the Barnwell Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility may contain substantial amounts of radioactive material, 

but there is no credible severe accident risk like there is for an operating reactor. Therefore, the 

additional risk from these facilities is not significant in the evaluation of the cumulative severe 

accident risk for a nuclear power plant at the CGS site.

On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks from severe accidents at any 

location within 50 mi of the CGS alternative site would be SMALL.

9.3.5 The Saluda Site 

This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

a two-unit nuclear power plant) at the Saluda site in Saluda County, South Carolina. The 

following sections describe a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major resource 

area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects 

of the proposed action if it were implemented at the Saluda site and other actions in the same 

geographic area were assessed. This assessment includes the impacts of NRC-authorized 

construction, operations, and preconstruction activities. Also included in the assessment are 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that 

could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered together with the proposed action if 

implemented at the Saluda site. Other actions and projects considered in this cumulative 

analysis are described in Table 9-21.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-124 April 2011

Table 9-21. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

Considered in the Saluda Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Energy Projects

VCSNS Unit 1 VCSNS Unit 1 consists of 

one 996-MW(e) nuclear 

power generating plant. 

About 25 mi east of the 

Saluda site

VCSNS Unit 1 is currently 

operational and is 

licensed to continue 

operations through 

August 6, 2042(a)

Carolinas-Virginia Tube 

Reactor (CVTR)

Experimental pressurized 

tube heavy water nuclear 

power reactor

About 24 mi east of the 

Saluda site

Decommissioned(b)

Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Installation

Dry spent-fuel storage About 25 mi east of the 

Saluda site

Proposed(c)

Old Steam Generator 

Recycle Facility

Decommissioned steam 

generator storage

About 25 mi east of the 

Saluda site

Operational(c)

Lee Nuclear Station Two Westinghouse 

Advanced Passive 1000 

(AP1000) pressurized 

water reactors 

About 60 mi north of the 

Saluda site

Proposed new nuclear 

plant. Operation would 

begin in 2018-2021(d)

Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant (VEGP)

Nuclear power generating 

plant with 2 units, VEGP 1 

(1109 MW(e)) and VEGP 

2 (1127 MW(e))

About 70 mi south of the 

Saluda site

Operational(e)

VEGP Units 3 and 4 Nuclear power generating 

plant with two 

Westinghouse AP1000 

pressurized water 

reactors 

About 70 mi south of the 

Saluda site

Proposed(f) (Preconstruction activities 

have commenced. NRC 

Limited Work 

Authorization has been 

issued.)

H.B. Robinson Steam 

Electric Plant, Unit 2

Nuclear power generating 

plant with one 710-MW(e) 

unit

About 90 mi east of the 

Saluda site

Operational(g)

Catawba Nuclear Station, 

Units 1 and 2

Two 1129-MW(e) 

Westinghouse reactors

About 70 mi northeast of 

the Saluda site

Operational(h)

Oconee Nuclear Station, 

Units 1, 2 and 3

Three 846-MW(e) 

Babcock and Wilcox 

reactors

About 80 mi westnorthwest of the Saluda 

site

Operational(i)

McGuire Nuclear Station, 

Units 1 and 2

Two 1100-MW(e) 

Westinghouse reactors

About 96 mi northeast of 

the Saluda site

Operational(j)

SCE&G Parr 

Hydroelectric Plant

A 14-MW(e) hydroelectric 

plant 

About 24 mi east of the 

Saluda site

Parr Hydro Plant is 

currently operational(k)

SCE&G Fairfield Pumped 

Storage Plant

A 511.2-MW(e) 

hydroelectric plant. 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 will 

use water supply from this 

facility.

About 25 mi east of the 

Saluda site

The Fairfield Pumped 

Storage Plant is currently 

operational(c)
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-125 NUREG-1939

Table 9-21. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

SCE&G Parr Combustion 

Facility

71-MW(e) natural-gas 

electric generating plant

About 2.0 mi south of 

VCSNS

Operational(b)

SCE&G Combined Site 

Emergency Operations 

Facility

A new combined-site 

emergency operations 

facility 

10 mi from VCSNS Operational(v)

Buzzard Roost 

Combustion Turbine 

Station 

A 196-MW oil/gas-fired 

peaking facility 

About 6 mi west of Saluda 

site

Operational(l)

Buzzard’s Roost Dam A 15-MW hydroelectric 

facility 

About 6 mi west of Saluda 

site

Operational(m)

Saluda Dam (SCE&G, 

commonly called the Lake 

Murray Dam)

A 206-MW hydroelectric 

facility; the Saluda Dam 

created Lake Murray

About 32 mi southeast of 

Saluda site

Operational, currently in 

process of relicensing(n)

McMeekin Station 252-MW coal-fired plant About 32 mi southeast of 

Saluda site

Operational

Westinghouse Fuel 

Fabrication Plant in 

Columbia SC

Design and fabricate 

completed nuclear fuel 

assemblies and fuelrelated products 

About 42 mi east of 

Saluda site

Operational(o)

Mining Projects

Hanson Brick 

East/Minchew Pit

Surface mining operation 

for Hanson Brick

About 2 mi southwest of 

the Saluda site

Operational(p)

Hanson Brick 

East/Bauknight Pit

Surface mining operation 

for Hanson Brick

About 8 mi southwest of 

the Saluda site

Operational(p)

Hanson Brick East/Hicks 

Pit

Surface mining operation 

for Hanson Brick

About 10 mi westsouthwest of the Saluda 

site

Operational(p)

Transportation Projects

South Carolina Strategic 

Corridor System Plan

Strategic system of 

corridors forming the 

backbone of the State’s 

transportation system.

State-wide Planning document with 

no explicit schedules for 

projects; however, many 

strategic corridors 

coincide with routes that 

would/could be used for 

development at the CGS 

site(q)

Other Facilities 

International Paper 

Silverstreet Chip Mill

Paper mill About 2 mi northwest of 

the Saluda site

Operational(r)

George Hugh Connelly 

WWTP

Newbury/Bush River 

WWTF

Waste water treatment 

facilities

Within 10–15 mi of the 

Saluda site

Operational(s)
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-126 April 2011

Table 9-21. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Ninety Six CPW Pier 96 

WWTP

WR Wise WTF

Wilson Creek WWTP

NCW&SA/Broad River 

WWTP

Parks and Aquaculture Facilities

Greenwood State Park Small park on Lake 

Greenwood

About 10 mi west of the 

Saluda site.

Currently managed by 

South Carolina 

Department of Parks, 

Recreation and Tourism(t)

Sumter National Forest 371,000-acre national 

forest. 

Throughout 40- to 50-mi 

region.

Currently managed by 

U.S. Forest Service(u)

Parr Hydro Wildlife 

Management Area

4400-acre wildlife 

management area

About 20 mi eastnortheastCurrently managed by 

SCDNR(b)

Other parks, forests, and 

reserves

Several parks, recreation, 

and conservation areas 

are located within the 50-

mi region. Examples of 

such areas include the 

following: Lake Wateree, 

the Catawba River, 

Monticello and Parr 

reservoirs, Broad River, 

Lake Murray, Dreher 

Island State Park, Lake 

Greenwood, Riverbanks 

Zoo and Garden, 

Congaree National Park, 

Harbison State Forest, 

and Sesquicentennial 

State Park.

Throughout region Currently managed by 

various local, State, and 

Federal agencies and 

organizations.

Other Actions/Projects

Various hospitals Medical isotopes Within 50 mi Operational in Columbia, 

Lexington, Newberry, 

Rock Hill, Lancaster, 

Laurens, Greenwood, and 

Camden

Future Urbanization Construction of housing 

units and associated 

commercial buildings; 

roads, bridges, and 

railroad; construction of 

water- and/or wastewatertreatment and distribution 

Throughout region. Construction would occur 

in the future, as described 

in State and local landuse planning documents 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-127 NUREG-1939

Table 9-21. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

facilities and associated 

pipelines, as described in 

local land-use planning 

documents. 

(a) Source: NRC 2004 

(b) Source: SCE&G 2011

(c) Source: SCE&G 2010b

(d) Source: NRC 2007 

(e) Source: NRC 2009e 

(f) Source: NRC 2009f 

(g) Source: NRC 2009b 

(h) Source: NRC 2009a 

(i) Source: NRC 2009d 

(j) Source: NRC 2009c 

(k) Source: EPA 2009g 

(l) Source: Duke 2009b 

(m) Source: Greenwood County 2008 

(n) Source: SCE&G 2009i

(o) Source: Westinghouse 2009 

(p) Source: EPA 2009i

(q) Source: SCDOT 2009 

(r) Source: EPA 2009j 

(s) Source: EPA 2009k 

(t) Source: South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism 2009 

(u) Source: USFS 2004 

(v) Source: SCE&G 2010e

The Saluda site is an undeveloped property owned by SCE&G in Saluda County on the Saluda 

River arm of Lake Murray at the confluence with Mill Creek. The site is bounded on the north 

side by the Saluda River arm of Lake Murray and SC-121 borders the eastern portion of the 

site. Figure 9-9 shows the Saluda alternative site region.

The Saluda site is an SCE&G-owned, greenfield site located in a predominantly rural area of 

Saluda County characterized by moderately rolling topography. The undeveloped sections of 

the site consist primarily of pine, hardwood, and mixed forested land with a significant portion of 

the forest land dedicated to silviculture and routine harvesting. There has historically been little 

use of the site for any alternative purposes other than its current use, but it is maintained by 

SCE&G as a potential site for future development if required. 

9.3.5.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors

In addition to land-use impacts from building and operations, the cumulative analysis for the 

Saluda site also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

could contribute to the cumulative land-use impacts, including other Federal and non-Federal 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-128 April 2011

Figure 9-9. Saluda Alternative Site Region
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-129 NUREG-1939

projects and the projects listed in Table 9-21. For the analysis of land-use impacts at the 

Saluda site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the 

Saluda site, plus any transmission-line corridors that extend beyond that range. Most but not all 

of the transmission-line corridor length falls within a 50-mi radius of the site. Land-use planning 

for transmission-line routing over wide areas must consider land-use plans of adjoining counties 

and other land-managing agencies, rather than considering one county in isolation. 

Furthermore, in predominantly rural settings such as that surrounding the Saluda site, land-use 

changes occurring substantial distances away from a project site can substantially influence 

land-use planning decisions close to the site.

The Saluda site presently is mostly undeveloped and predominantly forested. It is located in a 

sparsely populated, largely rural area, with forests and small farms composing the dominant 

land use, typical of much of rural South Carolina. Historically, most upland areas have been 

used for crop production, but presently are used for silviculture. Several electric transmission

lines, State routes, and interstate highways currently traverse the region. In many respects the 

Saluda site is similar to the VCSNS site, although it is much smaller. The land is owned by 

SCE&G and the review team expects that development of the site for power generation would 

not be inconsistent with local land-use plans and zoning ordinances.

To meet the land requirements for the project, the applicant would have to acquire additional 

land to bring the size of the site to at least 1233 ac (SCE&G 2010a). Development of the 

proposed new units would disturb about 415 ac of mostly forested land. State Highway SC-121 

would need to be slightly rerouted to avoid exclusion area boundaries, affecting about 50 ac of 

the land included in the above total. Because the site is undeveloped, additional land would be 

needed to construct access roads. A makeup water intake line, approximately 9 mi long, would 

be constructed along the Saluda River valley from the site to a location near the confluence of 

the Bush River and Lake Murray. Table 9-22 summarizes expected land-use impact 

parameters for the Saluda site and transmission lines. The review team used GIS data 

provided by the applicant (SCE&G 2010a) to estimate expected land disturbance. The review 

team used the most recent information provided by the applicant (SCE&G, 2010b), except 

where the design data provided in earlier Santee-Cooper documentation (2009c) was not 

reflected in the revised SCE&G application.

Table 9-22. Land-Use Impact Parameters for the Saluda Site

Parameter Value Source

Required onsite project area (ac) 1233 SCE&G 2010a, 2011

Estimated land-disturbance area (ac) 415 SCE&G 2010a, 2011 and 

review team analysis

Number of new transmission-line routes – SCG&E 

(number of routes)

2 SCE&G 2010b

Number of new transmission-line routes – Santee Cooper 

(number of routes)

5
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-130 April 2011

Table 9-22. (contd)

Parameter Value Source

Number of new transmission-line routes – total (number of 

routes)

7

Transmission-line corridor distance – SCE&G (mi) 147 SCE&G 2010b for SCE&G; 

SCE&G 2009c for Santee 

Cooper

Transmission-line corridor distance – Santee Cooper (mi) 325

Transmission-line corridor distance – total (mi) 472

Transmission-line corridor area – SCE&G (ac) 1649 SCE&G 2010b for SCE&G; 

review team analysis based 

on SCE&G 2009c for Santee 

Cooper

Transmission-line corridor area – Santee Cooper (ac) 4112

Transmission-line corridor area – total (ac) 5761

SCE&G estimates the new units would require the addition of seven 230-kV transmission lines, 

each of which would occupy a 100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor. Based on information 

provided by SCE&G, (SCE&G 2010d) describing the dimensions of conceptual transmissionline corridors for the Saluda site, approximately 472 mi covering 5761 ac of land would be 

needed. The proposed routing would use existing corridors to the extent practicable, so that 

although the linear runs extend 472 mi, somewhat less than that distance would require entirely 

new corridor. The actual area of land disturbance, used for assessing impacts on terrestrial 

ecology and cultural resources, is therefore somewhat lower than suggested by the overall landuse requirements. The review team concludes that the land-use impact of the transmission-line 

installation activities would be somewhat greater than those described for the VCSNS site in 

Section 4.1.2. SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with nuclear facility and 

transmission-line development would be conducted according to Federal, State, and local 

regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G or Santee Cooper procedures, good 

construction practices, and established BMPs (SCE&G 2010b).

Because the other projects described in Table 9-21 do not include any reasonably foreseeable 

significant changes in land-use types within 50 mi of the Saluda site, there would not be any 

significant additional cumulative impacts on land use from those activities.

As described above, installation of new transmission-line corridors to support the proposed new 

units could need as much as 5761 ac over 472 mi of length; however, the review team expects 

that final routing would lead to significantly less land-use impacts. If additional transmission 

lines are built from other energy projects, there would be a cumulative land-use impact from the 

additional amount of land converted to utility corridor use for transmission lines. Because 

transmission lines are often co-located and are relatively narrow, the review team expects that 

the cumulative impact would be consistent with the land-use plans and zoning regulations of the 

affected counties. However, multiple new transmission-line corridors could noticeably alter the 

land-use classification acreage proportions, both within the vicinity and within the 50-mi region. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-131 NUREG-1939

Cumulative land-use impacts within the region would be consistent with existing land-use plans 

and zoning. However, due to the potential reclassification of acreage within the region caused 

by the transmission-line development, the review team concludes that the cumulative land-use 

impacts associated with the proposed project at the Saluda site, related transmission-line 

corridor development, and other projects in the geographic area of interest would be 

MODERATE. Considering the land needs noted above, building and operating two new nuclear 

units at the Saluda site would be a significant contributor to these impacts.

9.3.5.2 Water Use and Quality

Saluda site hydrology, water use, and water quality are discussed in ER Section 9.3.3.3.3 

(SCE&G 2010b); this EIS section draws from information presented in the ER and in responses 

to subsequent requests by the review team for additional information, as well as the Nuclear 

Plant Site Selection Study Report (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009).

The cooling- and service-water supply for a two-unit nuclear generating station located at the 

Saluda site would most likely be Lake Murray, a run-of-the-river impoundment on the Saluda 

River near Columbia, South Carolina (SCE&G 2010b). A 9-mi-long pipeline would be needed to 

transfer water to and from the lake to the nuclear facility. Lake Murray’s surface area is over 

49,000 ac and the total and useable water storages for the reservoir are 2,200,000 and 

1,056,000 ac-ft, respectively. The mean annual inflow to Lake Murray is 2595 cfs. Two nuclear 

units located at the Saluda site would withdraw approximately 83 cfs of makeup water from 

Lake Murray. Sixty-two cubic feet per second would be consumptively lost through evaporation 

and drift from the station cooling towers and 21 cfs would be returned via pipeline to the lake at 

the discharge location. 

For the purposes of assessing water-use impacts, the review team compared the station 

consumptive water loss from evaporation and drift from the cooling towers (62 cfs) to the mean 

annual inflow to Lake Murray (2595 cfs). The consumptive water loss would be about 

2.4 percent of the average annual inflow. Based on the use of Lake Murray as the source of 

cooling water and sink for blowdown, the large storage capacity of the reservoir, the relatively 

high mean annual inflow to the reservoir from the upstream tributaries when compared to the 

anticipated consumptive losses related to station operation, and the lack of reliance on the free 

flowing section of the Saluda River near the site for a source of cooling water, the review team 

concludes the impact on surface waters of two units at the Saluda site would be negligible.

SCE&G does not plan to use groundwater for the project, so no impacts on groundwater supply 

are expected (SCE&G 2010b).

SCE&G indicates that blowdown from the proposed units would be discharged to Lake Murray 

upstream of the intake embayment (SCE&G 2010b). A SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit would 

be required to operate the nuclear project at this site. Effluent discharge through an NPDES-
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-132 April 2011

permitted outfall would ensure that the discharges complied with the Clean Water Act. Such 

permits are designed to ensure the protection of water quality and therefore the impact on water 

quality is assessed to be minor.

Impacts of building and operation of the proposed units on groundwater quality may occur due 

to leaching of spilled pollutants and effluents into the subsurface. However, based on the 

review team’s experience with other facilities, the review team concludes that with the 

implementation of BMPs the impacts on groundwater quality from building and operating two 

new nuclear units at the Saluda site would likely be minimal.

Cumulative Impacts

In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

cumulative analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect the same environmental resources. For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface 

water, the geographic area of interest for the Saluda Site is considered to be the drainage basin 

of the Saluda River upstream of the site and Lake Murray because this is the resource that 

would be affected by the proposed project. Key actions that have past, present, and future 

potential impacts on water supply and water quality in Lake Murray and the Saluda River basin 

include Buzzards Roost Dam and Saluda Dam on the Saluda River. These dams serve to 

increase the reliability of water supply to the region and to provide power. The McMeekin 

Station, a 252-MW coal-fired plant located just below Saluda Dam, has past, present, and future 

impacts on water quality and water supply in the region because it uses Lake Murray as a 

source of cooling water.

Water Use

The surface-water-use impacts of building and operating two nuclear power plants at the Saluda 

site are dominated by the higher demands that would occur under normal operation. The 

projected consumptive water use of proposed units from Lake Murray is expected to be about 

62 cfs or approximately 2.4 percent of the average inflow to Lake Murray. The average flow 

rate is influenced by upstream cumulative consumptive uses of current users. Increases in 

consumptive use of water in the Saluda River drainage is anticipated in the future. The impacts 

of operational projects listed in Table 9-21 are considered in the above analysis or would have 

little or no impact on surface-water use.

Because of the availability of surface water and the relatively low yield of groundwater wells no 

groundwater would be used during building and operations. Potential impacts on groundwater 

use would be limited to groundwater withdrawal for dewatering excavations. Dewatering, if 

required, would require limited withdrawal of water because of the low permeability of the 

geologic materials in this area and would be temporary. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-133 NUREG-1939

As discussed in Section 7.2 the review team considered potential climate changes that could 

affect the water resources available for cooling and the impacts of reactor operations on water 

resources for other users. The impact of climate change would be similar for all of the 

alternative sites. 

The review team concludes that the cumulative impact of past, present, and future uses of water 

resources, both surface water and groundwater including any incremental impact associated 

with the building and operation of two units at the Saluda site would be SMALL.

Water Quality

Water-quality impacts of building and operation of the proposed units are described above in the 

context of current conditions in the Saluda River. The conditions include the impact of operating 

Buzzards Roost Dam and Lake Murray Dam. The impacts of other projects listed in Table 7-1 

are either considered in the analysis included above or would have little or no impact on 

surface-water quality. As mentioned above, blowdown water from the site would be discharged 

to Lake Murray and the requirements of the NPDES-permitted outfall would ensure that the 

discharges comply with the Clean Water Act and therefore the impact on surface-water quality 

is assessed to be minor.

Impacts of the building and operation of the proposed units on groundwater may occur due to 

leaching of spilled pollutants and effluents into the subsurface. However, based on the review 

team’s experience with other facilities, the review team concludes that with the implementation 

of BMPs the impacts on groundwater from building and operating two new nuclear units at the 

Saluda site would likely be minimal. Due to the low permeability of geologic materials on the 

site and in the surrounding region no impacts on groundwater quality off the site are anticipated, 

and therefore no cumulative impacts on groundwater quality are anticipated. 

The review team also concludes that with the implementation of BMPs, the impacts on 

groundwater quality from building and operating two units at the Saluda would likely be minimal 

and therefore, concludes the cumulative impact on surface and groundwater quality would 

be SMALL.

9.3.5.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources

Site Description 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building and operating the proposed new 

facilities on terrestrial ecology resources. The analysis also considers past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect the terrestrial ecological resources, including 

other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-21. For the analysis of 

terrestrial ecological impacts at the Saluda site, the geographic area of interest is considered to 

be the 6-mi region centered on the Saluda site, plus the associated transmission-line corridors. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-134 April 2011

This 6-mi radius is expected to encompass the ecologically relevant landscape features and 

species. The natural history of the site is similar to that of the VCSNS site, described in 

Section 2.4.1. 

The Saluda site is a predominately forested greenfield site(SCE&G 2010b). The land 

surrounding the proposed site is predominately rural and habitats are typical of the Southern 

Outer Piedmont ecoregion, consisting of planted and naturally vegetated pine, mixed pinehardwood, and hardwood forests. Common canopy species include white oak, southern red 

oak, black oak, mockernut and pignut hickories, intermixed with some loblolly pine and shortleaf 

pine. Beech, northern red oak, tulip poplar, and red maple are found on more mesic sites 

(Griffith et al. 2002).

The associated proposed transmission-line corridors begin in the Southern Outer Piedmont 

ecoregion and cross the Sandhills into the Coastal Plain ecoregion (see Section 2.2.2). 

Vegetation community types in the Sandhills ecoregion include grassland and early 

successional habitats, Sandhills pine woodland, seepage slopes, ponds and depressions, 

blackwater stream systems, and river bottoms (SCDNR 2005). The sandy soils create a xeric 

environment that supports a distinctive type of vegetation dominated by longleaf pines and 

turkey oaks. The Coastal Plain, the largest ecoregion in South Carolina, include bottomland 

hardwood forest consisting of bottomland oaks, red maple, sweetgum, green ash, bitternut 

hickory, and cypress-gum swamps dominated by water tupelo, swamp tupelo, bald cypress, and 

pond cypress (Griffith et al. 2002).

Common wildlife associated with the Piedmont ecoregion that also occur on the Saluda site and 

proposed transmission-line corridors include white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, 

opossum, and raccoon. Various bird, reptile, and amphibian species also reside on the Saluda 

site (SCE&G 2010b). 

No Federally listed species are known to occur on the Saluda site, but formal surveys have not 

been conducted. Two species are listed as endangered in Saluda County: the red-cockaded 

woodpecker, and the vascular plant harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum). The pool-sprite 

(Amphianthus pusillus) is listed as threatened. The wood stork is the only Federally listed 

species in neighboring Newberry County. In addition to the Federally listed species, the State of 

South Carolina has listed Webster's salamander (Plethodon websteri) as endangered in 

Saluda County.

The proposed transmission-line corridors would cross Aiken, Calhoun, Chester, Colleton, 

Dorchester, Fairfield, Hampton, Greenwood, Lancaster, Laurens, Lexington, Newberry, 

Orangeburg, Richland, and Saluda Counties to connect to the proposed St. George substation 

in Colleton County (SCE&G, 2010b). Table 9-23 lists all Federally and State-listed species that 

occur in counties crossed by the proposed transmission-line corridors. SCE&G has stated that 

on-the-ground field surveys would be conducted prior to commencement of any grounddisturbing activities related to the site or transmission-line corridors as part of the permitting 

process (SCE&G 2010b). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-135 NUREG-1939

Table 9-23. Federally and State-Listed Species That May Occur on the Saluda Alternative 

Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors

Scientific Name Common Name

Legal 

Status County

Mammals

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared 

bat

SE Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Hampton, Orangeburg, Richland

Birds

Charadrius melodus Piping plover FT/ST Colleton

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson's plover ST Colleton 

Elanoides forficatus American swallow-tailed 

kite

SE Dorchester

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle BGEPA/SE Aiken, Chester, Colleton, 

Dorchester, Fairfield, Greenwood, 

Hampton, Lancaster, Lexington, 

Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, 

Saluda

Mycteria americana Wood stork FE/SE Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Hampton, Lexington, Newberry, 

Richland

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded 

woodpecker

FE/SE Aiken, Chester, Colleton, 

Dorchester, Hampton, Laurens, 

Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland, 

Saluda

Sterna antillarum Least tern ST Colleton

Reptiles

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle ST Aiken, Colleton, Hampton

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise SE Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Hampton

Amphibians

Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods salamander FT/SE Orangeburg

Hyla andersonii Pine barrens tree frog ST Richland

Plethodon websteri Webster's salamander SE Saluda

Pseudobranchus striatus Dwarf siren ST Hampton, Orangeburg

Rana capito Gopher frog SE Aiken, Dorchester, Hampton
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-136 April 2011

Table 9-23. (contd)

Scientific Name Common Name

Legal 

Status County

Vascular Plants

Amphianthus pusillus Pool sprite FT/ST Lancaster, Saluda

Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower FE/SE Aiken, Lancaster, Lexington, 

Richland

Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower FE/SE Lancaster, Lexington

Isoetes melanospora Black-spored quillwort FE/SE Lancaster

Lindera melissifolia Pondberry FE/SE Dorchester

Lysimachia asperulifolia Rough-leaved loosestrife FE/SE Richland

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort FE/SE Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, 

Orangeburg, Richland

Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella FE/SE Aiken, Saluda

Trillium reliquum Relict trillium FE/SE Aiken

Sources: SCE&G 2009d; SCDNR 2010; FWS 2010

BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FE = Federally listed as endangered; FT = Federally listed as 

threatened; SE = State listed as endangered; ST = State listed as threatened

Building Impacts

The review team estimated that the proposed project would require clearing of approximately 

415 ac of terrestrial habitats. Because the site is greenfield, a substantial amount of 

infrastructure to facilitate the building and operation of a new nuclear power facility would be 

required. Additional land would be disturbed for the building of roads, railroad spur, a bridge,

and anew makeup-water line (SCE&G 2010b). Based on a preliminary site layout of the 

tabletop footprint provided by SCE&G, the review team estimates that approximately 7.3 ac of 

wetlands present on the site would be affected during building activities for the two proposed 

units (SCE&G 2010a).

Table 9-22 provides information about the number, route, and area of the proposed 

transmission-line corridors that would serve the proposed new facilities at the Saluda alternative 

site. Acreages were determined by calculating the total number of miles and acres of clearing 

required for right-of-way widening and/or development activities (SCE&G 2009d). SCE&G and 

Santee Cooper would both have a portion of the new transmission lines and details are provided 

in the Table 9-24 and Table 9-25 below (SCE&G 2009d). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-137 NUREG-1939

Table 9-24. SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the Saluda Alternative Site

Transmission-Line 

Segment

Length of 

Corridor 

(mi)

Acres of 

Corridor

Acres of 

Forested 

Wetlands

Acres of 

Nonforested 

Wetlands

Acres of

Open Water

Saluda-Saluda Switching 14 157 6 0.3 0.1

Saluda SwitchingSt. George101 1143 180 40 4

Saluda-VCSNS-Parr 1 12 -- -- --

Saluda-VCSNS 30 337 11 1 14

Total 146 1649 197 41 18

Source: SCE&G 2009d

NOTE: Acreages were determined by calculating the total number of miles and acres of clearing required for right-ofway widening and/or development activities.

Table 9-25. Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the Saluda Alternative Site

Wetlands Estimate

New Corridor

(108 mi, 807ac)

Existing Corridor 

(213 mi, 3257 ac)

Total Corridor 

(4064 ac)

Acres

Percent of 

Corridors Acres

Percent of 

Corridors Acres

Percent of 

Corridors

Hydric soils 73 9 1135 35 1208 30

NWI wetlands 9 1 255 8 264 6

Source: SCE&G 2009d

NWI = National Wetlands Inventory

NOTE: Acreages were determined by calculating the total number of miles and acres of clearing required for right-ofway widening and/or development activities.

SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with plant and transmission-line site preparation 

and development would be conducted according to Federal, State, and local regulations, permit 

requirements, existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper procedures, and established BMPs 

(SCE&G 2010b). 

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected terrestrial resources 

include the development and operation of the Buzzard’s Roost Combustion Turbine Station, 

located approximately 6 mi west of the Saluda site. The building of this 196-MW oil/gas-fired 

peaking facility resulted in the loss of terrestrial habitat. The development of the Buzzard’s 

Roost Dam, located approximately 6 mi west of the Saluda site, dammed the Saluda River and 

created Lake Greenwood. The creation of Lake Greenwood flooded approximately 11,400 ac of 

terrestrial habitat (SCDPRT 2009). The Hanson Brick East/Minchew Plant, approximately 2 mi 

southwest of the Saluda site, and the International Paper Silverstreet Chip Mill, approximately 

2 mi from the Saluda site, also contributed to the loss of terrestrial habitat. There are no major 

current projects in the geographic area of interest that would cumulatively affect terrestrial 

ecological resources in a similar way.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-138 April 2011

Proposed future actions that would affect terrestrial resources in a similar way to development 

at the Saluda site would include transmission-line building and/or upgrading throughout the 

designated geographic region of interest, and future urbanization would also be expected 

to occur. 

Impacts from building two nuclear units and supporting facilities on wildlife habitat would be 

unavoidable. Activities that would affect wildlife include land clearing and grading (temporary 

and permanent), filling and or draining of wetlands, increased human presence, heavy 

equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, and fugitive dust. These activities would 

likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the affected areas. Some wildlife, including some 

individuals of important species, would perish or be displaced during land clearing for any of the 

above projects as a consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation, and competition for remaining 

resources. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be 

at greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, many of which 

would be displaced to adjacent communities. Undisturbed land adjacent to the project could 

provide habitat to support displaced wildlife, but increased competition for available space and 

resources could affect population levels. Wildlife would also be subjected to impacts from noise 

and traffic, and birds could be injured if they collide with tall structures. The impact on wildlife 

from noise is expected to be temporary and minor. The creation of new transmission-line 

corridors could be beneficial for some species, including those that inhabit early successional 

habitat or use edge environments, such as white-tailed deer, northern bobwhite quail, eastern 

meadowlark, and the gopher tortoise. Birds of prey, such as red-tailed hawks would likely 

exploit newly created hunting grounds. Forested wetlands within the corridors would be 

converted to and maintained in a herbaceous or scrub-shrub condition that could provide 

improved foraging habitat for some waterfowl and wading birds. However, fragmentation 

of forests could adversely affect species that are dependent on large tracts of continuous 

forested habitat. 

The review team concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from building two new 

nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the Saluda site would be noticeable, but not 

destabilizing.

Operational Impacts

Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from the operation of two new nuclear units at the 

Saluda site primarily include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. 

Impacts resulting from the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines are discussed in 

detail in Section 9.3.3.3 and would apply to the Saluda site.

No past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

significantly affect terrestrial habitat and wildlife including important species in ways similar to 

those associated with the operation of two new units.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-139 NUREG-1939

The review team concludes that the impacts of operating two new units and associated 

transmission lines at the Saluda site on terrestrial resources and wetlands would be minimal.

Summary Statement

Impacts on terrestrial ecology resources are estimated based in the information provided by 

SCE&G and the review team’s independent review. There are past and future activities in the 

geographic area of interest that could affect wildlife and wildlife habitat in ways similar to the 

building of two units at the Saluda site. 

The Saluda site and some of the associated transmission lines are natural habitats that would 

be substantially altered by development and maintenance activities, noticeably affecting the 

level and movement of terrestrial wildlife populations in the area of interest. Other anticipated 

development projects would further alter wildlife habitats and migration patterns in the 

surrounding landscape. The review team therefore concludes that cumulative impacts on 

baseline conditions for terrestrial resources would be MODERATE. Building and operating two 

new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the Saluda site would be significant 

contributor to the MODERATE impact. 

9.3.5.4 Aquatic Resources

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

aquatic ecology resources. The Saluda River basin consists of 21 watersheds that span 

2523 mi2 across the Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Sand Hills physiographic provinces 

(SCDHEC 2004b). The Saluda alternative site is located on the Saluda River, downstream of 

the confluence with Mill Creek and upstream of the Little River watershed confluence. This 

segment of the river drains into the Saluda River arm of Lake Murray (SCDHEC 2004b; SCE&G 

2010b). The site vicinity falls within the Saluda River/Lake Murray watershed (HUC 03050109-

150) in the Piedmont ecoregion. Within the 182,441 ac of the Saluda River/Lake Murray 

watershed, there are 276.8 mi of streams and over 3430.5 ac of lake waters (SCDHEC 2004b). 

The geographic region of interest would include the Saluda River and Lake Murray to the 

Saluda Dam structure as the most affected waterbodies.

Historically, Lake Murray was created by impoundment of the Saluda River in 1930 as a part of 

a hydroelectric project by Santee Cooper (iDATA 2009). Of the seven reservoirs and 

impoundments in the Saluda River basin, Lake Murray is the largest, covering 48,000 ac that 

are bordered by 691 mi of shoreline (Kleinschmidt 2005; SCDNR 2009d). The aquatic habitats 

associated with Lake Murray include a diversity of open water, shallow coves, and wetlands. 

Submerged artificial structures have been installed throughout the lake by SCDNR to attract fish 

for recreational anglers (SCDNR 2009a). Lake Murray serves multiple purposes; it is used for 

hydroelectric generation, maintenance of downstream water quality, industrial and municipal 

water supply, irrigation, and recreation (SCE&G 2010b).
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-140 April 2011

Near the proposed Saluda alternative site, SCDHEC has reported on water-quality conditions at 

two stations within the Saluda River/Lake Murray watershed. The following information was 

derived from the SCDHEC report titled Watershed Water Quality Assessment: Saluda River 

Basin (SCDHEC 2004b). At the nearest upstream monitoring station, approximately 9 river 

miles from the vicinity of the proposed alternative site, SCDHEC determined that water-quality 

conditions were hampered by elevated copper concentrations from unknown sources. Water 

quality is optimal for supporting aquatic life because the values exceed the acute criteria. 

Recreational uses, however, are not restricted. At the nearest downstream monitoring station, 

approximately 2 river miles downstream from the vicinity of the proposed alternative site, water 

quality is suboptimal for supporting aquatic life; however, there are no restrictions for 

recreational activities.

Elevated mercury concentrations within the Saluda River have resulted in a fish-consumption 

advisory for the Saluda River from Lake Greenwood Dam to the Congaree River in Columbia, 

SC; however, this advisory does not include Lake Murray, which has no advisories (SCDHEC 

2011). The SCDHEC (2011) suggests that consumption of largemouth bass and bluegill 

(Lepomis macrochirus) be limited to one meal per week. Bowfin consumption is advised not to 

exceed one meal per month. 

As described in Section 9.3.5.2, the proposed intake and discharge structures would be located 

in Lake Murray over 9 mi downstream of the nuclear facility (SCE&G 2009b). The SCDHEC 

(2004b) monitoring results indicated that the pH did not meet the established criteria, which 

resulted in the assessment that water quality is not able to support aquatic life near the 

monitoring station in the vicinity of the proposed intake and discharge structures.

Recreationally Important Species

Lake Murray provides abundant recreational opportunities, the most popular being recreational 

fishing (Kleinschmidt 2007). Recreational species found in Lake Murray include largemouth 

bass, redear sunfish, bluegill, striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white bass (M. chrysops), white 

catfish (Ameiurus catus), channel catfish, crappie (Pomoxis spp.), and white perch 

(M. americana) (Kleinschmidt 2005). There is also a small commercial bait fishery for blueback 

herring on the lake. The most predominant forage fish within the lake are threadfin (Dorosoma 

petenense) and gizzard shad (D. cepedianum) (Kleinschmidt 2005).

Invasive Species

Invasive aquatic plants encompass an estimated 100 ac in Lake Murray and include hydrilla 

(Hydrilla verticillata), Illinois pondweed (Potamogeton illinoensis), water primrose (Ludwigia 

uruguayensis), and alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides). Management strategies for 

invasive vegetation in Lake Murray include the introduction of sterile grass carp 

(Ctenopharyngodon idella), mechanical harvesting, and the targeted application of aquatic 

herbicides (SCDNR 2009b).
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-141 NUREG-1939

Critical Habitats

No critical habitat has been designated by the FWS in the vicinity of the Saluda site. However, 

critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter is present in waterbodies proposed for transmissionline crossing in Chester and Lancaster Counties. Designated critical habitat includes 103.2 km 

of streams and rivers in South Carolina that occur in conjunction with the known populations. 

The lateral boundaries of the critical habitats for the Carolina heelsplitter are denoted by the 

ordinary high-water mark along channel edges (67 FR 44502). 

Federally and State-Listed Species

Federally, proposed Federally, and State-listed species that may occur in the vicinity of the site 

or in aquatic habitats crossed by the proposed transmission-line corridors are listed in 

Table 9-26. The proposed transmission-line corridors would cross Chester, Fairfield, 

Greenwood, Lancaster, Laurens, Newberry, and Saluda Counties, which lie entirely or mostly 

within the Piedmont ecoregion. The remaining counties include Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Hampton, Lexington, Orangeburg, and Richland Counties and lie entirely or mostly within the 

Coastal Plain ecoregion (SCE&G 2010b). SCE&G has stated that on-the-ground field surveys 

would be conducted upon determination of final routes and prior to commencement of any 

building activities related to the site or transmission-line corridors as part of the permitting 

process (SCE&G 2010b). 

Table 9-26. Federally, Proposed Federally, and State-Listed Aquatic Species That May Occur 

on the Saluda Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated 

Transmission-Line Corridors

Scientific Name Common Name Status County

Reptiles

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle FT/ST Colleton

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle FE Colleton

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle FE Colleton

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley sea turtle FE Colleton

Fish

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon FE/SE Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, 

Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland

Acipenser oxyrinchus Atlantic sturgeon PFE Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, 

Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland

Etheostoma collis Carolina darter SE Fairfield, Richland 

Mollusks

Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter FE/SE Chester, Fairfield, Greenwood, Lancaster, 

Laurens, Lexington, Newberry, Saluda

Sources: SCE&G 2010b; FWS 2010, 2011; SCDNR 2010; 75 FR 61904

FE = Federally Endangered, SE = State Endangered, FT = Federally Threatened, PFE = Proposed Federally 

Endangered
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-142 April 2011

There are four Federally listed species of sea turtles in South Carolina. The loggerhead is listed 

as threatened whereas the green sea, leatherback and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are listed as 

endangered (FWS 2008). The loggerhead sea turtle is also listed as a State threatened species 

for Colleton County (SCDNR 2010). The siting of the Pomaria-Varnville transmission-line rightof-way is projected to run to the west of I-95, which is well over 50 mi from the coastline, and 

does not cross any marine habitats (MACTEC 2009). Therefore, although the four species of 

sea turtles occur in Colleton County, no activities associated with transmission lines for the 

Saluda site would affect these species.

The shortnose sturgeon is a State and Federal endangered species (FWS 2008). It is unknown 

whether the shortnose sturgeon occurs in the immediate vicinity of the proposed alternative site; 

however, populations are known to reside in the Edisto River, which is proposed for transmission 

corridor crossing. The shortnose sturgeon was initially listed as a Federally endangered species 

in 1967 and is designated as a species of highest conservation priority by SCDNR (McCord 

2006; NMFS 1998). This amphidromous species uses freshwater, estuarine, and marine 

habitats to complete its life cycle (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006; NMFS 1998). In South 

Carolina, populations of shortnose sturgeon exist in the Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto rivers 

(flowing to St. Helena Sound); the Pee Dee, Waccamaw, and Black rivers (flowing to Winyah 

Bay); and the Savannah, Cooper, and Santee rivers. There is also a small landlocked population 

of shortnose sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper Lake system (Collins et al. 2003).

In freshwater habitats, shortnose sturgeon are associated with soft bottom substrates in deep 

water. In South Carolina, spawning occurs in freshwaters characterized by low-to-moderate 

velocities and over substrates that include clay, sand, gravel, and woody debris (Rohde et al. 

2009; McCord 2006). Eggs are adhesive and survival is reportedly dependent on water having 

little turbidity (McCord 2006).

The Atlantic sturgeon is not currently listed either Federally or by the State of South Carolina. 

However, on October 6, 2010, the NMFS published in the Federal Register (75 FR 61904) a 

proposed rule for listing the Carolina and South Atlantic distinct population segments of the 

Atlantic sturgeon as endangered under the ESA. In light of this proposed listing, the review 

team is now considering the Atlantic sturgeon in its analysis. 

Characteristics of the early life-history attributes of Atlantic sturgeon, such as age at seaward 

migration and residence time in freshwater habitats, varies within natal streams as well as 

across geographic regions (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Juveniles migrate from spawning 

areas toward saline habitats where individuals spend months to years rearing in estuarine 

environments. In marine environments, Atlantic sturgeon make extensive migrations from their 

natal estuary presumably to productive foraging grounds (ASSRT 2007). Spawning is believed 

to occur in flowing water between the salt wedge and the fall line of large rivers. Like the 

shortnose sturgeon, spawning adults generally migrate upriver during the spring (February to 

March) in southern rivers. While Atlantic sturgeon have been noted to occur in many South 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-143 NUREG-1939

Carolina coastal rivers during the past several decades, specific information detailing population 

records for each of these rivers is not readily available. There appears to be little quantitative 

evidence linking the occurrence of Atlantic sturgeon in specific streams and rivers to spawning 

populations in South Carolina. South Carolina rivers with recent documented occurrences of 

Atlantic sturgeon include Waccamaw, Pee Dee, Santee, Cooper, Edisto, Combahee, 

Coosawatchie, and Savannah Rivers (ASSRT 2007).

The Carolina darter is listed as a State endangered species in Fairfield County and as a State 

threatened species in Richland County (SCDNR 2010). While there are reported accounts 

pertaining to the distribution of the Carolina darter within the Piedmont ecoregion, the overall 

abundance of this species is unknown (Hayes and Bettinger 2006).

The Carolina heelsplitter is a Federally listed aquatic species (FWS 2008). It is unknown 

whether the Carolina heelsplitter occurs in the vicinity of the proposed alternative site. 

However, there are six known populations of the Carolina heelsplitter within the state defined by 

geographic location; (1) Savannah River tributaries in Edgefield and McCormick Counties, 

(2) Cuffeytown Creek in Greenwood and McCormick Counties, (3) Lynches River and Flat 

Creek in Chesterfield, Kershaw, and Lancaster Counties, (4) Gills Creek in Lancaster County, 

(5) Fishing Creek in Chester County, and (6) Bull Run Creek in Chester County (SCDNR 2006b; 

67 FR 44502).

Building Impacts

Cooling-system makeup water would be derived from the Lake Murray arm of the Saluda River, 

which is also proposed to receive station blowdown water (SCE&G 2009b). The transport of

cooling-system makeup water and plant discharge water between the intake and discharge 

structures to the proposed plant would require the installation of a 9-mi-long pipeline along the 

Saluda River Valley from Lake Murray to the nuclear facility. As previously mentioned in 

Section 9.3.5.3, the installation footprint for this task would require disturbing approximately 

55 ac (SCE&G 2010b). Installation activities associated with new intake and discharge 

structures would likely include impacts on water quality stemming from direct (e.g., dredging, 

shoreline excavation, removal of riparian vegetation) and indirect sources (e.g., stormwater 

runoff, sedimentation). These activities would result in temporary displacement of fish within the 

vicinity of the intake and discharge construction areas. Sedimentation due to disturbances of 

the shoreline and bottom could affect local benthic populations; however, the impacts on aquatic 

organisms would be temporary and largely mitigable through the use of appropriate BMPs.

The proposed alternative site would require the disturbance of undeveloped land to

accommodate the infrastructure necessary for plant operations (i.e., cooling towers, switchyard, 

powerblock, roads). Development of the site would also include a rail spur to connect to the 

nearest rail line, which is located approximately 1.2 mi northwest of the proposed site. The spur 

would require constructing new supports for a rail line across the Saluda River (SCE&G 2010b). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-144 April 2011

Building activities that include land clearing associated with new infrastructure (roads, site 

footprint) and upgrading existing features (railroad lines) would affect approximately 6106 linear 

feet out of a total of approximately 28,508 linear feet of onsite streams and approximately 1.3 ac 

out of a total of 17.2 ac of open water (SCE&G 2010a). Transmission-line corridors would be 

maintained by SCE&G or Santee Cooper, respectively. Approximately 26,457 linear feet of 

streams and 18 ac of open water are located within the new SCE&G transmission-line corridors

(SCE&G 2009d). The new Santee Cooper transmission-line corridors associated with the 

Saluda site would include an estimated 54 stream crossings, 11 of which would be State 

navigable waters crossings (MACTEC 2009). One transmission-line corridor would fall within 

the jurisdiction of the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act, thus requiring additional 

review and certification. SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with plant and 

transmission-line site preparation and development would be conducted according to Federal, 

State, and local regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G or Santee Cooper 

procedures, and established BMPs (SCE&G 2010b).

No past or present actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

significantly affect aquatic resources, including important species, in ways similar to those 

associated with the building of two new units at the Saluda site. Proposed future actions that 

would affect aquatic resources in a similar way to development at the Saluda alternative site 

would include transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the designated 

geographic area of interest, and future urbanization.

Operational Impacts

Aquatic impacts associated with operation of the Saluda alternative site would include intakerelated impingement and entrainment losses of aquatic biota as well as water-quality impacts 

near the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures at Lake Murray. There are several 

intake/discharge configurations designed to minimize impacts on aquatic biota. Assuming 

SCE&G would use a closed-cycle cooling system designed to meet the EPA’s 316(b) Phase I 

requirements for new facilities (66 FR 65256), the intake would have a maximum throughscreen velocity at the cooling-water intake of less than 0.5 fps and adverse impacts on aquatic 

biota from impingement and entrainment effects would not be anticipated. Operational impacts 

associated with water quality and discharge are likely to be minor and discharges would be 

NPDES compliant. The diverse fish found within Lake Murray exhibit a range of life-history 

characteristics that include a variety of habitat associations during certain life phases. It is 

unknown whether the intake and/or discharge areas support important aquatic life-history 

events. Impacts would likely be greatest on nonmotile benthic aquatic organisms that occur 

within the vicinity of the discharge. However, based on the review team’s experience with other 

facilities sited on large reservoirs, the review team concludes that with proper design the 

impacts on aquatic resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the Saluda site would 

likely be minimal.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-145 NUREG-1939

The review team also concludes that operational impacts on aquatic biota from maintenance 

of the transmission-line corridors would also be minimal assuming that appropriate BMPs 

are used.

Cumulative impacts that could result from the operation of two new units at the Saluda site 

would include intake-related impingement and entrainment losses, and chemical and thermal 

discharge of station blowdown. Although detailed information regarding the presence of 

important aquatic biota in the vicinity of the discharge effluent is unknown, NPDES permitting 

requirements are likely to minimize any potential impact for additional discharge to the Saluda 

River from the operation of two units at the Saluda site. Past, present, or future actions in the 

geographic area of interest that would affect aquatic ecological resources include aquatic biota 

impacts from the operation of the Saluda Dam, a 206-MW hydroelectric facility 32 mi to the 

southeast, which created Lake Murray, and the International Paper Silverstreet Chip Mill, which 

discharges to the Saluda River within 2 mi of the Saluda alternative site. The International 

Paper Silverstreet Chip Mill is compliant with NPDES permitting for discharges (SCE&G 2010b). 

Anthropogenic activities such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of the 

nuclear facility may also contribute to cumulative impacts.

Summary Statement

Impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

SCE&G, the State of South Carolina, FWS, NMFS, and the review team’s independent review. 

There are past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect aquatic 

ecology resources in ways similar to the building and operation of two units at the Saluda site. 

Proper siting of intake and discharge structures; avoiding critical habitat or habitat for protected 

species; proper siting of associated transmission lines; minimizing interactions with waterbodies 

and watercourses along the transmission-line corridors; and using appropriate BMPs during site

development, transmission-line installation, and corridor maintenance. Based on the 

information provided by SCE&G, the State of South Carolina, FWS, NMFS, and the review 

team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of 

building and operating two new reactors on the Saluda site combined with other past, present, 

and future activities on aquatic resources in the Saluda River drainage would be SMALL.

9.3.5.5 Socioeconomics 

For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the Saluda site, the geographic area of interest is 

considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the Saluda site with special consideration of the 

four-county area, including Saluda, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, because that 

is where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. In evaluating the 

socioeconomic impacts of building and operations at the Saluda site in Saluda County, South 

Carolina, the review team undertook a reconnaissance survey of the region using readily 

obtainable data from the ER, the alternative site audit, Federal, State, and local government 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-146 April 2011

agencies. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that affect the same environmental resources, including other Federal and non-Federal 

projects and the projects listed in Table 9-21. The impacts of building and operating the new 

units are discussed below. 

Physical Impacts

Many of the physical impacts of building and operation would be similar regardless of the site. 

Building activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor, 

vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting (if used), and dust emissions. The use of public 

roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport construction materials and 

equipment. Offsite areas that would support building activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, and 

disposal sites) would be expected to be already permitted and operational. 

Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and 

visual intrusions (the latter are discussed under aesthetics and recreation). New units would 

produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling towers, transformers, turbines, generators, 

and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site also would be a source of noise. The review team 

assumed that same standard noise protection and abatement procedures used for the VCSNS 

site would be used to control noise coming from the Saluda site. This practice also would be 

expected to apply to all alternative sites. 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 alternative site.

The new units at the Saluda site would likely 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, shortterm 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. 

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that the physical impacts of building and operating two new nuclear 

units at the Saluda site would be minimal.

Demography

The Saluda site is located in Saluda County in South Carolina, approximately 34 air mi 

southeast of the closest economic center, Columbia, South Carolina (2007 population 124,818). 

Due to the Saluda site’s close proximity to the VCSNS site, the review team assumed that the 

in-migrating workforce would be similarly distributed. Because 95 percent of the VCSNS 

workforce lives in one of four counties, and the staff assumes a similar distribution around the 

Saluda site – Saluda (2007 population 18,748), Lexington (2007 population 243,270), Newberry 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-147 NUREG-1939

(2007 population 37,633), and Richland (2007 population 357,734) – counties compose the 

economic impact area and are the focus of the following analysis (see Table 2-23). 

Currently, 36.8 percent of the VCSNS workforce is located in Lexington County, 18.9 percent in 

Newberry County, 34.7 percent in Richland County, and 9.5 percent in Fairfield County. The inmigrating population would be expected to reside within a four-county area in a similar pattern to 

the VCSNS workforce, with Saluda County being the host county instead of Fairfield County. At 

peak project employment, SCE&G would expect the onsite workforce to be 3600. Based on the 

close proximity of the Saluda site to the VCSNS site, the review team used similar labor force 

assumptions and estimated that 50 percent of the project workforce (1800) would migrate to the 

four-county economic impact area with their families. Using South Carolina’s average 

household size of 2.53, this would bring the total in-migrating population to 4554. Considering 

that the estimate of the in-migrating population would be less than 1 percent of the population of 

the economic impact area in 2007, the regional and local demographic impacts of the project 

are expected to be minimal. Once the facility is operational, the workforce would include 800 

operations workers and 130 site support personnel for a total of 930 workers for the operation of 

the facility. The review team expects that as much as 50 percent of these workers would 

migrate to the economic impact area. The review team expects the demographic impacts would 

be similar to those estimated for the VCSNS site, based on the close proximity of the Saluda 

site. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent 

evaluation, the review team concludes that the demographic impacts of building and operating 

two new nuclear units at the Saluda site would be minimal. 

Taxes and Economy

Using reconnaissance-level information, the review team assumed that if the proposed nuclear 

facility were located at the Saluda site, taxes and fee-in-lieu-of-taxes agreements would be 

similar to those estimated to occur at the VCSNS site. Corporate and personal income taxes 

along with sales and use taxes would be collected during the project, but property taxes would 

not be paid until operations begin. Once operations begin, SCE&G would have likely entered 

into a fee-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement with Saluda County. Based on the agreement SCE&G has 

with Fairfield County in regard to VCSNS, which has an assessment ratio of four percent and a 

special revenue credit of 20 percent of the fee-in-lieu-of-taxes payments during the first 

20 years, SCE&G estimates VCSNS annual payments to be between $13.7 million and 

$31.6 million over 40 years of the license period. If SCE&G entered into a similar agreement

with Saluda County for the Saluda site, the tax payments would increase Saluda County 

property tax revenues (currently $10.7 million [SCBCB 2007]) by 128 to 295 percent. The total 

fee-in-lieu-of-taxes payments to Saluda County are expected to be substantial and beneficial 

during operations. 

The four-county economic impact area had 313,374 people in the labor force in 2009 with an 

unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, which is under the State average of 11.7 percent. Saluda 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-148 April 2011

and Newberry Counties have the smallest economies with a predominantly manufacturing base, 

while Lexington and Richland Counties have larger service-based economies. The wages and 

salaries of the project workforce would have a multiplier effect that could result in increases in 

business activity, particularly in the retail and service sectors. 

SCE&G acquired RIMS II economic multiplier values specific to this economic impact area from 

the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2006), which permit detailed examination of

potential economic impacts with individual multipliers attributable to construction activities and 

plant operations activities. Using the RIMS multiplier of 2.02, the 3600 construction jobs would 

create 3672 indirect jobs in the economic impact area, for a total of 7272 jobs supported by the 

project. Because the review team assumes 50 percent of the project workforce would migrate 

to the region, the approximate net employment effect of the project would be 3636 new jobs 

spread over the four counties. This would have a beneficial but temporary impact on the 

business community and could provide (1) opportunities for new businesses to get started and 

(2) increased job opportunities for local residents. Once the new units are operational, 

approximately 930 new operations jobs would be added to the local economy. Using a 

multiplier of 3.34, the 930 operations and support jobs would create 2176 indirect jobs in the 

economic impact area, for a total of 3106 jobs supported by plant operations. Because the 

review team assumes 50 percent of the workforce would migrate to the region, the approximate 

net employment effect of operations would be 1553 new jobs spread over the four counties. 

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that the economic and tax base impacts of building and operating 

two new nuclear units at the Saluda site would be minor in the four-county area, but would be 

substantial in Saluda County. 

Transportation and Housing

The nuclear facility entrance would be accessed by SC-121, a north-south paved two-lane road 

that has a 2005 AADT count of about 4000 vehicles between Saluda and Newberry Counties. 

Similar to the VCSNS site, a new access road would be constructed to access the Saluda site 

from SC-121. Because access to the Saluda site would be provided using a single two-lane 

highway (SC-121), the review team estimates traffic volumes during peak project employment 

are likely to represent a 25- to 45-percent increase or more above baseline levels of affected 

roadways, based on analysis of the VCSNS site (see Section 4.4.4.1). The review team 

concludes that these impacts would be noticeable and would likely be especially acute during 

periods of shift change. These impacts would be further exacerbated by truck traffic and site 

delivery traffic that have no other route options available. The review team concludes trafficrelated impacts would be locally acute, but of short duration and temporary, and would be 

substantially mitigated by traffic management planning by SCE&G. A rail spur, linking the site 

with the Norfolk Southern rail line in the Newberry area, would be constructed to deliver the 

heaviest components and construction materials to the site. Because of existing impoundments 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-149 NUREG-1939

on the Saluda River, the review team concludes that barge service to the Saluda site would not 

be feasible. The review team concludes that the transportation impacts from building the new 

units at the Saluda site would be minor in the region, but noticeable in the immediate vicinity 

along SC-121 and mitigation may be warranted. Facility operations would likely have a minimal 

impact on the transportation network.

Approximately 1800 construction workers could migrate into the region during peak project 

employment. Approximately 465 operations workers could migrate into the region by the time 

the facility becomes operational. Construction workers may choose to buy housing, rent, use 

mobile homes, or stay in a hotel/motel, while operations workers would likely choose to buy a 

house. According to the 2000 U.S. Census there were 246,119 housing units in the four-county 

area, of which 7738 in Lexington County, 2779 in Newberry County, 9692 in Richland County, 

and 1416 in Saluda County were vacant, for a total of 21,625 vacant units (SCE&G 2010b). 

The review team expects that the in-migrating workforce could be absorbed fairly easy by the 

region and the impacts likely would be minimal. 

Public Services and Education

In-migrating construction workers and plant operations workers would likely impact local 

municipal water, wastewater treatment facilities, and other public services in the region. The 

in-migrating workers represent a small portion of the total population of Saluda County and likely 

would not have a noticeable impact on their public services. During operations the impact on 

public services would likely be minimal. 

SCE&G reports in its ER (SCE&G 2010b) that during the 2004–2005 school year, Lexington 

County had 66 PK-12 schools, Newberry County had 14 schools, Richland County had 

93 schools, and Saluda County had 5 schools. Total enrollment for Lexington, Newberry, 

Richland, and Saluda Counties for the 2004-2005 school year was 51,276, 5948, 50,159, and 

2149, respectively. A maximum of 938 students are expected to migrate into the four-county 

area, during peak project employment and would decline to 484 during operations. This would 

increase the student population during peak project employment in Lexington County by 

0.7 percent, Newberry by 3 percent, Richland by 0.6 percent, and Saluda by 4.1 percent. 

During operation, this impact on schools would be significantly less due to the lower number of 

in-migrating students. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that public services and education impacts 

of building and operating two new nuclear units at the Saluda site would be minimal. 

Aesthetics and Recreation

The four-county area is a defined tourism region called Capital City/Lake Murray Country. The 

region includes Congaree National Monument, parts of Sumter National Forest, and a couple of 

State parks. Near the Saluda site are several trails and State heritage preserves that offer 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-150 April 2011

wildlife viewing, hunting, camping, boating, fishing, and other recreational activities. Based on 

the review team’s visit to this site, public dispersed recreation activities such as hunting and 

fishing occur on the site. Public boating access to the Saluda River currently exists. These 

uses would be precluded if the site were to be developed (SCE&G 2010b).

Most development would occur near the center of the property and wouldn’t be visible from afar 

except from elevated areas. The intake and discharge structures would be located on the Lake 

Murray approximately 9 mi southeast of the site. These and other structures may be visible 

from certain angles. During certain weather conditions the cooling tower plumes may also be 

visible. The review team concludes that taken together, the visual impact of the project on this 

site would have a noticeable impact on the aesthetics and recreational resources in the area. 

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that noticeable public aesthetics and recreation impacts would result 

from building and operating two new nuclear units at the Saluda site.

Summary of Project-Related Socioeconomics 

Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on existing buildings, 

transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span 

issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. In summary, 

on the basis of information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that the adverse impacts of building and operating a new nuclear 

plant at the Saluda site on socioeconomics would be minimal for most of the region. Impacts 

could be noticeable but not destabilizing for Saluda County in terms of transportation during the 

building phase and aesthetics and recreation impacts during both the building and operating 

phases. The impacts on the Saluda County tax base during operations likely would be 

substantial and beneficial; however only minor beneficial tax impacts would result in the rest of 

the region. 

Cumulative Impacts

The projects identified in Table 9-21, particularly the future urbanization of the Columbia 

metropolitan area, have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, economic climate, 

and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased urbanization and 

industrialization. Because the projects within the review area identified in Table 9-21 would be 

consistent with applicable land-use plans and control policies, the review team considers the 

cumulative socioeconomic impacts from the projects to be minimal.

For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the Saluda site, the geographic area of interest is 

considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the Saluda site, with special consideration of 

Saluda, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, because that is where the review team 

expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-151 NUREG-1939

The Saluda site is located in a rural area of northern Saluda County. The site currently is a 

greenfield site surrounded pine forests and wetlands, with primarily agricultural development 

and forestry production in the vicinity. The site is about 9 mi southwest of Newberry (2007 

population 10,893), the Newberry County Seat and about 12 mi north of Saluda (2007 

population 2935), the Saluda County Seat. The 50-mi region includes Columbia and Aiken, 

South Carolina, two larger urban areas. The economy of the region has been and continues to 

be largely agriculture-based. Newberry County has significant manufacturing employment. The 

review team believes development of the Saluda site would have demographic impacts similar 

to the original development of the VCSNS site, because Saluda County is somewhat similar to 

Fairfield County. The review team expects that the economic impact area for the Saluda site 

would include Saluda, Newberry, Lexington, and Richland Counties. The review team assumes 

the project workforce would be distributed within the economic impact area in approximately the 

same proportion as the existing VCSNS workforce, with the exception that the workforce 

attributed to Fairfield County would be attributed to Saluda County. SCE&G made these 

assumptions as part of its alternative sites analysis (SCE&G 2010b), and the review team did 

not find them unreasonable. 

The cumulative impact analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions that could contribute to the cumulative socioeconomic impacts on a given region, 

including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-21. The 

projects listed in Table 9-21 have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, 

economic climate, and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased 

urbanization and industrialization. Adverse cumulative impacts would include physical impacts 

(on workers and the local public, buildings, transportation, and visual aesthetics) and impacts on 

local infrastructures and community services (transportation; recreation; housing; water and 

wastewater facilities; police, fire, and medical services; social services; and schools).

Economic impacts associated with activities listed in Table 9-21 already have been considered 

as part of the socioeconomic baseline used for establishing the RIMS II multipliers. Regional 

planning efforts and associated demographic projections available at a reconnaissance level 

formed the basis for the review team’s assessment of reasonably foreseeable future impacts. 

Therefore, the review team concludes there would be a LARGE and beneficial cumulative 

impact on tax revenues in Saluda County. The review team also identified a MODERATE and 

adverse cumulative transportation impact during the building phase, aesthetics, and recreation

impacts in Saluda County during both the building and operating phases. The review team 

concludes that cumulative impacts on other socioeconomic impact categories would be SMALL 

and adverse. Building and operating a new plant at the Saluda site would make a significant

incremental contribution to both adverse and beneficial impact levels.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-152 April 2011

9.3.5.6 Environmental Justice

In addition to environmental justice impacts from building and operations, the cumulative 

analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

contribute to disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minorities and low-income 

populations, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-21. For the analysis of environmental justice impacts at the Saluda site, the geographic 

area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the Saluda site. 

The Saluda site is located in a rural area of northern Saluda County. The site currently is a 

greenfield site surrounded by pine forests and wetlands, with primarily agricultural development 

and forestry production in the vicinity. The site is about 9 mi southwest of Newberry (2007 

population 10,893), the Newberry County Seat and about 12 mi north of Saluda (2007 

population 2935), the Saluda County Seat. 

The review team based its environmental justice determinations on the methodology discussed 

in Section 2.6.1, including a closer look at potential areas of interest using a series of health and 

physical considerations. The review team determined there is a potential for minority and lowincome populations to experience disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts. 

Although Richland County and immediately adjacent counties are urban population centers, 

there are a number of farms within the region. The review team found low-income, African 

American and aggregated minority populations that exceed the percentage criteria established 

in Section 2.6.1 and required further consideration in the environmental justice analysis. 

However, none of these populations is clustered in the immediate vicinity of the Saluda site (see 

Figure 9-10 and Figure 9-11).

Because the other projects described in Table 9-21 do not include any significant reasonably 

foreseeable changes in socioeconomic impacts within 50 mi of the Saluda site, the review team 

concluded there would not be any significant additional cumulative environmental justice 

impacts in the region from those activities. Any economic impacts associated with activities 

listed in Table 9-21 already have been considered as part of the socioeconomic baseline. For 

example, the economic impacts of existing enterprises such as mining, other electrical utilities, 

etc., are part of the base used for establishing the RIMS II multipliers. Regional planning efforts 

and associated demographic projections formed the basis for the review team’s assessment of 

reasonably foreseeable future impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-153 NUREG-1939

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

Justice Selection Criteria at the Saluda Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-154 April 2011

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

Selection Criteria at the Saluda Site
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-155 NUREG-1939

Because access to the Saluda site would be provided using a single two-lane road in the 

vicinity, the review team estimates traffic volumes during building activities are likely to 

represent a 50- to 125-percent increase or more above baseline levels of the affected roadway. 

The review team concludes that these impacts would be significant and would likely be 

especially acute during periods of shift change. The impacts would be further exacerbated by 

truck traffic and site delivery traffic that have no other route options available. The review team 

expects the impacts would be of short duration and temporary, and could be substantially 

mitigated by traffic-management planning by SCE&G. Because the traffic impacts would take 

place in areas without an environmental justice population of interest, the review concluded 

no pathway exists for disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or lowincome populations. 

Based on the above considerations, information provided by SCE&G, visits to the site, and the 

review team’s independent review, the review team concludes that when viewed in the context of 

the wider region, locating the proposed action at the Saluda site would not contribute additional 

cumulative impacts beyond the impacts described in Chapters 4 and 5 for the VCSNS site. The 

review team did not identify any other environmental pathways by which disproportionately high

and adverse impacts could affect minority or low-income populations or communities. Under the 

limitations of a reconnaissance-level analysis, the review team found no other health or physical 

consideration and no unique characteristics or practices that could lead to a disproportionately 

high and adverse impact on any minority or low-income community within the region surrounding 

the Saluda site. Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that cumulative 

environmental justice impacts associated with building and operating two new nuclear units at 

the Saluda site would be SMALL.

9.3.5.7 Historic and Cultural Resources

The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating two new nuclear 

generating units at the Saluda site. The analysis also considers the other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could impact cultural resources, including other 

Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-21. For the analysis of 

cultural impacts at the Saluda site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the APE 

that would be defined for this proposed undertaking. This includes the physical APE, defined as 

the area directly affected by the site-development and operation activities at the site and 

transmission lines, and the visual APE. The visual APE is defined as an additional 1-mi radius 

around the physical APE as a reasonable assumption for defining a maximum distance from 

which the structures can be seen.

Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. For example, 

these activities include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of 

cultural resources. However, in developing its EISs, the review team relies upon 

reconnaissance-level information to perform its alternative site evaluation. Reconnaissance-
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-156 April 2011

level information is data that are readily available from agencies and other public sources. It 

can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. To identify the historic and 

cultural resources at the Saluda Site the following information was used:

• SCE&G ER (SCE&G 2010b) – including National Park Service National Register Information 

system and documents associated with the Saluda Hydro relicensing project.

• NRC Alternative Sites Visit, March 2009.

The Saluda site is a greenfield site. Historically, the Saluda site and vicinity was largely 

undisturbed by land development and likely contained intact archaeological sites associated 

with the past 10,000 years of human settlement. Over time, the Saluda site has been disturbed 

by forestry practices (SCE&G 2009g). The physical and visual APEs for a proposed plant at the 

Saluda site do not appear to have any historic properties located within the area likely to be 

affected by building or operating new plants. No archaeological and/or architectural surveys 

have been conducted at the Saluda site. Significant cultural resources have been located in the 

Saluda River/Lake Murray watershed located adjacent to the Saluda site (SCE&G 2010b). 

SCE&G’s records search identified more than 150 archaeological sites, 8 historic structures, 

32 historic home sites, and 5 historic cemeteries, most of which have not been evaluated for 

their eligibility for listing in the National Register (SCE&G 2010b)

The footprint and land required to accommodate the building of two nuclear units on the Saluda 

site are described in Section 9.3.5.1. SCE&G has stated that as part of the site-selection 

process, known cultural resource locations would be considered as avoidance areas (SCE&G 

2009f, g). SCE&G has also stated that if the proposed project was sited at the Saluda site, 

identification of cultural resources would be accomplished through cultural resource surveys. 

The results would be used in the site-planning process to avoid cultural resource impacts. If 

significant cultural resources were identified by these surveys, SCE&G would also develop 

protective measures similar to what it has in place for the VCSNS site. In addition, inadvertent 

discovery procedures would be developed if cultural resources were discovered during sitedevelopment activities (SCE&G 2009f).

The transmission lines associated with the two nuclear units on the Saluda site are described in 

Section 9.3.5.1. If the proposed project was sited at the Saluda site, the staff assumes SCE&G 

and Santee Cooper would conduct their transmission-line-related cultural resource activities in 

ways similar to what they have committed to do for the VCSNS site, as described in Section 4.6.

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected historic and cultural 

resources include forestry practices at the Saluda site and any road development and logging 

activities associated with those practices. None of the projects listed in Table 9-21 is located 

within the geographic area of interest, and therefore they have no potential for cumulative 

impact on cultural resources.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-157 NUREG-1939

Activities associated with building two nuclear units and supporting facilities that can 

potentially directly affect historic and cultural resources include land clearing, excavation and 

grading activities. Given SCE&G’s site-planning process, and the lack of significant cultural 

resources known to exist at the Saluda site based on reconnaissance-level information, and the 

land disturbance where the new plant would be located, the impacts on cultural resources due 

to site-development activities would be negligible. 

In addition, visual impacts from transmission lines may result in significant alterations to the 

visual landscape within the geographic area of interest. Given that there are no known cultural 

resources where the historic setting and character of the resources are important, the visual 

impacts would be negligible. The staff assumes that SCE&G and Santee Cooper would 

develop management agreements in consultation with the SHPO similar to the ones that have

been developed for VCSNS. 

Impacts on historic and cultural resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the Saluda 

site include those associated with the operation of new units and maintenance of transmission 

lines. 

The staff assumes that the same procedures currently used by SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

would be used for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the incremental 

effects of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and operations of the two new units 

and associated impacts on cultural resources would be negligible. 

Table 9-21 identifies projects within the geographic area of interest and includes the South 

Carolina Strategic Corridor System Plan; Sumter National Forest; other parks, forests, and 

reserves; and future urbanization that could affect historic and cultural resources in a manner 

similar to those associated with the operation of two new units. Cultural resources are 

nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources is cumulative. Based 

on the information provided by the applicant and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building and operating two new nuclear 

generating units on the Saluda site would be SMALL. This impact-level determination reflects 

no known cultural resources that could be affected; however, if the Saluda site was to be 

developed, then cultural resource surveys may reveal important historic properties that could 

result in greater cumulative impacts.

9.3.5.8 Air Quality

Because the Saluda site is located in a climate regime similar to the VCSNS site, the air quality 

impacts of building and operating a nuclear facility at the Saluda site would be similar to the air 

quality impacts at the VCSNS site. As described in Sections 4.7 and 5.7, the review team 

determined that the impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units on air quality at the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-158 April 2011

VCSNS site would be SMALL. Therefore, the impacts of building and operating two new 

nuclear units on air quality at the Saluda site would be minimal.

The Saluda site is located in the Greenwood Interstate Air Quality Control Region, which is 

designated as being unclassified or in attainment with the NAAQSs (40 CFR 81.341) (SCE&G 

2010b). The resource area defined for this evaluation is Saluda County, South Carolina. The 

single county was selected because designations of attainment or non-attainment are made on 

a county-by-county basis. None of the projects listed in Table 9-21 is within Saluda County. 

Given the intermittent operation of the diesel generators at the proposed two new units, and that 

Saluda County is currently in attainment, the review team concludes the cumulative impacts, 

including the impacts from building and operating two new units on air quality, would be SMALL.

Greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. As 

pointed out in Chapter 7, the impacts of the emissions are independent of emission location. 

Consequently, the discussions in the previous chapters and in Section 9.2.5 are applicable to 

two AP1000 reactors located at the Saluda site. The impacts of greenhouse gas emissions at 

the Saluda site considered in isolation would be minimal, and the cumulative impact of 

greenhouse gas emissions would be MODERATE, primarily due to national and world-wide 

impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Building and operating two new nuclear units at the 

Saluda site would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impact.

9.3.5.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts

The following impact analysis for the Saluda site includes impacts from building and operating 

the proposed new facilities. The analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that affect the nonradiological health resources, including other 

Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-21. For the analysis of 

nonradiological health impacts at the Saluda site, the geographic area of interest is considered 

to be the 6-mi area centered on the Saluda site and the associated transmission-line corridors. 

This 6-mi radius is expected to encompass all nonradiological health impacts. 

Building Impacts

Nonradiological health impacts from building two new nuclear units on construction workers and 

members of the public at the Saluda site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8. 

They include occupational injuries, noise, vehicle exhaust, and dust. Applicable Federal and 

State regulations on air quality and noise would be complied with during the site-preparation 

and building phase. The Saluda site is located in a rural area and building impacts would likely 

be negligible on the surrounding populations that are classified as medium- and low-population 

areas. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-159 NUREG-1939

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected nonradiological health 

include the development and operation of the Buzzard’s Roost Combustion Turbine Station, 

located approximately 6 mi west of the Saluda site; the construction of the Buzzard’s Roost 

Dam, located approximately 6 mi west of the Saluda site; the Hanson Brick East/Minchew Plant, 

approximately 2 mi southwest of the Saluda site; and the International Paper Silverstreet Chip 

Mill, approximately 2 mi from the Saluda site. There are no major current projects in the 

geographic area of interest that would cumulatively affect nonradiological health in a 

similar way.

Proposed future actions that would affect nonradiological health in a similar way to development 

at the Saluda site would include transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the 

designated geographic region of interest, and future urbanization would also be expected to 

occur. The review team concludes that the cumulative impacts on nonradiological health from 

building two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the Saluda site would be 

minimal.

Operational Impacts

Occupational health impacts on operational employees would include those associated with 

plant operation and operation of the associated transmission lines, as are fully described in 

Section 5.8. Based on the configuration of the proposed new units at the Saluda site (closedcycle, wet cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers), etiological agents would not 

likely increase the incidence of waterborne diseases in the vicinity of the site. Impacts on 

workers’ health from occupational injuries, noise, and electric fields would be similar. Noise and 

electric fields would be monitored and controlled in accordance with applicable OSHA 

regulations.

No past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

significantly affect nonradiological health in ways similar to those associated with the operation 

of two new units at the Saluda site. The review team therefore concludes that the impacts on 

nonradiological health from operating two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines 

at the Saluda site would be minimal.

Summary Statement

Impacts on nonradiological health from the building and operation of two new units and 

associated transmission lines at the Saluda site are estimated based in the information provided 

by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation. The review team concludes that 

health impacts on construction workers and the public resulting from the building of two new 

nuclear units at the Saluda site would be SMALL. The review team expects that the 

occupational health impacts on the operations employees of two new nuclear units at the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-160 April 2011

Saluda site would be SMALL. Similarly, impacts on public health of two new nuclear units 

operating at the Saluda site would be expected to be SMALL.

There are past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect 

nonradiological health in ways similar to the building of two units at the Saluda site. The review 

team concludes, however, that cumulative impacts from past, present, and future actions on 

nonradiological health from building and operating two new units at the Saluda would be 

SMALL. The staff is not able to come to conclusions about the chronic impacts of EMFs on 

public health.

9.3.5.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts on the public and workers from 

building activities and operations for two nuclear units at the Saluda alternative site. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects 

listed in Table 9-21. As described in Section 9.3.5, Saluda is a greenfield site; there are 

currently no nuclear facilities at this site. The geographic area of interest is the area within a 

50-mi radius of the Saluda site. Facilities potentially affecting radiological health within this 

geographic area of interest are the existing VCSNS Unit 1 nuclear power plant, the Old Steam 

Generator Recycle Facility, the proposed ISFSI facility at VCSNS Unit 1, and the Westinghouse 

Fuel Fabrication Plant outside of Columbia, South Carolina. In addition, there are likely to be 

hospitals and industrial facilities within 50 mi of the Saluda site that use radioactive materials.

The radiological impacts of building and operating the proposed two AP1000 plants at the 

Saluda site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. 

These sources would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be well below 

regulatory limits. The impacts are expected to be similar to those estimated for the VCSNS site.

The radiological impacts of existing VCSNS Unit 1 (including the Old Steam Generator Recycle 

Facility) include doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These 

pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that are well below regulatory 

limits as demonstrated by the ongoing radiological environmental monitoring program 

conducted around the VCSNS site. The proposed ISFSI would produce negligible direct 

radiation offsite as discussed in Section 4.9.1.

The Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant is located over 40 mi from the Saluda site. The NRC 

staff concludes that this non-reactor facility is located far enough from the Saluda site that there 

would be no significant cumulative radiological impact. This conclusion is consistent with the 

results of the ongoing radiological environmental monitoring program conducted around the 

VCSNS site. In addition, the NRC staff concludes that the dose from direct radiation and 

effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive material would be an 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-161 NUREG-1939

insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact around the Saluda site. This conclusion is 

based on data from the radiological environmental monitoring programs conducted around 

currently operating nuclear power plants.

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the NRC staff's independent analysis, the 

NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the 

two proposed AP1000 plants and other existing and planned projects and actions in the 

geographic area of interest around the Saluda site would be SMALL.

9.3.5.11 Postulated Accident Impacts

The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from the 

operation of two nuclear units at the Saluda alternative site. The analysis also considers other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health from 

postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-21. As described in Section 9.3.5, Saluda is a greenfield site; there are currently no 

nuclear facilities at the site. The geographic area of interest considers all existing and proposed 

nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences

(i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Saluda alternative site. 

Facilities potentially affecting radiological accident risk within this geographic area of interest are 

the existing VCSNS Unit 1; H.B. Robinson Unit 1; Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3; McGuire Units 1 

and 2; Catawba Units 1 and 2; and VEGP Units 1 and 2. Two AP1000 reactors have been 

proposed at the Lee site and two AP1000 reactors have been proposed at the Vogtle site as 

well. Also the Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant outside of Columbia, South Carolina, is 

within the geographic area of interest.

As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

of DBAs at the VCSNS site would be minimal for AP1000 reactors. DBAs are addressed 

specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC safety criteria. 

The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions, and the meteorology of the Saluda 

alternative and VCSNS sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

environmental consequences of DBAs at the Saluda alternative site would be minimal.

Because the meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the Saluda alternative site 

are expected to be similar to the proposed VCSNS site, risks from a severe accident for an

AP1000 reactor located at the Saluda alternative site are expected to be similar to those 

analyzed for the proposed VCSNS site. The risks for the proposed VCSNS site are presented 

in Tables 5-17 and 5-19 and are well below the median value for current-generation reactors. In 

addition, as discussed in Section 5.11.2, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent 

cancer fatality risks are well below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For existing 

plants within the geographic area of interest (VCSNS Unit 1; H.B. Robinson Unit 1; Oconee 

Units 1, 2, and 3; McGuire Units 1 and 2; Catawba Units 1 and 2; and VEGP Units 1 and 2), the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-162 April 2011

Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents 

are small (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). Finally, according to the Lee Nuclear 

Station ER (NRC 2007) and the Vogtle ESP (NRC 2008a), the risks from these proposed sites 

are also well below current-generation reactors and meet the Commission’s safety goals. There 

is no irradiated fuel at the Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant, and the plant is designed to 

prevent inadvertent criticalities; therefore, the additional risk is not significant in the evaluation of 

the cumulative severe accident risk for a nuclear power plant at the Saluda site. On this basis, 

the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks from severe accidents at any location within 

50 mi of the Saluda alternative site would be SMALL.

9.3.6 The Savannah River Alternative Site

This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

a two-unit nuclear power plant at the Savannah River (SR) alternative site, which would be colocated at DOE’s SRS in Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties in South Carolina. The 

following sections describe a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major resource 

area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects 

of the proposed action if it were implemented at the SR alternative site and other actions in the 

same geographic area were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of NRCauthorized construction, operations, and preconstruction activities. Also included in the 

assessment are other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and 

private actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered together with 

the proposed action if implemented at the SR alternative site. Other actions and projects 

considered in this cumulative analysis are described in Table 9-27.

The greater SRS itself is quite large at 310 mi2, as part of the current reindustrialization effort at 

the site, selected locations have been proposed as potential sites for the development of both 

Federal and privately held industrial projects. Accordingly, SCE&G is considering a portion of 

the site located on the Aiken County-Barnwell County line (SCE&G 2010b). Figure 9-12 shows 

the SR alternative site region.

The SRS is an industrial complex that has been extensively studied and characterized as the 

Federal government has supported nuclear materials based research and development there 

since the site opened in the early 1950s. Additionally, the SRS is home to a DOE National 

Laboratory and the nation’s first designated National Environmental Research Park. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-163 NUREG-1939

Table 9-27. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

Considered in the Savannah River Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Energy Projects

Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant 

(VEGP)

Nuclear power generating plant 

with 2 units, VEGP 1 

(1109 MW(e)) and VEGP 2 

(1127 MW(e))

About 17 mi 

southwest of 

the SR 

alternative site

Operational(a)

VEGP Units 3 and 4 Nuclear power generating plant 

with two Westinghouse AP 

1000 pressurized water 

reactors 

About 17 miles 

southwest of 

the SR 

alternative site

Proposed(b) (Pre-construction 

activities have commenced. NRC 

Limited Work Authorization has been 

issued.)

Cope Generating 

Station

A 430-MW(e) coal-fired 

electrical generating plant

About 33 mi 

east of the SR 

alternative site

Operational(c)

VCSNS Unit 1 VCSNS Unit 1 consists of one 

996-MW(e) nuclear power 

generating plant. 

About 70 mi 

north of the 

SR alternative 

site

Operational(d)

Hatch Nuclear Plant Nuclear power generating plant 

with 2 units, Hatch 1 (876 

MW(e)) and Hatch 2 (883 

MW(e))

About 100 mi 

south of the 

SR alternative 

site

Operational

Savannah River Site 

Mixed Oxide (MOX) 

Fuel Fabrication Facility

Nuclear fuel fabrication About 5 mi 

southwest of 

the SR 

alternative site

Construction of MOX Facility began 

in August 2007; operation is 

expected to begin in 2016(e)

Mining Projects

Hibbits Dirt Pit Mine Nonmetallic minerals About 10 mi 

northwest of 

the SR 

alternative site

Permit expired in May 2009(f)

Threlko Inc/ Holly #1 

Mine 

Nonmetallic minerals About 12.4 mi 

northwest of 

the SR 

alternative site

Operational(g)

Eagle Construction/ 

Robert Collins Pit 

Nonmetallic minerals About 10 miles 

southwest of 

the SR 

alternative site

Operational(g)

Transportation Projects

South Carolina 

Strategic Corridor 

System Plan

Strategic system of corridors 

forming the backbone of the 

State’s transportation system.

State-wide Planning document with no explicit 

schedules for projects; however, 

many strategic corridors coincide 

with routes that would/could be used 

for development at the SR 

alternative site(h)
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-164 April 2011

Table 9-27. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Other Actions/Projects

Clariant Corporation 

Martin Plant 

Dyes About 21 mi 

southsoutheast of 

the SR site

Operational(i)

International Paper 

Company

Logging About 20 mi 

west of the SR 

alternative site

Operational(j)

Other Actions/Projects

U.S. Department of 

Energy Savannah River 

Site

Research and industrial 

complex 

Same general 

location as the 

SR alternative 

site

Operational(k)

Barnwell Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste 

Disposal Facility

Low-level radioactive waste 

disposal

About 8 mi 

east of the SR 

alternative site

Operational(l)

Various hospitals Medical isotopes Within 50 mi Operational in Columbia, Lexington, 

Newberry, Rock Hill, Lancaster, 

Laurens, Greenwood, and Camden

Future Urbanization Construction of housing units 

and associated commercial 

buildings; roads, bridges, and 

railroad; construction of waterand/or wastewater-treatment 

and distribution facilities and 

associated pipelines, as 

described in local land-use 

planning documents. 

Throughout 

region

Construction would occur in the 

future, as described in state and 

local land-use planning documents 

(a) Source: NRC 2009e 

(b) Source: NRC 2009f 

(c) Source: SCE&G 2009h

(d) Source: NRC 2004 

(e) Source: DOE 2009a 

(f) Source: EPA 2009l 

(g) Source: EPA 2009m 

(h) Source: SCDOT 2009 

(i) Source: EPA 2009n 

(j) Source: EPA 2009o 

(k) Source: DOE 2009b 

(l) Source: South Carolina Energy Office 2009 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-165 NUREG-1939

Figure 9-12. Savannah River Alternative Site Region
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-166 April 2011

9.3.6.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors

In addition to land-use impacts from building and operations, the cumulative analysis for the SR 

alternative site considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

could contribute to the cumulative land-use impacts, including other Federal and non-Federal 

projects and the projects listed in Table 9-27. 

For the analysis of land-use impacts at the SR alternative site, the geographic area of interest is 

considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the SR alternative site, plus any transmissionline corridors that extend beyond that range. Most but not all of the transmission-line corridor 

length falls within a 50-mi radius of the site. Land-use planning for transmission-line routing 

over wide areas must consider land-use plans of adjoining counties and other land-managing 

agencies, rather than considering the SR alternative site in isolation. Furthermore, in 

predominantly rural settings such as that surrounding the SR alternative site, land-use changes 

occurring substantial distances away from a project site can substantially influence land-use 

planning decisions close to the site.

Roads and other public facilities and services in rural areas tend to serve people who are 

spread thinly but broadly over large portions of the landscape. Therefore land-use changes can 

affect roads and other facilities at greater distances than similar changes in more densely 

populated areas.

The SRS presently is moderately developed, but predominantly forested. The site is a large 

tract that houses several existing nuclear facilities as part of its DOE mission. It is located in a 

sparsely populated, largely rural area straddling Aiken and Barnwell Counties, with forests and 

small farms composing the dominant land use in the vicinity of the site boundary. The site was 

acquired by the Federal government for development of nuclear weapons facilities after World 

War II, and consequently is quite large with ample room for development. Several electric 

transmission lines, State routes, and interstate highways currently traverse the region. As 

indicated in Section 9.3.6, the site is being actively marketed for development of nuclear 

facilities. A portion of the SRS has been designated as a National Environmental Research 

Park (NERP) to be set aside for specifically for environmental and ecological research.

Based on information provided by the applicant and the review team’s independent assessment, 

development of the proposed new units on the SR alternative site would disturb about 534 ac of 

mostly forested land. A portion of the disturbed land would encroach upon the NERP. SCE&G 

estimated that the new units would require the addition of five 230-kV transmission lines, each 

of which would occupy a 100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor. Table 9-28 summarizes 

expected land-use impact parameters for the SR alternative site and transmission lines. The 

review team used GIS data provided by the applicant (SCE&G 2010a) to estimate expected 

land disturbance.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-167 NUREG-1939

Table 9-28. Land-Use Impact Parameters for the SR Alternative Site

Parameter Value Source

Required project area (ac) 1281 SCE&G 2010a, 2011

Estimated land-disturbance area (ac) 534 SCE&G 2010a, 2011 and 

review team analysis

Number of new transmission–line routes – SCE&G (number 

of routes)

2 SCE&G 2010b

Number of new transmission-line routes – Santee Cooper 

(number of routes)

3

Number of new transmission-line routes – total 

(number of routes)

5

Transmission-line corridor distance – SCE&G (mi) 121 SCE&G 2010b

Transmission-line corridor distance – Santee Cooper (mi) 138

Transmission-line corridor distance – Total (mi) 259

Transmission-line corridor area – SCE&G (ac) 1093 SCE&G 2010b

Transmission-line corridor area – Santee Cooper (ac) 1171

Transmission line corridor area – total (ac) 2264

Based on information provided by SCE&G (SCE&G 2010d) describing dimensions of 

conceptual transmission-line corridors for the SR alternative site, approximately 259 mi covering 

2264 ac of land would be affected. The review team concludes that the land-use impact of the 

transmission-line installation activities would be generally higher than those described for the 

VCSNS site in Section 4.1.2. SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with nuclear 

facility and transmission-line development would be conducted according to Federal, State, and 

local regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G or Santee Cooper procedures, good 

construction practices, and established BMPs (SCE&G 2010b).

Because the other projects described in Table 9-27 do not include any significant reasonably 

foreseeable changes in land-use types within 50 mi of the SR alternative site, there would not 

be any significant additional cumulative impacts on land use from those activities.

As described above, installation of new transmission-line corridors to support the new units has 

the potential to affect as much as 2264 ac over 259 mi of length for SCE&G lines. If additional 

transmission lines are built under other energy projects, there would be a cumulative land-use 

impact from the additional amount of land converted to utility corridor use for transmission lines. 

Because transmission lines are often co-located and are relatively narrow, the review team 

expects that the cumulative impact would be consistent with the land-use plans and zoning 

regulations of the affected counties. However, multiple new transmission-line corridors could 

noticeably alter the land-use classification acreage proportions, both within the vicinity of the SR 

alternative site and within the 50-mi region.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-168 April 2011

Cumulative land-use impacts within the region would be consistent with existing land-use plans 

and zoning. However, due to the potential reclassification of acreage within the region caused 

by the transmission-line development, the review team concludes that the cumulative land-use 

impacts associated with the proposed project at the SR alternative site, related transmission-line 

corridor development, and other projects in the geographic area of interest would be 

MODERATE. Considering the land needs noted above, building and operating two new nuclear 

units at the CGS site would be a significant contributor to these impacts.

9.3.6.2 Water Use and Quality

SR alternative site hydrology, water use, and water quality are discussed in ER Section 

9.3.3.1.3, and this EIS section draws from information presented in the ER (SCE&G 2010b). 

The primary source of surface water is the Savannah River, which bounds SRS on it southern 

boundary. Additional material for this alternative site is available in the Nuclear Plant Site 

Selection Study Report (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009), the NRC staff’s recent testimony to the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the matter of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 ESP review, the 

VEGP Units 3 and 4 COL application ER, and the Vogtle ESP EIS (NUREG 1872, NRC 2008a). 

The Vogtle site is in the vicinity of the SR alternative site and reactors at this site would rely on 

the same water resource (Savannah River) as does the existing and proposed Vogtle units.

The Savannah River annual mean and lower annual mean flows measured near Augusta, 

Georgia, were reported as 9200 and 4470 cfs, respectively, for the 1952–2005 period. The 

review team examined the annual average flow data for the USGS Augusta station (HUC 

03060106, Site Number 02197000) and confirmed that the lowest annual flow for the period 

reported in the ER was 4470 cfs; however, the review team found that 2008 provided an even 

lower annual average of 4194 cfs (USGS 2008c). The annual mean flow for 1952–2008 

reported by the USGS is 9047 cfs, which is lower than the value for the 1952–2005 period found 

in the ER. Both updated values of flow are used in Table 9-29.

Table 9-29. Savannah River Reduction in Flow and Assessed Impact Levels

Savannah River Flow 

Condition

River Flow 

Rate (cfs)

Normal Consumptive 

Use (cfs)

Percent Flow 

Reduction

Annual mean flow 9047 62 0.7

Lowest annual flow 4194 62 1.5

Consumptive use rates for two AP1000 reactors are estimated to be the same as reported in 

Chapter 3 of this EIS (62 cfs). Operation of the two proposed units at the SR alternative site 

would require less than 1 percent of the mean annual flow in the Savannah River and would 

require approximately 1.5 percent of the lowest average annual flow reported for 1952–2008. 

Therefore, the review team concludes that impacts from surface-water use for building and 

operation of the proposed project would be minimal.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-169 NUREG-1939

SCE&G indicates in the ER that groundwater would be used for potable water during building 

and operations. During 2005, 2.1 billion gallons of water were withdrawn from the Crouch 

Branch aquifer to support current site operations at the SRS with only localized impacts on 

water levels. SCE&G estimates that activities associated with the proposed units would 

increase this withdrawal rate by approximately 0.03 percent (SCE&G 2010b). Therefore, the 

review team concludes that impacts from groundwater use for building and operation of the 

proposed project would be minimal.

A SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit would be required to operate the nuclear project at this site. 

Effluent discharge through an NPDES-permitted outfall would ensure that the discharges 

complied with the Clean Water Act. Such permits are designed to ensure the protection of 

water quality and therefore the impact on surface-water quality is assessed to be minimal.

Impacts of the building and operation of the proposed units on groundwater quality may occur 

due to leaching of spilled pollutants and effluents into the subsurfaces. However, based on the 

review team’s experience with other facilities, the review team concludes that with the 

implementation of BMPs the impacts on groundwater quality from building and operating two 

new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would likely be minimal.

Cumulative Impacts

In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

cumulative analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect the same environmental resources. For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface 

water, the geographic area of interest for the SR alternative site is considered to be the 

drainage basin of the Savannah River upstream and downstream of the site, because this is the 

resource that would be affected by the proposed project. Key actions that have past, present, 

and future potential impacts on water supply and water quality in the Savannah River basin 

include operating SCE&G’s existing Urquhart Station (a fossil-fueled electrical generating plant) 

(SCE&G 2009j, 2010b), operating and decommissioning DOE facilities at the SRS, operating 

two existing nuclear power plants at the Vogtle site, building and operating two new power 

plants proposed for the Vogtle site, building and operating the proposed SCE&G power plants, 

and other municipal and industrial activities in the Savannah River basin. 

The surface-water-use impacts of building and operating two nuclear power plants at the SR 

alternative site are dominated by the higher demands that would occur under normal operation. 

The projected consumptive water use of proposed units is expected to be about 62 cfs, or less 

than 1 percent of the average river discharge of 9047 cfs near the site. This average river flow 

reflects cumulative consumptive uses of current users upstream of the Augusta gauging station. 

Water Use
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-170 April 2011

In testimony to the Atomic Safety Licensing Board regarding the ESP review for proposed 

VEGP Units 3 and 4, the NRC staff estimated the consumptive use of all existing water users 

between the Vogtle site and Thurmond Dam to be 79 cfs. Based on streamflow and discharge 

records from Thurmond Dam, the NRC staff also concluded at the hearing that the reach 

between Thurmond Dam and the proposed site is accumulating streamflow from tributaries that 

more than offset the existing consumptive water uses. Based on revised information for the 

expected consumptive use of VEGP Units 3 and 4, the estimated combined consumptive use 

for Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 is 132 cfs (Southern 2009). The consumptive water use by all of these 

users is 211 cfs and the combined consumptive water-use impact, including the proposed new 

units at the SR alternative site, would be 273 cfs (Table 9-30). Because the combined 

consumptive use is below 5 percent of the mean annual flow, the impact is assessed to be 

minimal. 

As discussed in Section 7.2, the review team is aware of the potential climate changes that 

could affect the water resources available for cooling and the impacts of reactor operations on 

water resources for other users. Because all of the alternative sites are in the same region, the 

impact of climate change may be similar for all of the alternative sites. 

Table 9-30. Savannah River Reduction in Flow and Combined Water-Use Impact

Savannah River Flow 

Condition

Flow Rate

(cfs)

Normal Combined 

Consumptive Use

(cfs)

Percent 

Flow 

Reduction

Impact 

Level

Annual mean flow 9047 273 3.0 SMALL

Lower annual flow 4194 273 6.5 SMALL

Increases in consumptive use of water in the Savannah River drainage is anticipated in the 

future. The impacts of the other operational projects listed in Table 9-27 are considered in the 

analysis included above or would have little or no impact on surface-water use.

As indicated above, groundwater would be used as a potable water source during building and 

operations. Due to the high yields for the aquifers in this region demonstrated by past use at 

the SRS, no significant impact is anticipated on other nearby users of groundwater. Therefore, 

the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from surface-water and groundwater use 

for building and operation of the proposed project would be SMALL.

Point and non-point sources have affected the water quality of the Savannah River upstream 

and downstream of the SRS. Water-quality information presented above for the impacts of 

building and operating two new units at the SR alternative site would also apply to evaluation of 

cumulative impacts. As mentioned above, a SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit would be required 

Water Quality 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-171 NUREG-1939

to operate the nuclear project at this site. Effluent discharge through an NPDES-permitted 

outfall would ensure that the discharges complied with the Clean Water Act. Such permits are 

designed to ensure the protection of water quality. The review team also concludes that with 

the implementation of BMPs, the impacts on groundwater quality from building and operating 

two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would likely be minimal, and therefore 

concludes the cumulative impact on surface and ground water quality would be SMALL.

The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-27 are either considered in the analysis included 

above or would have little or no impact on surface-water quality. 

9.3.6.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources

Site Description 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building and operating the proposed new 

facilities on terrestrial ecology resources. The analysis also considers past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect the terrestrial ecological resources, including 

other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-27. For the analysis of 

terrestrial ecological impacts at the SR alternative site, the geographic area of interest is 

considered to be the 6-mi region centered on the SR alternative site, plus the associated 

transmission-line corridors. This 6-mi radius is expected to encompass the ecologically relevant 

landscape features and species.

The SR alternative site and associated transmission lines would be located in the Sandhills 

ecoregion of South Carolina and lies on the Aiken/Barnwell County line approximately 25 mi 

southeast of the city limits of Augusta, Georgia (SCE&G 2010b). The proposed project site 

would be located on Federal land, surrounded by the greater SRS. Undeveloped areas of the 

SRS consist mainly of forests and swampland that are managed by the U.S. Forest Service for 

the DOE (SCE&G 2010b). 

The vegetation communities typical of the Sandhills ecoregion include pine-scrub oak sandhill 

(longleaf pine, turkey oak, blackjack oak, bluejack oak, and wiregrass) xeric sandhill scrub 

(longleaf pine, turkey oak, wiregrass), and streamhead pocosins (pond pine, red maple, tulip 

poplar, and evergreen shrubs) (Griffith et al. 2002). The primary cover type at the proposed SR 

alternative site is planted pine. Since the 1950s, loblolly and slash pine (Pinus elliottii) have 

been grown and harvested as part of a designated forest timber unit to remove and sell 

harvestable timber (SCE&G 2010b). 

Common wildlife species found in the Sandhills ecoregion pine forests that occur on the 

forested areas of the SR alternative site are white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, 

opossum, and raccoon. A variety of bird species also inhabit the site and include wild turkey, 

northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and several species of warblers (SCE&G 2010b). 

A high diversity of reptiles and amphibians reside in the various habitats present on the greater 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-172 April 2011

SRS. The Savannah River Ecology Lab (along with the University of Georgia and others) has 

documented over a million individuals representing 100 species of reptiles and amphibians on 

the SRS – the most that have been captured on public land in the entire United States 

(University of Georgia 2009).

Eight Federally listed species are known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed SR alternative 

site and/or within the associated proposed transmission-line corridors (SCE&G 2010b). 

Endangered species include the wood stork, red-cockaded woodpecker, Canby’s dropwort, 

harperella, relict trillium (Trillium reiquum), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), pondberry 

(Lindera melissifolia), and American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana). The American alligator 

(Alligator mississippiensis) is Federally listed as threatened due to its similarity in appearance to 

the endangered American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) (SCDNR 2006a; FWS 2008).

In addition to the Federally listed species above, five State-listed species are known to occur in 

Barnwell, Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Lexington, Orangeburg, or Hampton Counties. These 

endangered species include Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, bald eagle, gopher tortoise, and the 

gopher frog. The spotted turtle is State-listed as threatened (SCDNR 2006a). See Table 9-31

for Federally and Stated-listed species that may occur on the SR alternative site.

SCE&G stated it would perform detailed ecological surveys to protect Federally and State-listed 

threatened and endangered species that may occur on the project site as part of the permitting 

process prior to commencing any building activity for the nuclear facility or associated 

transmission lines (SCE&G 2010b). 

Table 9-31. Federally and State-Listed Species That May Occur on the SR Alternative Site, 

Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors

Scientific Name Common Name

Legal 

Status County

Mammals

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat SE Aiken, Allendale, 

Bamberg, Barnwell, 

Hampton, Orangeburg

Birds

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle BGEPA/SE Aiken, Allendale, 

Bamberg, Barnwell, 

Hampton, Lexington, 

Orangeburg

Mycteria americana Wood stork FE/SE Aiken, Allendale, 

Bamberg, Hampton, 

Lexington

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker FE/SE Aiken, Allendale, 

Bamberg, Barnwell, 

Hampton, Lexington, 

Orangeburg
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-173 NUREG-1939

Table 9-31. (contd)

Scientific Name Common Name

Legal 

Status County

Reptiles

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle ST Aiken, Allendale, 

Bamberg, Barnwell, 

Hampton

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise SE Aiken, Allendale, Hampton

Amphibians

Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods salamander FT/SE Orangeburg

Rana capito Gopher frog SE Aiken, Barnwell, Hampton, 

Orangeburg

Pseudobranchus striatus Dwarf siren ST Hampton, Orangeburg

Vascular Plants

Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower FE/SE Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell, 

Lexington

Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz’s sunflower FE/SE Lexington

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort FE/SE Allendale, Bamberg, 

Barnwell, Hampton, 

Orangeburg

Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella FE/SE Aiken, Barnwell

Trillium reliquum Relict trillium FE/SE Aiken

Sources: SCE&G 2009d; SCDNR 2010; FWS 2010

BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FE = Federally listed as endangered; FT = Federally listed as 

threatened; SE = State listed as endangered; ST = State listed as threatened

Building Impacts

The SR alternative site is mostly planted pine (SCE&G 2010b). Building activities at the 

proposed site would affect approximately 14.6 ac of wetlands (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G stated 

that although there are over 300 Carolina bays (elliptical depressions concentrated along the 

Atlantic seaboard that vary in size from one to several thousand acres) on the greater SRS, 

there would be few impacts on streams or wetlands on the project site (SCE&G 2010a, b). 

SCE&G stated that the nuclear facility could be sited to avoid wetlands whenever possible and 

potential impacts on wetlands near building zones would be minimized through the use of BMPs 

(SCE&G 2010b). 

Table 9-28 provides information about the number, route, and area of the proposed 

transmission-line corridors that would serve the proposed new facilities at the SR alternative 

site. SCE&G and Santee Cooper would both build and maintain a portion of the new 

transmission lines and details are provided in Table 9-32 and Table 9-33 (SCE&G 2009d).
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-174 April 2011

Table 9-32. SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the SR Alternative Site

Transmission-Line 

Segment

Length of 

Corridor 

(mi)

Acres of 

Corridor

Acres of 

Forested 

Wetlands

Acres of 

Nonforested 

Wetlands

Acres of 

Open Water

SRS-Cope-Edenwood 93 854 159 8 4

SRS-SRP 7 56 -- 6 --

SRS-Urquhart 22 183 9 -- --

Total 122 1093 168 14 4

Source: SCE&G 2009d

Table 9-33. Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the SR Alternative Site

Wetlands Estimate

New Corridor

(1171 ac)

Existing Corridor

(0 ac)

Total Corridor

(1171 ac)

Acres

Percent of 

Corridors Acres

Percent of 

Corridors Acres

Percent of 

Corridors

Hydric soils 324 28 0 NA 324 28

NWI wetlands 65 6 0 NA 65 6

Source: SCE&G 2009d

NA = Not applicable; NWI = National Wetlands Inventory

The new lines could cause significant wetland impacts through wetland conversion due to forest 

clearing. SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with nuclear facility and transmissionline development would be conducted in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations, 

permit requirements, existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper procedures, and established BMPs 

(SCE&G 2010b). 

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected terrestrial resources 

include the construction of DOE’s SRS, portions of which are located less than 1 mi from the SR 

alternative site. The building of the DOE SRS contributed to the loss of terrestrial habitat. The 

MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility at the DOE SRS, which began construction in 2007 

approximately 5 mi west of the SR alternative site (see Table 9-27) is a project in the 

geographic area of interest that would cumulatively affect terrestrial ecological resources in a 

similar way.

Proposed future actions that would affect terrestrial resources in a similar way to development 

at the SR alternative site would include the operation of the SRS MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility 

(located approximately 5 mi from the alternative SR site), transmission-line creation and/or 

upgrading throughout the designated geographic region of interest, and future urbanization, 

which would also be expected to occur. However, a large portion of land, approximately 

14,000 ac, within the geographic region of interest has been set aside for nondestructive 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-175 NUREG-1939

environmental research. This tract of land is managed for the benefit of wildlife and is 

designated as a National Environmental Research Park (SCE&G 2010b). It is important to note 

that a portion of the 14,000 ac of the wildlife preserve would be cleared and developed as part 

of the proposed action (SCE&G 2010b). 

Impacts from building two nuclear units and supporting facilities on wildlife habitat would be 

unavoidable, and activities that would affect wildlife include land clearing and grading 

(temporary and permanent), filling and or draining of wetlands, increased human presence, 

heavy equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, and fugitive dust. These activities 

would likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the affected areas. Some wildlife, including 

important species, would perish or be displaced during land clearing for any of the above 

projects as a consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation, and competition for remaining 

resources. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be 

at greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, many of which 

would be displaced to adjacent communities. Undisturbed land adjacent to the project could 

provide habitat to support displaced wildlife, but increased competition for available space and 

resources could affect population levels. Wildlife would also be subjected to impacts from noise 

and traffic, and birds could be injured if they collide with tall structures. The impact on wildlife 

from noise is expected to be temporary and minor. The creation of new transmission-line 

corridors could be beneficial for some species, including those that inhabit early successional 

habitat or use edge environments, such as white-tailed deer, northern bobwhite quail, eastern 

meadowlark, and the gopher tortoise. Birds of prey, such as red-tailed hawks would likely 

exploit newly created hunting grounds. Forested wetlands within the corridors would be 

converted to and maintained in a herbaceous or scrub-shrub condition that could provide 

improved foraging habitat for waterfowl and wading birds. However, fragmentation of forests 

could affect species that are dependent on large tracts of continuous forested habitat. 

The review team concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from building two new 

nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the SR alternative site would be noticeable, 

but not destabilizing.

Operational Impacts

Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from the operation of two new nuclear units at the 

SR alternative site primarily include those associated with cooling towers and transmission 

lines. Impacts resulting from the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines are 

discussed in detail in Section 9.3.3.3 and would apply to the SR alternative site.

No past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

significantly affect terrestrial habitat and wildlife, including important species, in ways similar to 

those associated with the operation of two new units.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-176 April 2011

The review team concludes that the impacts of operating two new units and associated 

transmission lines at the SR alternative site on terrestrial resources and wetlands would 

be minimal.

Summary Statement

Impacts on terrestrial ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

SCE&G and the review team’s independent review. There are past and future activities in the 

geographic area of interest that could affect wildlife and wildlife habitat in ways similar to the 

building of two units at the SR alternative site. The SR alternative site and some of the 

associated transmission-line corridors are natural habitats that would be altered by development 

and maintenance activities, noticeably affecting the level and movement of terrestrial wildlife 

populations in the area of interest. Other anticipated development projects would further alter 

wildlife habitats and migration patterns in the surrounding landscape. The review team 

therefore concludes that cumulative impacts on baseline conditions for terrestrial resources 

would be MODERATE. Building and operating two new nuclear units and associated 

transmission lines at the SR alternative site would be a significant contributor to the 

MODERATE impact.

9.3.6.4 Aquatic Resources

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

aquatic ecology resources. The SRS encompasses 310 mi2 of land that are within the 

boundaries of three counties in South Carolina: Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale. The Savannah 

River basin encompasses 10,577 mi2 within the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, and 

Georgia. In the State of South Carolina, the Savannah River basin includes 35 watersheds and 

flows through the Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain physiographic provinces (SCDHEC 

2003). The SR alternative site falls within the Lower Savannah River basin and is 

encompassed by two watersheds: the Savannah River (HUC 03060106-110) and the Upper 

Three Runs (HUC 03060106-100) (SCDHEC 2003). The geographic region of interest includes 

both the Upper Three Runs and Savannah River watersheds, based on the most affected 

waterbodies of the SR alternative site.

The following information was derived from the SCDHEC report titled Watershed Water Quality 

Assessment: Savannah River Basin (SCDHEC 2003). Of the 157,409 ac within the watershed 

associated with the proposed plant footprint, aquatic resources include forested wetlands 

(9.9 percent), water (0.2 percent), and nonforested wetlands (0.1 percent). There are 

approximately 224 mi of streams and 198 ac of lake waters within the Upper Three Runs 

watershed. Monitoring data from three waterbodies (Upper Three Runs, Cedar Creek, and 

Tims Branch) indicate that water quality would fully support aquatic life. Upper Three Runs and 

Tims Branch are blackwater systems, which are typified by naturally low-pH conditions. 

Historically, the SR alternative site is a part of the larger DOE SRS, which is a large industrial 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-177 NUREG-1939

complex now involved in various regulated cleanup activities from nuclear weapon production or 

nuclear materials preparation and storage that began in the early 1950s (DOE 2009b). 

Recreationally Important Species

The Savannah River supports diverse fisheries that are ecologically, recreationally, and 

commercially important. Recreationally and or commercially important fish within the vicinity of 

the SR alternative site include catostomids (i.e., suckers), ictalurids (i.e., catfish, bullheads, 

madtoms), moronids (i.e., temperate basses), centrarchids (i.e., sunfishes), and mugilids 

(e.g., mullets). Esocids (i.e., pikes and pickerels) are recreationally important fish, and they may 

also be considered a keystone species due to their keen predatory capabilities. Some members 

of the percid family are recreationally and commercially important (e.g., perches); others 

(e.g., darters) are sensitive to disturbance and serve as indicators of ecosystem health (Marcy 

et al. 2005).

Industrial contamination within the Savannah River has resulted in fish advisories within the 

watershed. Contaminants of concern include mercury, cesium, and strontium (Burger et al. 

2001). In the vicinity of the SR alternative site, SCDHEC (2009b) advises avoiding the 

consumption of bowfin, restricting the consumption of largemouth bass to one meal per month, 

and restricting the consumption of chain pickerel and spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops) to 

one meal per week.

Invasive Species

Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) has been documented within the vicinity of the SR alternative 

site on the Savannah River (The Catena Group 2007). 

Critical Habitats

No critical habitat has been designated by the FWS in the vicinity of the SR alternative site.

Federally and State-Listed Species

Federally, proposed Federally, and State-listed species that may occur in the vicinity of the SR 

alternative site or waterbodies associated with transmission-line corridors are listed in 

Table 9-34. The proposed transmission-line corridors lie entirely or mostly within the Coastal 

Plain ecoregion and would cross Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Hampton, Lexington and 

Orangeburg Counties (SCE&G 2009d). SCE&G has stated that on-the-ground field surveys 

would be conducted upon determination of final routes and prior to commencement of any 

building activities related to the site or transmission-line corridors as part of the permitting 

process (SCE&G 2010b). Aquatic species listed for Burke County, Georgia, are also included 

because the Savannah River separates South Carolina and Georgia at the SR alternative site.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-178 April 2011

Table 9-34. Federally, Proposed Federally, and State-Listed Aquatic Species That May Occur 

on the SR Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line 

Corridors

Scientific Name Common Name Status County

Fish

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon FE/SE Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell, Burke, 

Hampton, Lexington, Orangeburg

Acipenser oxyrinchus Atlantic sturgeon PFE Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell, Burke, 

Hampton, Lexington, Orangeburg

Moxostoma robustum Robust redhorse SE Burke

Mollusks

Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter FE/SE Lexington

Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe SE Burke

Sources: SCE&G 2010b; FWS 2010, 2011; SCDNR 2010; GDNR 2010; 75 FR 61904

FE = Federally Endangered, SE = State Endangered, FT = Federally Threatened, PFE = Proposed Federally 

Endangered

The shortnose sturgeon, State-endangered in Georgia and South Carolina, is the only Federally 

listed aquatic species known to occur in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina, and in 

Burke County in Georgia (GDNR 2010; SCDNR 2010; FWS 2010). The shortnose sturgeon 

was initially listed as a Federally endangered species in 1967 and is designated as a species of 

highest conservation priority by SCDNR (McCord 2006; NMFS 1998). This amphidromous 

species uses freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats to complete its life cycle (Rohde et al. 

2009; McCord 2006; NMFS 1998). In South Carolina, populations of shortnose sturgeon exist 

in the Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto rivers (flowing to St. Helena Sound), the Pee Dee, 

Waccamaw, and Black rivers (flowing to Winyah Bay); and the Savannah, Cooper, and Santee 

rivers. There is also a small landlocked population of shortnose sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper 

Lake system (Collins et al. 2003). In freshwater habitats, shortnose sturgeon are associated 

with soft bottom substrates in deep water. In South Carolina, spawning occurs in fresh waters 

characterized by low-to-moderate velocities and over substrates that include clay, sand, gravel 

and woody debris (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006). Spawning is known to occur in the 

Savannah River upstream of the SRS facility, and larval shortnose sturgeon were collected in 

the vicinity of SRS during ichthyoplankton surveys conducted between 1982 and 1985 (Wike 

1998). Eggs are adhesive and survival is reportedly dependent on water having little turbidity 

(McCord 2006).

Shortnose Sturgeon

The Atlantic sturgeon is not currently listed either Federally or by the State of South Carolina. 

However, on October 6, 2010, the NMFS published in the Federal Register (75 FR 61904) a 

Atlantic Sturgeon
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-179 NUREG-1939

proposed rule for listing the Carolina and South Atlantic distinct population segments of the 

Atlantic sturgeon as endangered under the ESA. In light of this proposed listing, the review 

team is now considering the Atlantic sturgeon in its analysis. 

Characteristics of the early life-history attributes of Atlantic sturgeon, such as age at seaward 

migration and residence time in freshwater habitats varies within natal streams as well as 

across geographic regions (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Juveniles migrate from spawning 

areas toward saline habitats where individuals spend months to years rearing in estuarine 

environments. In marine environments, Atlantic sturgeon make extensive migrations from their 

natal estuary presumably to productive foraging grounds (ASSRT 2007). Spawning is believed 

to occur in flowing water between the salt wedge and the fall line of large rivers. Like the 

shortnose sturgeon, spawning adults generally migrate upriver during the spring (February to 

March) in southern rivers. While Atlantic sturgeon have been noted to occur in many South 

Carolina coastal rivers during the past several decades, specific information detailing population 

records for each of these rivers is not readily available. There appears to be little quantitative 

evidence linking the occurrence of Atlantic sturgeon in specific streams and rivers to spawning 

populations in South Carolina. South Carolina rivers with recent documented occurrences of 

Atlantic sturgeon include Waccamaw, Pee Dee, Santee, Cooper, Edisto, Combahee, 

Coosawatchie, and Savannah Rivers (ASSRT 2007). Atlantic sturgeon are known to occur and 

spawn in the Savannah River, with records documenting 70 individuals having been captured 

since 1999 (ASSRT 2007). Although specific spawning locations have not been identified, 

sturgeon larvae have been collected near the SRS (Paller et al. 1986). A fall-spawning 

migration also may occur in some southern rivers (ASSRT 2007). 

The robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) is listed as endangered by the State of Georgia, 

which shares the Savannah River watershed with South Carolina (FWS 2008). The robust 

redhorse is known to occur in the Savannah River near the vicinity of the proposed SR 

alternative site (Marcy et al. 2005). Robust redhorse prefer medium-to-large creeks and rivers 

with gravel or rocky substrate. Spawning season lasts from March to May and fry reach sexual 

maturity in 4 to 5 years (Rohde and Parnell 1994).

Robust Redhorse

The Atlantic pigtoe is State-listed as endangered for Burke County, Georgia. The Atlantic pigtoe 

is found in habitats that consist of coarse sand and gravel at the downstream edge of riffles 

associated with fairly pristine, well oxygenated streams (Bogan and Alderman 2004). Although 

this species was first described in the Savannah River, there are no records of occurrences in 

the Savannah River near the SR alternative site (NRC 2008a).

Atlantic Pigtoe
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-180 April 2011

Building Impacts

Because the SRS is a former nuclear power plant site, the vicinity of the SR alternative site 

includes some of the infrastructure (e.g., roads, railroad lines, buildings) necessary to support a 

new facility. SCE&G has indicated that existing roads and railroad lines on the SRS would be 

used where practicable (SCE&G 2010b); however, SCE&G’s proposed locations of the 

powerblock, switchyard, and cooling towers do not occur within the footprint of existing facilities, 

so disturbance of aquatic ecosystems may be required during building activities.

Cooling-system makeup water would be derived from the Savannah River, which is also 

proposed to receive station blowdown water (SCE&G 2009b). Installation of new intake and 

discharge structures would result in the temporary displacement of aquatic biota within the 

affected areas. There would be impacts on water quality stemming from direct (e.g., dredging, 

shoreline excavation, removal of riparian vegetation) and indirect sources (e.g., stormwater 

runoff, sedimentation). In addition, activities that include land clearing associated with new 

infrastructure (roads, site footprint) and upgrading existing features (railroad lines) would affect 

approximately 1628 linear feet out of a total of approximately 6911 linear feet of onsite streams 

and the entire 0.6 ac of open water present onsite (SCE&G 2010a).

New transmission lines and corridors are a necessary component of the proposed SR 

alternative site, because the existing infrastructure cannot support the energy transport needs of 

the proposed new units (SCE&G 2010b). According to SCE&G (2010b), the new transmissionline corridors would be required. The transmission-line corridors would be maintained by

SCE&G or Santee Cooper, respectively. For SCE&G lines, transmission-line corridors would be 

associated with approximately 15,594 linear feet of streams and approximately 4 ac of open 

water are located within the new transmission-line rights-of-way (SCE&G 2009d). The new 

Santee Cooper transmission-line corridors associated with the SR alternative site would include 

an estimated 70 stream crossings, 3 of which would be State navigable waters crossings 

(MACTEC 2009). SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with plant and transmissionline site preparation and development would be conducted according to Federal, State, and 

local regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G or Santee Cooper procedures, and 

established BMPs (SCE&G 2010b). Past or present actions in the geographic area of interest 

that have the potential to affect aquatic ecological resources in ways similar to those associated 

with the building of the proposed new units at the SR alternative site include the construction of 

VEGP Units 1 and 2 across the Savannah River and approximately 5 river mi downstream from 

the SR alternative site and the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility at the DOE SRS, which began 

construction in 2007 approximately 5 mi west of the SR alternative site (see Table 9-27). 

Operation of the MOX facility would be a future action. A proposed future action that would 

affect aquatic resources in a similar way to development at the SR alternative site would include 

building VEGP Units 3 and 4, which, depending on the timing for building these two new units, 

may coincide with building the new units at the SR alternative site. The impacts on the 

Savannah River for building the new VEGP units are expected to be minimal (NRC 2008a). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-181 NUREG-1939

Additional future actions include transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the 

designated geographic region of interest and future urbanization.

Operational Impacts

Aquatic impacts associated with the operation of the SR alternative site would include intakerelated impingement and entrainment losses of aquatic biota as well as water-quality impacts 

near the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures in the Savannah River. There are 

several intake/discharge configurations designed to minimize impacts on aquatic biota. 

Assuming SCE&G would use a closed-cycle cooling system designed to meet the EPA’s 316(b) 

Phase I requirements for new facilities (66 FR 65256), the intake would have a maximum 

through-screen velocity at the cooling-water intake of less than 0.5 fps. Additionally, the cooling 

water intake would meet the EPA intake flow-to-source water volume criterion. Adverse impacts 

on aquatic biota from impingement and entrainment effects would not be anticipated.

Operational impacts associated with water quality and discharge are likely to be minimal and 

NPDES compliant. The diverse fish found within the vicinity of the SR alternative site exhibit a 

range of life-history characteristics that include a variety of habitat associations during certain 

life phases. Impacts would likely be greatest on nonmotile benthic aquatic organisms that occur 

within the vicinity of the discharge area. Based on the review team’s experience with other 

facilities, the review team concludes that with proper design the impacts on aquatic resources 

from operation of two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would likely be minimal.

The review team also concludes that operational impacts on aquatic biota from maintenance of 

the transmission-line corridors would be minimal assuming appropriate BMPs are used.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts that could result from the operation of two new units at the SR alternative 

site would include intake-related impingement and entrainment losses and chemical and 

thermal discharge from station blowdown. Past and present actions in the geographic area of 

interest that have the potential to affect aquatic ecological resources include the operation of the 

DOE SRS, which has current NPDES permits for the D-Area Powerhouse and industrial 

inorganic chemicals that are discharged into the Savannah River; the VEGP nuclear energy 

facility whose water withdrawals and discharges to the Savannah River are controlled by a 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources NPDES permit; and the SCE&G’s Urquhart Station, 

a fossil fuel steam electric generating plant whose withdrawals and discharges to the Savannah 

River are controlled by a SCDHEC NPDES permit.

The former Savannah River Plant (SRP) began operation during the 1950s and has been the 

focus of many environmental investigations since that time (Marcy et al. 2005). The rates of 

impingement of aquatic biota from the formerly operating SRP were reported to be low 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-182 April 2011

(compared to other facilities) during a 1977 study. Bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus 

gloriosus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), channel catfish, and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) 

were among the most commonly impinged species. Of these common species, no single 

species accounted for more than 10 percent of the samples (McFarlane et al. 1978). Thermal 

discharge associated with the SRP was correlated with species assemblages and abundance of 

fish in the vicinity of the plant (Paller and Saul 1986). Species assemblages in the intake canal 

were dominated by bluegill, redbreast sunfish, and black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus). 

Habitats with elevated thermal conditions had larger proportions of channel catfish, white 

catfish, largemouth bass, and coastal shiner (Notropis petersoni), and a lower proportion of flat 

bullhead. The low impingement rates reported from the SRS, despite higher withdrawal rates 

and through-screen velocities than those planned for the SR alternative site, support the 

conclusion that impingement rates at the new intake would not result in a detectable impact on 

the Savannah River fishery.

Recently, Georgia Power conducted both entrainment (Georgia Power 2008) and impingement 

(Georgia Power 2009) assessments to characterize current entrainment and impingement rates 

at VEGP Units 1 and 2 and to project impacts for proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. These data 

were also compared with SRS entrainment and impingement studies. The results from these 

recent assessments indicate that entrainment and impingement effects on fishery resources of 

the Savannah River from VEGP Units 1 and 2 are minimal and that anticipated effects from 

proposed Units 3 and 4 would not be significant (Georgia Power 2008, 2009). 

Future actions in the geographic area of interest that would affect aquatic ecological resources 

in ways similar to those associated with the operation of the proposed new units at the SR 

alternative site include the operation of two additional units at the VEGP site. The operation of 

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would use the Savannah River for cooling water and discharge of 

station blowdown in a manner similar to the operating VEGP Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2008a). 

Impingement and entrainment for intake operation of proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 were 

determined to result in minor impacts, as were the potential impacts for thermal and chemical 

discharges to the Savannah River (NRC 2008a). Water use from the Savannah River for six 

reactors is not likely to result in noticeable impacts as described in Section 9.3.6.2. 

Anthropogenic activities such as industrial development near the vicinity of the nuclear facility 

may also contribute to future cumulative impacts.

Summary Statement

Impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

SCE&G, the State of South Carolina, FWS, NMFS, and the review team’s independent review. 

There are past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect aquatic 

ecology resources in ways similar to the building and operation of two units at the SR alternative 

site. Proper siting of facilities; avoiding habitat for protected species and minimizing interactions 

with waterbodies and watercourses along the transmission-line corridors; and using appropriate 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-183 NUREG-1939

BMPs during intake and discharge installation, corridor preparation, and tower placement would 

minimize impacts. Based on the information provided by SCE&G, the State of South Carolina, 

FWS, NMFS, and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the 

cumulative impacts of building and operating two new reactors on the SR alternative site 

combined with other past, present, and future activities on aquatic resources in the Savannah 

River drainage would be SMALL.

9.3.6.5 Socioeconomics 

For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the SR alternative site, the geographic area of 

interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the SR alternative site with special 

consideration of Richmond and Columbia Counties in Georgia and Aiken and Barnwell Counties 

in South Carolina, because that is where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be 

the greatest. In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of site development and operation at the 

SR alternative site, the review team undertook a reconnaissance survey of the region using 

readily obtainable data from the ER, the alternative site audit, and Federal, State, and local 

government agencies. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that affect the same environmental resources, including other Federal 

and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-27. The impacts from both building 

and station operation are discussed below. 

Physical Impacts

Many of the physical impacts of building and operation would be similar regardless of the site. 

Building activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor, 

vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting (if used), and dust emissions. The use of public 

roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport construction materials and 

equipment. Offsite areas that would support building activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, and 

disposal sites) would be expected to be already permitted and operational. 

Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and 

visual intrusions (the latter are discussed under aesthetics and recreation). New units would 

produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling towers, transformers, turbines, generators, 

and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site also would be a source of noise. The review team 

assumed that the same standard noise protection and abatement procedures used for the 

VCSNS site would be used to control noise coming from the SR alternative site. This practice 

also would be expected to apply to all alternative sites. 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 alternative site.

The new units at the SR alternative site would likely have standby diesel generators and 

auxiliary power systems. Permits obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-184 April 2011

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. 

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that the physical impacts of building and operating two new nuclear 

units at the SR alternative site would be minimal.

Demography 

The SRS, within which the SR alternative site is situated, is located in Aiken, Barnwell, and 

Allendale Counties in southwestern South Carolina, approximately 25 mi southeast of Augusta, 

Georgia. The SRS is bordered by the Savannah River to the southwest for about 35 mi. The 

closest economic center is Aiken, South Carolina (2007 population 29,218), approximately 

18 mi from the SRS (USCB 2009). The population within the 50-mi radius of the site is 

estimated to be 766,127 (SCE&G 2010b). 

Currently, 84 percent of the SRS workforce lives in one of four counties, distributed as follows: 

Richmond (20.2 percent) and Columbia (11.9 percent) Counties in Georgia and Aiken 

(60.7 percent) and Barnwell (7.1 percent) Counties in South Carolina (SCE&G 2010b). The 

in-migrating population would be expected to reside within this four-county area in the same 

pattern as the existing workforce. Therefore, these four counties compose the economic impact 

area and are the focus of the following analysis.

At the peak of the plant building activities, SCE&G would expect the workforce onsite to be 

3600. Because of the rural nature of the two sites and the fact that the SRS also hosts existing 

nuclear facilities, development of the proposed new units on the SR alternative site would have 

similar socioeconomic impacts in most respects to adding two new units to the VCSNS site. 

The review team concludes that because the economic impact area includes portions of two 

larger metropolitan areas (Aiken and Augusta), migration patterns would be similar to those 

expected at the VCSNS site. About 50 percent or 1800 would migrate to the economic impact 

area in rough proportion to the current operating workforce of the SRS. Using South Carolina’s 

average household size of 2.53, this would bring the total in-migrating population to 4554. 

Considering that the estimate of the in-migrating population represents about 1.1 percent of the 

population of the economic impact area in 2000, the review team expects the regional 

demographic impacts of the project to be minor. Once the facility is operational, SCE&G 

estimates that the workforce would be about 800 employees. SCE&G also estimates that the 

additional 130 site support workforce already exists at the SRS, based on nuclear facilities 

already operating there, and additional support workers would not be needed (SCE&G 2010b). 

The review team assumed 50 percent of these workers would migrate into the four-county 

economic impact area, similar to what would be expected at the VCSNS site. The review team 

expects the demographic impact during operations to be minimal. Based on the information 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-185 NUREG-1939

provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes 

that the demographic impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the SR 

alternative site would be minimal. 

Taxes and Economy

According to SCE&G, in lieu of property taxes, SRS currently pays a fee to the counties whose 

land area includes the SRS. The proposed site sits on the Aiken/Barnwell County line, currently 

Aiken County receives $800,000 and Barnwell County receives $2 million annually. The 

proposed nuclear facility would increase the fee base to the two counties for the life of the 

proposed project. The review team finds that increased fees from the proposed project based 

on the value of the new facilities would likely be paid to Aiken and Barnwell Counties. These 

fee increases are likely to increase the SRS proportion of property tax revenues in Aiken and 

Barnwell Counties by some noticeable percentage (SCE&G 2010b). 

The wages and salaries of the project workforce would have a multiplier effect that could result 

in increases in business activity, particularly in the retail and service sectors. SCE&G acquired 

RIMS II economic multiplier values specific to this economic impact area from the U.S. Bureau 

of Economic Analysis (BEA 2006), which permit detailed examination of potential economic 

impacts with individual multipliers attributable to construction activities and plant operations 

activities. Using the RIMS multiplier of 1.75, the 3600 construction jobs would create 2700 

indirect jobs in the economic impact area, for a total of 6300 jobs supported by the project. 

Because the review team assumes 50 percent of the project workforce would migrate to the 

region, the approximate net employment effect of the project would be 3150 new jobs spread 

over the four counties. This would have a beneficial but temporary impact on the business 

community and could provide (1) opportunities for new businesses to get started and (2) 

increased job opportunities for local residents. Once the new units are operational, 

approximately 800 new operations jobs would be added to the local economy. Using a 

multiplier of 2.64, the 800 operations and support jobs would create 1312 indirect jobs in the 

economic impact area, for a total of 2112 jobs supported by plant operations. Because the 

review team assumes 50 percent of the workforce would migrate to the region, the approximate 

net employment effect of operations would be 1056 new jobs spread over the four counties. 

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that the economic and tax base impacts of building and operating 

two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would be minor in the four-county area, but

would be noticeable in Aiken and Barnwell Counties. 

Transportation and Housing 

The proposed site can be accessed by a number of routes. The transportation network includes 

one east-west interstate highway (I-20), north-south US-1 and US-25/SC-121, and east-west 

US-78 and US-278. There are several other US and State highways in the SRS region. Delays 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-186 April 2011

are currently experienced around the Savannah River bridges on I-20, US-25, and US-1. 

Sufficient railroad lines exist near the site. Given the extensive transportation network that 

exists in the SRS region and implementation of traffic-control measures such as staggering 

shifts, the review team expects transportation impacts from building and operating a nuclear 

facility on the SR alternative site to be minor. 

Approximately 1800 construction workers would migrate into the region during peak project 

employment. Approximately 465 operations workers would migrate into the region by the time 

the facility becomes operational. Construction workers may choose to buy housing, rent, use 

mobile homes, or stay in a hotel/motel, while operations workers would likely choose to buy a 

house. According to the 2000 U.S. Census there were 187,811 housing units in the four-county 

area, of which 6400 in Aiken County 1170 in Barnwell County, 8392 in Richmond County, and 

2201 in Columbia County were vacant, for a total of 18,163 vacant units (SCE&G 2010b). The 

review team expects that the in-migrating workforce could be absorbed by the region and the 

impacts would likely be minimal, but if a higher than expected number of workers decided to 

reside in one of the smaller counties such as Aiken or Barnwell County then the impact would 

be more noticeable. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that transportation and housing impacts of 

building and operating two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would be minor across 

the four-county area, and would be noticeable in Aiken and Barnwell Counties but not 

destabilizing.

Public Services and Education

In-migrating construction workers and plant operations workers would likely affect local 

municipal water, wastewater treatment facilities, and other public services in the region. The inmigrating workers represent a small portion of the total population of Aiken or Barnwell Counties 

and likely would not have a noticeable impact on their public services. During operations the 

impact on public services would likely be minimal. 

SCE&G reports in its ER (SCE&G 2010b) that during the 2004–2005 school year, Aiken County 

had 40 PK-12 schools, Barnwell County had 11 schools, Richmond County had 89 schools, and 

Columbia County had 29 schools (SCE&G 2010b). Total enrollment for Aiken, Barnwell, 

Richmond, and Columbia Counties for the 2004–2005 school year was 25,299, 4721, 34,141, 

and 20,570, respectively. A maximum of 938 students are expected to migrate into the fourcounty area, during peak project employment and this number would decline to 484 during 

operations. Based on the analysis in the demography section above, it is expected that 

approximately 60.7 percent of the students would settle in Aiken County, 7.1 percent in Barnwell 

County, 20.2 percent in Richmond, and 11.9 percent in Columbia County. This would increase 

the student population in Aiken County by 2.3 percent, Barnwell County by 1.4 percent, 

Richmond County by 0.6 percent, and Columbia County by 0.5 percent. During facility 

operations, the increase in student body would be one percent for Aiken County, 0.6 percent for 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-187 NUREG-1939

Barnwell County, 0.2 percent for Richmond County, and 0.2 percent for Columbia County 

(SCE&G 2010b). During operation, this impact on schools would be significantly less due to the 

lower number of in-migrating students. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the 

review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that public services and 

education impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site 

would be minor. 

Aesthetics and Recreation

The SRS is government-owned and not open to the public, but certain recreational activities 

such as guided tours, controlled deer hunts, and environmental studies are allowed on the site. 

Other recreational areas within 50 mi of the SRS include Sumter National Forest, Santee 

National Wildlife Refuge, Thurmond Lake, Crackerneck Wildlife Management Area, and various 

other State, county, and local parks. The intake structures would be visible to people recreating 

on the Savannah River in the immediate vicinity. Other facility structures would be similar to 

existing structures in the area and mainly hidden by river bends, elevated terrain, and 

vegetation (SCE&G 2010b). Project activities would increase the noise level at the site, but 

because of its location on an industrial site, this would likely only impact the current industrial 

residents. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent 

evaluation, the review team concludes that public aesthetics and recreation impacts of building 

and operating two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would be minimal. 

Summary of Project-Related Socioeconomics 

Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on existing buildings, 

transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span 

issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. In summary, 

on the basis of information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

the review team concludes that the adverse impacts of building and operating a new nuclear 

plant at the SR alternative site on socioeconomics would be minimal for most of the region but 

could be noticeable but not destabilizing for Aiken and Barnwell Counties in terms of housing 

impacts during the building phase. During operation, these impacts are expected to be minimal. 

Impacts on aesthetics are expected to be minor. The impacts on the tax base of Aiken and 

Barnwell Counties during operations likely would be noticeable and beneficial; however only 

minor beneficial tax impacts would result in the rest of the region. 

Cumulative Impacts

The projects identified in Table 9-27, particularly the future urbanization of the metropolitan area 

of Augusta, Georgia, have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, economic 

climate, and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-188 April 2011

urbanization and industrialization. Because the projects within the review area identified in 

Table 9-27 would be consistent with applicable land-use plans and control policies, the review 

team considers the cumulative socioeconomic impacts from the projects to be minimal.

For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the SR alternative site, the geographic area of 

interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the SR alternative site, with special 

consideration of Richmond and Columbia Counties in Georgia and Aiken and Barnwell Counties 

in South Carolina, because that is where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be 

the greatest. 

The SRS is a large site covering parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties in 

southwestern South Carolina. The employment in the area surrounding the SR alternative site 

is a mixture of State and local government, retail, manufacturing, and construction. The majority 

of the region’s workforce resides to the north in Aiken, Lexington, and Orangeburg in South 

Carolina, or in Richmond and Columbia Counties in Georgia to the northwest of the site. Since 

2001, however, there has been a shift away from the manufacturing sector towards other 

sectors. While still the largest single employment sector the in the region, manufacturing’s 

decline during the period of 2001 to 2007 was approximately 15 percent. Hardest hit by the 

contraction of the manufacturing sector has been Burke County, Georgia, part of the Augusta 

metropolitan area, which lost approximately 11,555 manufacturing jobs during this period of time 

(BEA 2009). The healthcare and social assistance sector was the fastest growing sector in the 

region, having grown approximately 23 percent from 31,368 employees in 2001 to 38,668 

employees in 2007 (BEA 2009). The United States Army Base, Fort Gordon, located in 

Richmond County and Columbia County, Georgia, also employs approximately 16,000 active 

personnel in addition to 3800 civilian employees (Augusta 2008). The facilities located at the 

SRS itself, although employing fewer now than it has in the past, continues to employ 

approximately 13,373 people combined as of 2003, 7845 (83 percent) of whom live in Aiken, 

Barnwell, or Richmond Counties (Augusta 2008). 

The cumulative impact analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions that could contribute to the cumulative socioeconomic impacts on a given region, 

including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-27. The 

projects listed in Table 9-27 have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, 

economic climate, and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased 

urbanization and industrialization. Adverse cumulative impacts would include physical impacts 

(on workers and the local public, buildings, transportation, and visual aesthetics) and impacts on 

local infrastructures and community services (transportation; recreation; housing; water and 

wastewater facilities; police, fire, and medical services; social services; and schools).

Because most projects described in Table 9-27 do not include any significant reasonably 

foreseeable changes in socioeconomic impacts within 50 mi of the SR alternative site, the 

review team determined there would be no significant additional cumulative socioeconomic 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-189 NUREG-1939

impacts in the region from those activities. Economic impacts associated with activities listed in 

Table 9-27 already have been considered as part of the socioeconomic baseline used for 

establishing the RIMS II multipliers. Regional planning efforts and associated demographic 

projections available at a reconnaissance level formed the basis for the review team’s 

assessment of reasonably foreseeable future impacts. For example, the construction and 

operation of the SRS MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility is currently in year 3 of construction. The 

NRC estimated that at project peak employment a total of 1820 jobs would be supported by that 

project including direct and indirect employment (NRC 2005). Also, the VEGP received an ESP 

from NRC for two nuclear units to be constructed about 17 mi south of the SRS in Burke 

County, Georgia. The NRC staff estimated that project would require 3500 direct construction 

jobs at peak employment, and the project is underway with an in-service date expected in 2016 

if the NRC issues a COL. Of the 3500 direct jobs at peak employment, the NRC staff expects 

2500 to migrate to the economic impact area, generating an additional 900 indirect jobs, for a 

total employment impact of 3400 jobs at peak construction (NRC 2008b). The review team 

concludes that because current employment numbers would reflect jobs created by these 

projects in their current state of progress, these projects already have been accounted for in the 

socioeconomic baseline of the Augusta and Aiken metropolitan areas, and would not noticeably 

increase the current cumulative economic activity. Upon operation of the VEGP Units 3 and 4, 

the NRC staff concluded that Burke County, Georgia would experience substantial beneficial 

tax revenue impacts, but that these impacts would be minor elsewhere in the Augusta 

metropolitan area.

The review team concludes that the socioeconomic impacts of the building and operation of a 

new two-unit nuclear plant at the SR alternative site would be SMALL and adverse across most 

of the region, but could be MODERATE and adverse for Aiken and Barnwell Counties in terms 

of housing impacts during the building phase. The cumulative impacts on the tax base of Aiken 

and Barnwell Counties during plant building and operation likely would be MODERATE and 

beneficial. The review team concludes that cumulative impacts on other socioeconomic impact 

categories would be SMALL and adverse. Building and operating a new plant at the SR 

alternative site would make a noticeable incremental contribution to these impact levels.

9.3.6.6 Environmental Justice

In addition to environmental justice impacts from building and operations, the cumulative 

analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

contribute to disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minorities and low-income 

populations, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-27. For the analysis of environmental justice impacts at the SR alternative site, the 

geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the SR 

alternative site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-190 April 2011

The SRS is a large site covering parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties in 

southwestern South Carolina. The farms and residents in the area were affected by the original 

acquisition of the lands in the 1940s and 1950s making up the current site. 

From an environmental justice perspective, the review team determined there is a potential for 

minority and low-income populations to experience disproportionately high and adverse

environmental impacts. Bordering the SRS, the review team found low-income, African 

American and aggregated minority populations that exceed the percentage criteria established 

in Section 2.6.1, including the city of Aiken (2007 population 29,218) within the vicinity of the SR 

alternative site (see Figure 9-13 and Figure 9-14), that required further consideration in the 

environmental justice analysis.

Because the other projects described in Table 9-27 do not include any significant reasonably 

foreseeable changes in socioeconomic impacts within 50 mi of the SR alternative site, the 

review team concludes there would not be any significant additional cumulative environmental 

justice impacts in the region from those activities. 

For example, the review team considered the impacts of the SRS MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility 

and VEGP Units 3 and 4. In the case of the MOX facility, the NRC staff concluded that 

environmental justice impacts would be minor (NRC 2005). The NRC staff concluded that only 

minor environmental justice impacts would be expected from construction and operation of Units 

3 and 4 at the VEGP (NRC 2008b). Any economic impacts associated with activities listed in 

Table 9-27 already have been considered as part of the socioeconomic baseline. For example, 

the economic impacts of existing enterprises such as mining, other electrical utilities, etc., are 

part of the base used for establishing the RIMS II multipliers. Regional planning efforts and 

associated demographic projections formed the basis for the review team’s assessment of 

reasonably foreseeable future impacts. 

Because of the rural nature of the two sites and the fact that the SRS also hosts an existing 

power plant, development of the proposed new units on the SR alternative site would have 

similar environmental justice impacts in most respects to adding two new units to the VCSNS 

site. However, as discussed in Section 9.3.3.6, the traffic-related impacts expected at the 

VCSNS site and the FA-1 site would not be expected at the SR alternative site because of the 

extensive road network providing access to the site from many directions. The review team 

expects that other potential environmental justice impacts would be similar to those analyzed for 

the VCSNS site, and would not result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority 

or low-income populations.

Based on the above considerations, information provided by SCE&G, visits to the site, and the 

review team’s independent review, the review team concludes that when viewed in the context 

of the wider region, locating the proposed action at the SR alternative site would not contribute 

additional cumulative impacts beyond the impacts described in Chapters 4 and 5 for the VCSNS 

site. The review team did not identify any environmental pathways by which disproportionately 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-191 NUREG-1939

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

Justice Selection Criteria at the Savannah River Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-192 April 2011

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

Selection Criteria at the Savannah River Alternative Site
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-193 NUREG-1939

high and adverse impacts could affect minority or low-income populations or communities. 

Under the limitations of a reconnaissance-level analysis, the review team found no other health 

or physical considerations and no unique characteristics or practices that could lead to a 

disproportionately high and adverse impact on any minority or low-income community within 

region around the SR alternative site. Therefore, the review team concludes that the 

environmental justice impacts would be minimal locally and would not create pathways to 

increase expected cumulative impacts on minority and low-income populations in the region. 

Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that cumulative environmental justice 

impacts associated with building and operating two new nuclear units at the SRS would be 

SMALL.

9.3.6.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating two new nuclear 

generating units at the SR alternative site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could impact cultural resources, including other 

Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-27. For the analysis of 

cultural impacts at the SR alternative site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be 

the APE that would be defined for this proposed undertaking. This includes the physical APE, 

defined as the area directly affected by the site-development and operation activities at the site 

and transmission lines, and the visual APE. The visual APE is defined as an additional 1-mi 

radius around the physical APE as a reasonable assumption for defining a maximum distance 

from which the structures can be seen.

Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. For example, 

these activities include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of 

cultural resources. However, in developing its EISs, the review team relies upon 

reconnaissance-level information to perform its alternative site evaluation. Reconnaissancelevel information is data that are readily available from agencies and other public sources. It 

can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. To identify the historic and 

cultural resources at the SR alternative site the following information was used:

• SCE&G ER (SCE&G 2010b) – including the National Park Service National Register 

Information and information from the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program

• NRC EIS for the MOX facility (NRC 2005)

• NRC Alternative Sites Visit, March 2009.

Historically, the SRS and vicinity was largely undisturbed by land development and likely 

contained intact archaeological sites associated with the past 10,000 years of human 

settlement. Over time, portions of the SRS have been disturbed by forestry practices and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-194 April 2011

development of the Federal nuclear facility (SCE&G 2009g, 2010b). The Savannah River 

Archaeological Research Program has extensive knowledge of the cultural resources located on 

the greater SRS, because the program has been conducting cultural resources work at DOE’s 

Federal facility since the early 1970s. The SRS contains over 1000 prehistoric and historic 

American Indian and Euro-American cultural resources, most of which have not been formally 

evaluated for listing in the National Register (SCE&G 2010b). SCE&G also conducted a search 

to identify National Register properties within the five counties around the SR alternative site. 

SCE&G found that there are 103 properties listed in the National Register within those counties, 

but that none are within 6 mi of the SR alternative site (SCE&G 2010b). Extensive cultural 

resources knowledge of the SRS has resulted in the categorization of the SRS based on the 

potential for archaeological resources to be present. The proposed alternative site location is 

located in an area that is considered to have a low potential to contain archaeological resources 

(SCE&G 2010b) due to a general low density of archaeological sites in the area. The 

physical and visual APEs for a proposed plant at the SR alternative site do not appear to 

have any historic properties located within the area likely to be affected by building or operating 

new plants.

The footprint and land required to accommodate the building of two nuclear units on the SRS

site are described in Section 9.3.6.1. To accommodate the building of two nuclear units on the 

SR alternative site, SCE&G would need to clear approximately 500 ac of undeveloped land for 

the nuclear facility and associated structures and infrastructure (SCE&G 2010b). SCE&G has 

stated that as part of the site-selection process known cultural resource locations would be 

considered as avoidance areas (SCE&G 2009f, g). SCE&G has also stated that if the proposed 

project was sited at the SR alternative site, identification of cultural resources would be 

accomplished through cultural resource surveys. The results would be used in the site-planning 

process to avoid cultural resource impacts. If significant cultural resources were identified by 

these surveys, SCE&G would also develop protective measures similar to what it has in place 

for the VCSNS site. In addition, inadvertent discovery procedures would be developed if 

cultural resources were discovered during site-development activities (SCE&G 2009f). 

The transmission lines associated with the two nuclear units on the SRS site are described in 

Section 9.3.6.1. If the proposed project was sited at the SR alternative site, the staff assumes 

SCE&G and Santee Cooper would conduct their transmission-line-related cultural resource 

activities in ways similar to what they have committed to do for the VCSNS site, as described in 

Section 4.6.

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected historic and cultural 

resources include forestry practices at the SRS and any road development and logging activities 

associated with those practices. None of the projects listed in Table 9-27 is located within the 

geographic area of interest and therefore, they have no potential for cumulative impact on 

cultural resources.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-195 NUREG-1939

Activities associated with building two nuclear units and supporting facilities that can potentially 

directly affect historic and cultural resources include land clearing, excavation, and grading. 

Given SCE&G’s site-planning process, and the lack of significant cultural resources known to 

exist at the SR alternative site based on reconnaissance-level information and the land 

disturbance where the new plant would be located, the impacts on cultural resources due to 

site-development activities would be negligible.

In addition, visual impacts from cooling towers and transmission lines could result in significant 

alterations to the visual landscape within the geographic area of interest. Given that there are 

no known cultural resources where the historic setting and character of the resources are 

important, the visual impacts would be negligible. The staff assumes that SCE&G and Santee 

Cooper would develop management agreements in consultation with the SHPO similar to the 

ones that have been developed for the VCSNS site.

Impacts on historic and cultural resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the SR 

alternative site include those associated with the operation of new units and maintenance of 

transmission lines. The staff assumes that the same procedures currently used by SCE&G and 

Santee Cooper would be used for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the 

incremental effects of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and operations of the two 

new units and associated impacts on cultural resources would be negligible. 

Table 9-27 identifies projects within the geographic area of interest and includes the South 

Carolina Strategic Corridor System Plan, DOE’s Savannah River Site, and future urbanization 

that could affect historic and cultural resources in a manner similar to those associated with the 

operation of two new units.

Cultural resources are nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

is cumulative. Based on the information provided by the applicant and the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building 

and operating two new nuclear generating units on the SR alternative site would be SMALL. 

This impact-level determination reflects no known cultural resources that could be affected; 

however, if the SR alternative site was to be developed, then cultural resource surveys may 

reveal important historic properties that could result in greater cumulative impacts.

9.3.6.8 Air Quality

Because the SR alternative site is located in a climate regime similar to the VCSNS site, the air 

quality impacts of building and operating a nuclear facility at the SR alternative site would be 

similar to the air quality impacts at the VCSNS site. As described in Sections 4.7 and 5.7, the 

review team determined that the impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units on air 

quality at the VCSNS site would be SMALL. Therefore, the impacts of building and operating 

two new nuclear units on air quality at the SR alternative site would be minimal.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-196 April 2011

The SR alternative site is located in the Augusta-Aiken Interstate Air Quality Control Region, 

which is designated as being in attainment with the NAAQSs (40 CFR 81.341) (SCE&G 2010b). 

The resource area defined for this evaluation includes Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South 

Carolina. Two counties were selected in this case because the SR alternative site could be 

located in either county. In general, designations of attainment or non-attainment are made on 

a county-by-county basis. As listed in Table 9-27, sources of gaseous emissions in Aiken and 

Barnwell Counties include facilities at DOE’s SRS. The DOE SRS is classified as a major 

source and includes approximately 22 emission units that have a SCDHEC Air Quality Permit 

(TV-0080-0041). Emissions from these sources include, but are not limited to, sulfur dioxide, 

particulates, and nitrogen oxides (SRS 2009). Given the intermittent operation of the diesel 

generators at two new units, and that both Aiken and Barnwell Counties are currently in 

attainment, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts, including the impacts from 

building and operating two new units, on air quality would be SMALL.

Greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. As 

pointed out in Chapter 7, the impacts of the emissions are independent of emission location. 

Consequently, the discussions in the previous chapters and in Section 9.2.5 are applicable to 

two AP1000 reactors located at the SR alternative site. The impacts of greenhouse gas 

emissions at the SR alternative site considered in isolation would be minimal, and the 

cumulative impact of greenhouse gas emissions would be MODERATE, primarily due to 

national and world-wide impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Building and operating two 

new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would not be a significant contributor to the 

MODERATE impact.

9.3.6.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts

The following analysis for the SR alternative site includes impacts from building and operating 

the proposed new facilities. The analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that affect the nonradiological health resources, including other 

Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-27. For the analysis of 

nonradiological health impacts at the SR alternative site, the geographic area of interest is 

considered to be the 6-mi area centered on the SR alternative site and the associated 

transmission-line corridors. This 6-mi radius is expected to encompass all nonradiological 

health impacts. 

Building Impacts

Nonradiological health impacts from building two new nuclear units on construction workers and 

members of the public at the SR alternative site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 

4.8 for the proposed site. They include occupational injuries, noise, vehicle exhaust, and dust. 

Applicable Federal and State regulations on air quality and noise would be complied with during 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-197 NUREG-1939

the site-preparation and building phase. The SR alternative site is located in a rural area and 

building impacts would likely be negligible on the surrounding populations. These areas are 

classified as medium- and low-population areas. 

There is only one past action in the geographic area of interest that has similarly affected 

nonradiological health and it is the construction of the DOE SRS, portions of which are located 

within less than 1 mi of the SR alternative site. There are no major current projects in the 

geographic area of interest that would cumulatively affect nonradiological health in a similar way.

Proposed future actions that would affect nonradiological health in a similar way to development 

at the SR alternative site would include the building and operation of the SRS MOX Fuel 

Fabrication Facility (located approximately 5 mi from the proposed SR alternative site), 

transmission-line creation and/or upgrading, and future urbanization that would occur 

throughout the designated geographic region of interest. The review team concludes that the 

cumulative impacts on nonradiological health from building two new nuclear units and 

associated transmission lines at the SR alternative site would be minimal considering the low 

population density on and around the SR alternative site and its position within a DOEcontrolled tract of more than 300 mi2 of land.

Operational Impacts

Occupational health impacts on operational employees would include those associated with 

plant operation and operation of the associated transmission lines, as described in Section 5.8. 

Based on the configuration of the proposed new units at the SR alternative site (closed-cycle, 

wet cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers), etiological agents would not likely 

increase the incidence of waterborne diseases in the vicinity of the site. Impacts on workers’ 

health from occupational injuries, noise, and EMFs would be similar to the proposed site. Noise 

and EMFs would be monitored and controlled in accordance with applicable OSHA regulations.

No past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

significantly affect nonradiological health in ways similar to those associated with the operation 

of two new units at the SR alternative site. The review team therefore concludes that the 

impacts on nonradiological health from operating two new nuclear units and associated 

transmission lines at the SR alternative site would be minimal.

Summary Statement

Impacts on nonradiological health from the building and operation of two new units at the SR 

alternative site were estimated based in the information provided by SCE&G and the review 

team’s independent evaluation. The review team concludes that health impacts on construction 

workers and the public resulting from the building of two new nuclear units at the SR alternative 

site would be SMALL. The review team expects that the occupational health impacts on the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-198 April 2011

operations employees of two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would be SMALL. 

Similarly, impacts on public health of two new nuclear units operating at the SR alternative site 

would be SMALL.

There are past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect 

nonradiological health in ways similar to the building of two units at the SR alternative site. The 

review team concludes, however, that cumulative impacts from past, present, and future actions 

on nonradiological health from building and operating two new units at the SR alternative site 

would be SMALL. The staff is not able to come to conclusions about the chronic impacts of 

EMFs on public health.

9.3.6.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts on the public and workers from 

building activities and operations for two nuclear units at the SR alternative site. The analysis 

also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect 

radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-27. As described in Section 9.3.6, SRS is a DOE site. There are no reactors currently 

operating at the SRS, but there are mothballed reactors and other nuclear facilities on the SRS. 

The geographic area of interest is the area within a 50-mi radius of the SR alternative site. 

Facilities potentially affecting radiological health within this geographic area of interest are 

operating VEGP Units 1 and 2, proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4, the facilities throughout the DOE 

SRS containing radioactive material, the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility at the SRS, and the 

Energy Solutions (Barnwell) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. In addition, there 

are likely to be hospitals and industrial facilities within 50 mi of the SR alternative site that use 

radioactive material.

The radiological impacts of building and operating the proposed two AP1000 plants at the SR 

alternative site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. 

These sources would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be well below 

regulatory limits. The impacts are expected to be similar to those estimated for the VCSNS site.

The radiological impacts of existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 include doses from direct radiation and 

liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways would result in low doses to people 

and biota offsite that are well below regulatory limits as demonstrated by the ongoing 

radiological environmental monitoring program conducted around the Vogtle site. The EIS for 

proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 indicates that operation of the proposed reactors would result in 

radiological impacts from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. The EIS 

indicates that these pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be 

well below regulatory limits (NRC 2008b).
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-199 NUREG-1939

The SRS has active high-level radioactive waste processing facilities, processing and storage 

facilities for radioactive materials used in defense applications, mothballed nuclear reactors, and 

other nuclear facilities that would potentially have an impact on radiological health. The 

radiological impacts of the various facilities at SRS and the SRS MOX facility would include 

doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. The radiological 

impacts from the Barnwell Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility could also include 

doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways result 

in low doses to people and biota offsite that are below applicable DOE and NRC regulatory 

limits. SRS conducts a radiological environmental monitoring program that measures radiation 

and concentrations of radioactive material from all sources in the environs of the SRS, including 

the Barnwell facility and confirms that the doses meet the regulatory limits.

In addition, the NRC staff concludes that the dose from direct radiation and effluents from 

hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive material would be an insignificant 

contribution to the cumulative impact around the SR alternative site. This conclusion is based 

on data from the radiological environmental monitoring programs conducted around currently 

operating nuclear power plants.

Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the NRC staff's independent analysis, the 

NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the 

two proposed AP1000 plants and other existing and planned projects and actions in the 

geographic area of interest around the SR alternative site would be SMALL

9.3.6.11 Postulated Accident Impacts

The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from 

operations for two nuclear units at the SR alternative site. The analysis also considers other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health from 

postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-27. As described in Section 9.3.6, SRS is a DOE site. There are no reactors currently 

operating at the SRS, but there are mothballed reactors and other nuclear facilities on the SRS. 

The geographic area of interest considers all existing and proposed nuclear power plants that 

have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risks) from a severe 

accident at any location within 50 mi of the SR alternative site. Facilities potentially affecting 

radiological accident risk within this geographic area of interest are existing VCSNS Unit 1, 

VEGP Units 1 and 2, Hatch Units 1 and 2, facilities throughout the DOE SRS containing 

radioactive material, the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility at the SRS, and the Energy Solutions 

(Barnwell) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. Also, two AP1000 reactors have 

been proposed at the Vogtle site. As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that 

the environmental consequences of DBAs at the VCSNS site would be minimal for AP1000 

reactors. DBAs are addressed specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust 

enough to meet NRC safety criteria. The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions, and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-200 April 2011

the meteorology of the SR alternative and VCSNS sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff 

concludes that the environmental consequences of DBAs at the SR alternative site would be 

minimal. Because the meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the SR alternative 

site are expected to be similar to the proposed VCSNS site, risks from a severe accident for an 

AP1000 reactor located at the SR alternative site are expected to be similar to those analyzed 

for the proposed VCSNS site. The risks for the proposed VCSNS site are presented in 

Tables 5-17 and 5-19 and are well below the median value for current-generation reactors. In 

addition, as discussed in Section 5.11.2, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent 

cancer fatality risks are well below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For existing 

plants within the geographic area of interest (VCSNS Unit 1, Hatch Units 1 and 2, and VEGP 

Units 1 and 2), the Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of 

severe accidents are small (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). Finally, according to the 

Vogtle ESP (NRC 2008a), the risks from this proposed site are also well below currentgeneration reactors and meet the Commission’s safety goals. 

There are no reactors currently operating at DOE’s SRS; however, there is some severe 

accident risk associated with the spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes that 

may be processed or stored at SRS. The severe accident risks associated with stored spent 

fuel at operating nuclear power plants are lower than the risks for severe accidents involving the 

reactor core. Likewise, the severe accident risks associated any spent reactor fuel or other 

high-level radioactive waste processed or stored at SRS would be lower than the risks for 

severe accidents involving the reactor core. There is no irradiated fuel at the MOX Fuel 

Fabrication Facility at SRS, and this facility is designed to prevent inadvertent criticalities. Other 

facilities at SRS and the Barnwell Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility may contain 

substantial amounts of radioactive material, but there is no credible severe accident risk like 

there is for an operating reactor. Therefore, the additional risk from these facilities is not 

significant in the evaluation of the cumulative severe accident risk for a nuclear power plant at 

the SR alternative site. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks from 

severe accidents at any location within 50 mi of the SR alternative site would be SMALL.

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

Sites

This section summarizes the review team’s characterization of the cumulative impacts related to 

locating a two-unit AP1000 nuclear power facility at the proposed VCSNS site and at each 

alternative site. The four sites selected for detailed review as part of the alternative sites 

environmental analysis included the FA-1 site located in Fairfield County, South Carolina; the 

CGS site located in Orangeburg County, South Carolina; the Saluda site located in Saluda 

County, South Carolina; and the SR alternative site located in Aiken County, South Carolina. 

Comparisons are made between the proposed site and alternatives to evaluate whether one of 

the alternative sites is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. The NRC’s 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-201 NUREG-1939

determination is independent of the USACE’s determination under Section 404(b)(1) and its 

Guidelines at 40 CFR Part 230 of whether this site is the least environmentally damaging 

practical alternative (LEDPA). The USACE will conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite 

alternatives in its Record of Decision. The USACE alternatives evaluation is discussed in 

Section 9.5. The need to compare the proposed site with alternative sites arises from the 

requirement in NEPA Section 102(2)(C)(iii) (42 USC 4332) that EISs include an analysis of 

alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC criterion to be used 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 Company 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 

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 of the 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). 

Section 9.3.7.1 discusses the process the review team used to compare the alternative sites to

the proposed VCSNS site. Cumulative impact levels from Chapter 7 (for the VCSNS), and the 

four alternative sites (from Sections 9.3.3 through 9.3.6) are listed in Table 9-35. Section 

9.3.7.2 and Section 9.3.7.3 discuss the cumulative impacts of the proposed project located at 

the VCSNS site and at the alternative sites as they relate to a determination of environmental 

preference or obvious superiority. 

9.3.7.1 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative Sites

The following section summarizes the review team’s independent assessment of the proposed 

and alternative sites. The team characterized the expected cumulative environmental impacts 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-202 April 2011

of building and operating new units at the VCSNS site and alternative sites; these impacts are 

summarized by category in Table 9-35. Full explanations for the specific impact 

characterizations are provided cumulatively in Chapter 7 for the proposed site and in Sections 

9.3.3, 9.3.4, 9.3.5, and 9.3.6 for each of the alternative sites. The review team’s impact 

category levels are based on professional judgment, experience, and consideration of controls 

likely to be imposed under Federal, State or local permits that would not be acquired until after 

the review of a COL application is underway. The considerations and assumptions were 

similarly applied at each of the alternative sites to provide a common basis for comparison. In 

the following discussion, the review team compares the impact levels between the proposed site 

and each alternative site.

Table 9-35. Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites

Resource Category VCSNS(a) FA-1 CGS Saluda SR

Land use MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Water-related

Surface-water use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Groundwater use SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL

Surface-water quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Groundwater quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Ecological

Terrestrial ecosystems MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Aquatic ecosystems SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL

Socioeconomic

 Physical impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

Transportation and housing SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

 Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL

Taxes and economy SMALL to 

LARGE and 

beneficial 

SMALL to 

LARGE and 

beneficial 

SMALL to 

LARGE and 

beneficial 

SMALL to 

LARGE and 

beneficial

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

and beneficial

Public services and 

education

SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL 

Aesthetics and recreation SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL to 

MODERATE 

(localized)

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

(localized)

SMALL SMALL SMALL 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-203 NUREG-1939

Table 9-35. (contd)

Resource Category VCSNS(a) FA-1 CGS Saluda SR

Historic and cultural resources MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Air quality SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

Nonradiological health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Radiological impacts of normal 

operations

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Postulated accidents SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) From Chapter 7, Cumulative Impacts Analysis for VCSNS

The cumulative environmental impact areas listed in the table have been evaluated using the 

NRC’s three-level standard of significance: SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These levels 

were developed using CEQ guidelines and are set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR 

Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

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

destabilize important attributes of the resource.

LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

destabilize important attributes of the resource.

9.3.7.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites

The cumulative impacts of building and operating a two-unit nuclear power plant at the VCSNS 

site and at each alternative site are generally SMALL for many impact categories. The resource 

categories for which the impact level at an alternative site would be the same as the proposed 

site would not contribute to the determination that the alternative site is environmentally 

preferable to the proposed site. Therefore, these categories are not discussed further in 

determining whether an alternate site is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. Where 

there is a range of impacts for a resource, the upper range of the resource is used for the 

comparison. In addition, for those cases in which the cumulative impacts for a resource would 

be greater than SMALL, consideration is given to those cases in which the impacts of the 

project at the specific site would not make a significant contribution to the cumulative impact 

level. As shown in Table 9-35, there would be some differences in impacts among the sites. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-204 April 2011

Distinguishing cumulative impacts are primarily related to the development of greenfield sites 

and the impacts from likely transmission-line routing for the alternative sites on terrestrial and 

aquatic ecology, as well as socioeconomic impacts associated with a sudden influx of workers 

on existing infrastructure and populations. In addition, distinctions between the VCSNS site and 

alternative sites are found in the cumulative impacts associated with the consumptive water use 

and the potential impact on the available resources. Specific variations in cumulative impacts 

are discussed in the following paragraphs, which compare the VCSNS to each alternative site. 

VCSNS and FA-1: Due to the proximity of VCSNS to the FA-1 alternative site, most of the 

cumulative impacts at the FA-1 site would be expected to be similar to the cumulative impacts 

described for the VCSNS site in Chapters 4 and 5. The only resource area for which the impact 

level differs between the VCSNS site and the FA-1 site is historic and cultural resources. The 

review team evaluated the impact on these resources at the VCSNS site as MODERATE based 

on impacts on the General Pearson Cemetery and the Daughters of the American Revolution 

Monument. As discussed in Section 4.6, the South Carolina SHPO has concurred with a finding 

of no adverse effect to the above historic sites, based on protective and avoidance measures 

being implemented by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009k). The impacts at the FA-1 site were evaluated 

as SMALL based on reconnaissance-level information. The review team also recognizes that 

the VCSNS site is a brownfield site with existing infrastructure and ancillary services, and it is 

likely that the impacts on ecology of building two new units at the VCSNS site would be 

somewhat less than the impacts of building the units at a greenfield site, such as the FA-1 site. 

On balance, the review team concludes that there would be little if any difference in the overall 

environmental impacts between the two sites. Therefore, the review team determined that the 

FA-1 site is not an environmentally preferable site to the VCSNS site.

VCSNS and CGS: The CGS site is a developed brownfield site with an existing coal-fired 

power plant. The proposed project would be co-located at the CGS site and would draw on the 

same resources as the existing plant. The VCSNS site is characterized more favorably than the 

CGS site in Table 9-27 for the following resource areas: groundwater use, aquatic ecosystems, 

demography, and education. In all of these resource areas, the differences in ratings are 

specifically related to higher impacts at the CGS site from building and operating the two new 

units. The most significant difference relates to groundwater use. The new units would have to 

withdraw water from both the South Fork Edisto River and from groundwater to meet their 

needs and the amount of withdrawals would have a noticeable impact on the resource. The 

amount of surface-water withdrawals from the South Fork Edisto River would also have a 

noticeable impact on aquatic ecosystems. Impacts on Bamberg County in the area of 

demography would be noticeable during the building period.

The CGS site is rated more favorably than the VCSNS site for the following resource areas: 

transportation, environmental justice, and historic and cultural resources. For transportation and 

environmental justice the impacts are related to traffic near the VCSNS site during the building 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-205 NUREG-1939

phase. The transportation and environmental justice issues related to traffic are the result of 

economic activity from thousands of relatively high-paying construction jobs being created by 

the building of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, and the traffic impacts would subside once the building 

phase was completed. The impacts on historic and cultural resources at the CGS site were 

evaluated as SMALL based on reconnaissance-level information. The review team evaluated 

the impact on these resources at the VCSNS site as MODERATE based on impacts on the 

General Pearson Cemetery and the Daughters of the American Revolution Monument. As 

discussed in Section 4.6, the South Carolina SHPO has concurred with a finding of no adverse 

effect on the above historic sites, based on protective and avoidance measures being 

implemented by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009k). 

On balance, because of the greater impact on groundwater, aquatic ecosystems, and 

demography at CGS, the review team concludes that the impacts of building and operating two 

new nuclear units at the CGS site would be greater than the impacts of the same project at the 

VCSNS site. Therefore, the review team determined that the CGS site is not an 

environmentally preferable site to the VCSNS site. 

VCSNS and Saluda: The Saluda site is an undeveloped greenfield site located on the Saluda 

River arm of Lake Murray. Building and operating two new units on a greenfield site generally 

has greater environmental impacts. As a greenfield site along a river, the impacts on aesthetics 

and recreation are greater at the Saluda site than at the VCSNS site, which is a developed 

brownfield site. For both the VCSNS and Saluda sites, the review team identified a 

MODERATE and adverse cumulative transportation impact during the building phase. 

The Saluda site is characterized more favorably than the VCSNS site for environmental justice 

and for historic and cultural resources. The environmental justice impacts are related to traffic 

near the VCSNS site during the building phase. The environmental justice issues related to 

traffic are the result of economic activity from thousands of relatively high-paying construction 

jobs being created by the building of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, and the traffic impacts would 

subside once the building phase was completed. For historic and cultural resources, the review 

team evaluated the impact on these resources at the VCSNS site as MODERATE based on

impacts on the General Pearson Cemetery and the Daughters of the American Revolution 

Monument. As discussed in Section 4.6, the South Carolina SHPO has concurred with a finding 

of no adverse effect on the above historic sites, based on protective and avoidance measures 

being implemented by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009k). 

On balance, the review team concludes that the Saluda site and the VCSNS site rank closely 

together. In such a case, the proposed site prevails because the alternative is not

environmentally preferable. Therefore, the review team has determined that the Saluda site is 

not an environmentally preferable site to the VCSNS site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-206 April 2011

VCSNS and SR: The SR alternative site, situated within the SRS, is a large geographic site 

with well-developed existing infrastructure that would be capable of supporting the proposed 

project such as roads, railways, and site control. The VCSNS site is characterized more 

favorably than the SR alternative site for taxes and the economy. The taxes and the economic 

impact would have a greater beneficial impact at the VCSNS site than it would at the SR 

alternative site. The SR alternative site is characterized more favorably than the VCSNS site in 

the areas of environmental justice and historic and cultural resources. The environmental 

justice impacts are related to traffic near the VCSNS site during the building phase. The 

transportation and environmental justice issues related to traffic are the result of economic 

activity from thousands of relatively high-paying construction jobs being created by the building 

of VCSNS units 2 and 3. The transportation and environmental justice issue related to traffic 

would subside once the building phase was completed. The environmental justice issues 

related to traffic would subside once the building phase was completed. For historic and cultural 

resources, the review team evaluated the impact on these resources at the VCSNS site as 

MODERATE based on impacts to the General Pearson Cemetery and the Daughters of the 

American Revolution Monument. As discussed in Section 4.6, the South Carolina SHPO has 

concurred with a finding of no adverse effect to the above historic sites, based on protective and 

avoidance measures being implemented by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009k). On balance, the review 

team concludes that there would be little if any overall difference in the environmental impacts 

between the two sites. Therefore, the review team has determined that the SR alternative site 

is not an environmentally preferable site to the VCSNS site. 

Although there are differences and distinctions between the cumulative environmental impacts 

of building and operating two new generating units at the VCSNS site and the alternative sites, 

the review team concludes that none of these differences is sufficient to determine that any one 

of the alternative sites is environmentally preferable to the VCSNS site.

9.3.7.3 Obviously Superior Sites

None of the alternative sites was determined to be environmentally preferable to the VCSNS 

site. Therefore, none of the alternative sites is obviously superior to the VCSNS site. 

9.4 System Design Alternatives

The review team considered a variety of heat-dissipation systems and circulating-water system 

(CWS) alternatives. While other heat-dissipation systems and water systems exist in a nuclear 

power plant, by far the largest and the most likely to dominate the environmental consequences 

of operation is the CWS that cools and condenses the steam for the turbine generator. Other 

water systems, such as the service-water system, are much smaller than the CWS. As a result, 

the review team only considers alternative heat-dissipation and water-treatment systems for the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-207 NUREG-1939

CWS. The proposed CWS is a closed-cycle system that uses mechanical draft cooling towers 

for heat dissipation (SCE&G 2010b). The proposed system is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

9.4.1 Heat-Dissipation Systems

About two-thirds of the heat from a commercial nuclear reactor is rejected as heat to the 

environment. The remaining one-third of the reactor-generated heat is converted into electricity. 

Normal heat-sink cooling systems transfer the rejected heat load into the atmosphere and/or 

nearby waterbodies, primarily as latent heat exchange (evaporating water) or sensible heat 

exchange (warmer air or water). Different heat-dissipation systems rely on different exchange 

processes. The following sections describe alternative heat-dissipation systems considered by 

the review team for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3.

In its ER, SCE&G considered a range of heat-dissipation systems, including a once-through 

cooling system and several closed-cycle cooling systems. In addition to the closed-cycle 

mechanical draft cooling towers selected, SCE&G considered natural draft cooling towers, 

once-through cooling into Monticello Reservoir, cooling ponds, spray ponds, dry cooling towers, 

and a combination wet-dry cooling tower system (SCE&G 2010b). The review team also 

considered mechanical draft cooling towers with plume abatement.

9.4.1.1 Wet Natural Draft Cooling Towers

Wet natural draft cooling towers, which use about the same amount of water as the proposed 

design, induce airflow up through large (600 ft tall and 400 ft in diameter) towers by cascading 

warm water downward in the lower portion of the cooling tower. As heat transfers from the 

water to the air in the tower, the air becomes more buoyant and rises. This buoyant circulation 

induces more air to enter the tower through its open base. The environmental aspects of wet 

natural draft cooling towers and mechanical draft cooling towers are very similar (SCE&G 

2010b). Because the water use is similar between natural and mechanical draft cooling towers, 

the entrainment and impingement of aquatic biota would be similar. Notable differences include 

that the natural draft cooling towers would be able to be seen from a great distance and the 

additional height increases the potential for avian collisions. The large size of the natural draft 

cooling towers has a greater visual and aesthetic impact than a mechanical draft cooling tower. 

The natural draft cooling towers would use slightly less energy than the mechanical draft cooling 

towers. The review team concludes that because the impacts of mechanical draft and natural 

draft cooling towers are similar; wet natural draft cooling towers would not be an 

environmentally preferable alternative for the VCSNS site.

9.4.1.2 Once-Through Cooling

Once-through cooling systems withdraw water from the source waterbody and return virtually 

the same volume of water to the receiving waterbody at an elevated temperature. Typically the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-208 April 2011

source waterbody and the receiving waterbody are the same body, and the intake and 

discharge structures are separated to limit recirculation. While there is essentially no 

consumptive use of water in a once-through heat-dissipation system, the elevated temperature 

of the receiving waterbody would result in some induced evaporative loss that decreases the net 

water supply. The large intake and discharge flows associated with once-through cooling 

systems require large intake and discharge structures, result in higher levels of impingement 

and entrainment, and may result in hydrologic alterations in the source/receiving waterbodies. 

Based on recent changes to implementation plans to meet Section 316(b) of the Clean Water 

Act, the review team has determined that once-through cooling systems for new nuclear 

reactors are unlikely to be permitted in the future, except in rare and unique situations.

VCSNS Unit 1 uses a once-through cooling system using Monticello Reservoir as a cooling 

pond. If VCSNS Units 2 and 3 were to adopt this design to be used with the AP1000 reactors, 

the water-supply needs for these two units would be 1,700,000 gpm (SCE&G 2010b). SCE&G 

has determined that this volume of water cannot be practically supplied by the Monticello 

Reservoir and Broad River. For this reason, in addition to the Clean Water Act considerations, 

the review team determined that once-through designs were not a feasible alternative design 

and eliminated it from further consideration as part of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling system.

9.4.1.3 Cooling Pond

Use of a recirculating cooling pond separate from Monticello Reservoir, Parr Reservoir, and the 

Broad River was considered as an alternative cooling system design. Previous studies for 

VCSNS Unit 1 have shown that a recirculating pond would likely need to cover an area of 900 to 

1800 ac (SCE&G 2010b) for each of the two additional units. The dedication of an area of this 

size was weighed against the SMALL thermal impact on Monticello and Parr reservoirs from the 

current design of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling system. The other option was to create a 

3600-ac cooling pond by isolating part of the Monticello Reservoir and using that as a cooling 

pond. This option would avoid taking additional land out of use for a cooling pond, but it would 

have the environmental disadvantage of causing significant aquatic impact on 3600 ac of the 

reservoirs. The review team determined that due to the impact of the loss of land associated 

with development of additional cooling ponds or the increase in aquatic impacts if the cooling 

pond used part of the existing reservoirs, a cooling system using a recirculating cooling pond 

was not an environmentally preferable alternative to the VCSNS site.

9.4.1.4 Spray Ponds

Spray-pond cooling systems use manufactured ponds to cool water and enhance evaporative 

cooling by spraying water into the atmosphere. In addition to evaporation, heat transfer from 

the spray ponds to the atmosphere occurs through black-body radiation and conduction. A 

spray-pond system alternative was evaluated for cooling VCSNS Units 2 and 3, and it would 

require a 150-ac pond. Based on the additional land required to build the spray-pond and the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-209 NUREG-1939

impact from spray drift, the review team concludes that use of a spray pond would not be an 

environmentally preferable alternative for the VCSNS site.

9.4.1.5 Dry Cooling Towers

Dry cooling towers would eliminate virtually all water-related impacts from the cooling system 

operation. No makeup water would be needed, and no blowdown water would be generated. 

However, dry cooling systems require much larger cooling systems, result in some loss in 

electrical generation efficiency because the theoretical approach temperature is limited to the 

dry-bulb temperature and not the lower wet-bulb temperature, and they result in parasitic energy 

losses for the large array of fans involved. This loss in generation efficiency translates into 

increased impacts on the fuel cycle. Dry cooling could reduce water-related impacts. However, 

the aquatic impacts at the VCSNS site were determined to be SMALL; therefore, the wet cooling 

towers have only a minimal impact, and any incremental gain by the dry cooling towers would 

be offset by the increased impacts on the fuel cycle. The review team determined that building 

and operation of dry cooling towers would not be an environmentally preferable alternative for 

the VCSNS site because of the availability of cooling water, inefficiencies in energy production 

associated with dry cooling resulting in higher fuel cycle impacts, and the lack of sensitive 

biological resources that would be affected by water withdrawn for cooling.

9.4.1.6 Combination Wet/Dry Cooling-Tower System

A combination mechanical draft wet/dry cooling tower system uses both wet and dry cooling 

cells to limit consumption of cooling water, often with the added benefit of reducing plume 

visibility. Water used to cool the turbine generators generally passes first through the dry 

portion of the cooling tower where heat is removed by drawing air at ambient temperature over 

tubes through which the water is moving. Cooling water leaving the dry portion of the tower 

then passes through the wet tower where the water is sprayed into a moving air stream and 

additional heat is removed through evaporation and sensible heat transfer. When ambient air 

temperatures are low, the dry portion of these cooling towers may be sufficient to meet cooling 

needs. The use of the dry portion of the system would result in a loss in generating efficiency 

that would translate into increased impacts on the fuel cycle. As discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, 

the impacts of the proposed cooling system (mechanical draft tower) for aquatic ecology, water 

use, and water quality for the building and operation are SMALL. While a combination wet/dry 

cooling system would reduce these impacts, there would be an increase in fuel cycle impacts 

because the increased use of resources to generate electricity. Therefore, the review team 

concludes that the building and operation of a combined wet/dry cooling tower system would not 

be an environmentally preferable alternative for the VCSNS site.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-210 April 2011

9.4.1.7 Mechanical Draft with Plume Abatement

Adding additional heat to a saturated cooling tower exhaust, without adding additional water, 

would result in subsaturated water vapor. Subsaturated water vapor reduces the potential for a 

visible plume. The concept behind a mechanical draft cooling tower with plume abatement is 

similar to the wet/dry cooling system described above with the design parameters focused on 

reducing the visual plume. Such designs may also result in less consumptive water use. 

However, there is sufficient water at VCSNS site for use of a mechanical draft cooling system 

without plume abatement. The aesthetic impacts at the VCSNS site with a mechanical draft 

cooling tower without plume abatement were determined to be SMALL; therefore a mechanical 

draft tower with plume abatement offers no real advantage. These towers often have a larger 

footprint and require additional energy to operate, resulting in a net loss of energy available to 

meet the demand for power. For these reasons, the review team concludes that the building 

and operation of mechanical draft cooling towers with plume abatement would not be an 

environmentally preferable alternative for the VCSNS site.

9.4.2 Circulating-Water Systems

The review team evaluated alternatives to the proposed intakes and discharges for the normal 

heat-sink cooling system, based on the proposed heat-dissipation system water requirements. 

The capacity requirements of the intake and discharge system are defined by the proposed 

heat-dissipation system. For proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, the proposed heat-dissipation 

system is a closed-loop system that uses mechanical draft cooling towers for heat dissipation. 

SCE&G (2010b) indicated that the maximum makeup-water demand for two AP1000 units at the 

site is estimated to be 58,800 gpm. SCE&G identified two potential sources of makeup-water 

supply for the VCSNS site: Monticello Reservoir and Parr Reservoir. In addition, the review 

team considered water reuse and groundwater in its evaluation of alternative water supplies.

9.4.2.1 Intake Alternatives

The proposed intake structures for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are described in detail in Section 

3.2.2.2. SCE&G plans to construct an intake-approach channel, intake structure, water pumps, 

and biofouling-treatment systems on Monticello Reservoir. The intake structure would be 60 ft 

long and 75 ft wide, with six pump bays including a pump, trash rack, and traveling screen. The 

intake structure would be designed to have a through-trash-rack and through-screen-mesh 

velocity of less than 0.5 fps (SCE&G 2010b).

SCE&G selected the location of the intake structure for the proposed action to avoid the FPSF 

and the VCSNS Unit 1 discharge. SCE&G considered two alternatives for the intake system in 

addition to the proposed system: (1) offshore intake with offshore pump and active screening, 

and (2) onshore pump intake with submerged passive screens. In addition, the review team 

considered the use of radial collector wells located on the shore of Monticello Reservoir.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-211 NUREG-1939

The offshore intake alternative has an advantage, if shoreline structures would conflict with a 

shoreline intake or if bathymetry or vegetation considerations make a shoreline intake less 

desirable. At the VCSNS site, the conditions that would make a shoreline intake advantageous 

do not occur. The shoreline option is preferable to an offshore intake with offshore pumps due 

to the ease of its installation. Offshore intakes with submerged passive screens are more 

difficult to maintain when ambient currents do not facilitate the removal of debris. For intakes on 

reservoirs, ambient currents are not typically strong enough to facilitate the removal of debris.

A radial collector-well system was considered by the review team because in many cases it 

reduces the impact on aquatic resources and, when water is being withdrawn from turbid 

environments, can reduce the water treatment needed prior to its introduction into the cooling 

system. A radial collector-well system consists of an excavated central concrete caisson with 

well screens projected laterally outward in a radial pattern (Riegert 2006). Radial collector wells 

slowly draw surface water through the subsurface layer and, thereby, filter out some sediment 

that might have required treatment if the water had been directly withdrawn from the surface 

waterbody. In general, collecting surface water in this way eliminates most of the direct 

operational impacts on aquatic ecosystems (e.g., entrainment and impingement) associated 

with water withdrawal and eliminates some of the construction and preconstruction impacts 

(e.g., dredging). The review team determined that radial collector wells, which would induce 

flow through the sediments the Monticello Reservoir into lateral subterranean pipes extending 

from the shoreline out beneath the reservoir, would require multiple large structures near the 

shoreline. SCE&G did not consider this alternative water source, but the review team 

independently determined that a radial collector-well system is not environmentally preferable 

to the proposed direct withdrawal from the river due to the requirement for multiple new 

shoreline structures. 

Therefore, the review team concludes that there would be no alternative intake designs that 

would be environmentally preferable to proposed intake design for the VCSNS site.

9.4.2.2 Discharge Alternatives

SCE&G proposes to discharge blowdown from VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to Parr Reservoir through 

a 36-in. diffuser that extends out into the reservoir. A detailed description of the proposed 

discharge system is presented in Section 3.2.2.2. 

SCE&G considered shoreline discharge and two alternative locations of the diffuser at the 

selected discharge location, and examined a number of diffuser port designs before arriving at 

the selected alternative. Shoreline discharge was rejected because of the shallow bathymetry 

of Parr Reservoir in the possible outfall locations. Water depth was a key consideration in 

evaluating alternative diffuser locations. Increased depth of placement offers better conditions 

for mixing prior to the thermal plume rising to the surface. Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System

(CORMIX) modeling performed by SCE&G helped to confirm the advantages of the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-212 April 2011

offshore/deeper location. CORMIX was also used to evaluate a number of diffuser options. A 

20-port diffuser was found to provide better conditions than the originally proposed 4-port 

diffuser and was sufficient to meet mixing objectives (SCE&G 2010b).

Alternative paths for the blowdown lines were also considered. The proposed route of these 

lines is along the eastern shore of Parr Reservoir. An alternative path would have taken the 

blowdown lines along the existing transmission-line corridor. This alternative would have 

transected a wetland and therefore was determined to be environmentally less preferable to the 

proposed route.

The review team also considered the option of discharging blowdown from proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 through the Unit 1 discharge canal into Monticello Reservoir. Unit 1 is a oncethrough cooling plant that currently discharges 534,000 gpm to the reservoir. The total 

discharge under normal conditions from Units 2 and 3 via the blowdown pipeline would be 

9383 gpm; maximum discharge would be 30,547 gpm (SCE&G 2010b). Under normal 

conditions this would be less than 2 percent of the volume of water discharged from Unit 1 and 

the impact of discharging this additional water to the reservoir would likely be insignificant. The 

cooling-tower basins for proposed Units 2 and 3 are at an elevation approximately 25 ft below 

the elevation of Monticello Reservoir maximum operating level (SCE&G 2010b, c). As a result, 

discharge from the cooling-tower basins would need to be pumped up to the Unit 1 discharge 

canal. The energy consumed to operate these pumps would reduce the overall efficiency of the 

plant without any compensating environmental benefit and would not be environmentally 

preferable to the proposed design.

The review team determined that the impacts of operation of the proposed discharge system 

would be SMALL and that there are no alternative discharge designs that would be 

environmentally preferable to the proposed discharge design at the VCSNS site.

9.4.2.3 Water Supplies

The review team considered alternative sources for the CWS, including water reuse, 

groundwater, and surface water. 

Water Reuse

Sources of water for reuse can come either from the plant itself or from other local water users. 

Sanitary wastewater-treatment plants are the most ubiquitous sources of water for reuse. 

Agricultural processing, industrial processing, and oilfield production can also provide significant 

supplies of water for reuse. Additional treatment (e.g., tertiary treatment, chlorination) may be 

required to provide water of appropriate quality for the specific plant need. The population is 

very low, and there is little industry around the VCSNS site, so adequate reliable wastewater 

sources are not currently available. As a result, no sources of water for reuse at the site were 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-213 NUREG-1939

identified. Therefore, the review team determined that water reuse would not be a feasible 

alternative to SCE&G’s proposed water supply and was not evaluated further.

Groundwater

Groundwater is not considered a viable source of cooling water for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

because the geologic formations in the vicinity of the site generally are not pervious enough to 

sustain well yields greater than a few gallons per minute (SCE&G 2010b). Characterization 

performed at the proposed site of Units 2 and 3 supports this assertion (SCE&G 2010b), and 

the review team finds that the groundwater resource could not meet the cooling water demands 

of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Therefore, the review team determined that groundwater 

would not be a feasible alternative to SCE&G’s proposed water supply.

Surface Water

The two potential sources of surface water to supply makeup water to VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are 

the Monticello Reservoir and Parr Reservoir. Both of these reservoirs obtain most of their water 

from the Broad River. SCE&G has chosen to withdraw water from Monticello Reservoir 

because it is at a higher elevation and requires less lift to move water from the reservoir to the 

cooling tower basins for the proposed units, and because water from Monticello Reservoir does 

not experience the variation in turbidity that Parr Reservoir experiences during periods of high 

runoff. For these reasons the review team concludes that withdrawing makeup water from Parr 

Reservoir would not be an environmentally preferable alternative to SCE&G’s proposal to 

withdraw makeup water from Monticello Reservoir.

9.4.2.4 Water Treatment

Both inflow and effluent water may require treatment to ensure that they meet plant water needs 

and effluent water standards. SCE&G proposes to add chemicals to plant water to meet 

appropriate water-quality process needs. The chemistry of effluent water is regulated by the 

EPA through the NPDES permitting process. The largest chemical inputs are required to 

maintain the appropriate chemistry in the cooling towers to preclude biofouling. The review 

team identified no environmentally preferable alternative to SCE&G’s proposed chemical water 

treatment. The effluents from cooling-tower blowdown are specifically regulated in 40 CFR Part 

423 by the EPA to protect the environment.

9.4.3 Summary

The review team considered alternative systems designs, including five alternative heatdissipation systems and alternative intake, discharge, and water-supply systems. As discussed 

in previous sections, the review team identified no alternative that was environmentally 

preferable to the proposed VCSNS plant systems design.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-214 April 2011

9.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alternatives Evaluation

The 404(b)(1) Guidelines stipulate that no discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the 

United States (including jurisdictional wetlands) shall be permitted if there is a practicable 

alternative that would have a less adverse impact on the aquatic environment, as long as the 

alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. An alternative 

is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, 

existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. If it is otherwise a 

practicable alternative, an area not presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be 

obtained, used, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed 

activity may be considered. Thus, this analysis is necessary to determine which alternative is 

the LEDPA that meets the project purpose and need. Even if an applicant’s proposed 

alternative is determined to be the LEDPA, the USACE must still determine whether the LEDPA 

is contrary the public interest. The USACE Public Interest Review, described in 33 CFR 320.4, 

directs the USACE to consider a number of factors in a balancing process. A permit would not 

be issued for an alternative that is not the LEDPA, nor would a permit be issued for an activity 

that is determined to be contrary to the public interest.

9.5.1 Onsite Alternatives 

As part of its process for evaluating permits, the USACE reviewed SCE&G’s application and ER 

for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 project, responses to RAIs, data regarding impacts on 

alternative sites, and SCE&G information addressing onsite alternatives for the VCSNS site to 

minimize impacts on wetlands and other waters of the United States. Within this 

documentation, SCE&G provided a detailed description of the steps taken to minimize onsite 

impacts, including alternative site layouts. According to information provided by SCE&G, the 

site layout with the least impact on waters of the United States for the proposed VCSNS site has 

1.7 ac of permanent open water and wetland fill impacts and 774 linear feet of permanent fill 

impacts on a single stream (Stream L).

This EIS provides environmental information and analyses upon which the LEDPA judgment will 

be based. It also considers public feedback received in the form of public comments on the draft 

EIS. Using this information as well as information in the applicant’s federal permit application,

the USACE will address whether the LEDPA criterion is met in the Record of Decision.

9.5.2 SCE&G Alternative Sites

As noted previously, the evaluation and comparison of potential impacts on waters of the United 

States among the proposed and four alternative sites is limited by the lack of detailed data for all 

but the VCSNS site. SCE&G requested and received a jurisdictional determination from the 

USACE (valid through June 29, 2014) that identified 44.3 ac of wetlands and 49,288 linear feet 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-215 NUREG-1939

of streams subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Waters of the United States were estimated 

for FA-1, CGS, Saluda, and SR alternative sites using a combination of available data 

resources, including FWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service soils mapping, 2006 infrared aerial 

imagery, SCDHEC State Navigable Waters mapping, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps, and 

National Hydrography Dataset. For alternative sites and their associated transmission lines, 

data were reported as acres of forested and nonforested wetlands, as well as linear distance for 

streams. It is important to note that transmission-line routes associated with the four alternative 

sites are not finalized and therefore would be subject to change. Note also that impacts on 

alternative sites include those areas that would be occupied by principal site component 

footprints such as the powerblock, cooling towers, and switchyard, as well as impacts resulting 

from intake and discharge water lines. In the absence of detailed topographic design data, it is 

not feasible to include impacts from associated fill slopes for these components or from other 

necessary ancillary facilities. Using this information, Table 9-36 presents the impacts on waters 

of the United States for each alternative considered, including each site and its associated 

transmission lines. Impacts for transmission lines are calculated based solely on the total area 

of permanent clearing that would be required for forested wetlands.

Table 9-36. Comparison of Impacts on Waters of the United States for the Proposed and Four 

Alternative Sites

FA-1(a) CGS(a) Saluda(a) SR(a)

VCSNS(b)

(Proposed)

Sites

Wetland impacts (fill, ac) 3.1 15.9 7.3 14.6 0.7

Stream impacts (fill, linear feet) 5344 432 6106 1628 774

Open water impacts (fill, ac) 1.4 0 1.3 0.6 1.0

Total wetland and open water impacts 

(fill, ac)

4.5 15.9 8.6 15.2 1.7

Transmission Lines

SCE&G T-lines

Wetland impacts (clearing forest, ac)(a) 238.6 103.5 197.5 168.2 37.4

Santee Cooper lines 

Wetlands impacts (clearing forest, ac)(a) 9 126 6 77 6.3

Total wetland impacts for transmission 

lines (clearing forest, ac)

248 230 204 245 43.7

Total wetland impacts 

(fill plus clearing forest, ac) 

252 245 212 260 45.4

(a) Wetland impacts for FA-1, CGS, Saluda, and SR alternatives based on published mapping data, including but 

not limited to NWI maps. 

(b) Wetland impacts for VCSNS alternative (proposed action) based on delineations of waters of the U.S. verified 

by USACE jurisdictional determinations for the VCSNS site and associated transmission lines.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-216 April 2011

9.6 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.” 

33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

Part 320, “General Regulatory Policies.” 

40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, 

“National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.”

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 

“Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.”

40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, 

“Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.”

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

“Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.”

40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 125, 

“Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.”

40 CFR Part 230. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30, Protection of Environment, Part 230, 

“Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material.”

40 CFR Part 423. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 423, 

“Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.”

40 CFR Part 1502. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 

1502, “Environmental Impact Statement.”

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

1508, “Terminology and Index.”
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-217 NUREG-1939

51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants; 

Policy Statement Correction and Republication.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.

65 FR 32214. May 22, 2000. “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 

Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Final Rule.” Federal Register. U.S. 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.

67 FR 44502. July 02, 2002. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior.

71 FR 61022. October 17, 2006. “Endangered and Threatened Species; Revision of Species 

of Concern List, Candidate Species Definition, and Candidate Species List.” Federal Register. 

U.S. Department of Commerce.

75 FR 61904. October 6, 2010. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 

Listings for Two Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) in the Southeast.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Public Law 111-5.

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2008a. “Largest Wind Farms in U.S. (all U.S. 

wind farms>=200MW) as of end of August 10, 2007.” AWEA Wind Power Projects Database. 

Washington D.C. Available at 

http://www.awea.org/search_results.html?cx=004088546822029737293%3Asb7dh_c8ex0&cof=

FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=largest+wind+farm#1203.

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2008b. Wind Energy and the Environment. 

Accessed January 4, 2010 at http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html#How.

Angler Guide. 2009. South Carolina Fishing Report, Lake Wylie. Available at 

http://www.anglerguide.com/southcarolina/index.cfm?TR%20ID=668. 

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon

(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Serice, Northeast 

Regional Office. Available at 

www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/CandidateSpeciesProgram/AtlSturgeonStatusReviewReport.pdf.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-218 April 2011

Augusta - Richmond County Planning Commission (Augusta). 2008. Augusta – Richmond 

County Comprehensive Plan. Accessed on December 8, 2009 at 

http://appweb.augustaga.gov/Planning_and_Zoning/docs/Comprehensive%20Plans/2008%20C

omp%20Plan.pdf.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 16 U.S.C. 668, et seq.

Bogan, A.E. and J. Alderman. 2004. Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of South 

Carolina. U.S. Forest Service, Columbia, South Carolina.

Bulak, J. and J. Crane. 2009. Largemouth Bass in South Carolina. South Carolina Department 

of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed September 3, 2009 at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/pdf/LargemouthBassBookletsmall.pdf. 

Burger, J., K.F. Gaines, C.S. Boring, W.L. Stephens, Jr. J. Snodgrass, and M. Gochfeld. 2001. 

“Mercury and Selenium in Fish from the Savannah River: Species, Trophic Level, and 

Locational Differences.” Environmental Research Section A. 87: 108-118.

Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1998. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

IV July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. Annual Progress Report F-63, South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300704.

Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1999. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

IV July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. Annual Progress Report F-63-4-4, South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300706.

Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401, et seq.

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act [FWPCA]).

Collins, M. R., D. W. Cooke, B. Post, J. Crane, J. Bulak, T. I. J. Smith, T. W. Greig, and J. M. 

Quattro. 2003. “Shortnose Sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper Reservoir System, South Carolina.” 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132(6):1244–1250.

Conner, A.M. and J.E. Francfort. 1997. U.S. Hydropower Resource Assessment for South 

Carolina. DOE/ID-10430(SC), Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho 

Falls, Idaho. Available at http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/578703-

S5RPOE/webviewable/. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-219 NUREG-1939

Dames and Moore. 1974. “Report on the Baseline Biotic Survey Broad River Study Area Parr, 

South Carolina March 1971 to May 1973 for South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.” 

Appendix 2A in Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Operating License Environmental Report, 

Vol. 2. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Duke Energy (Duke). 2007. Broad River Water Supply Study, Final Report, Analysis of Water 

Supply Needs. Prepared by HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy (Duke). 2009a. William States Lee III Nuclear Station COL Application Part 3 

Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage (Environmental Report) 

Revision 1. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newreactors/col/lee/documents.html#application.

Duke Energy (Duke). 2009b. Buzzard Roost Station. Accessed November 23, 2009 at 

http://www.duke-energy.com/power-plants/oil-gas-fired/buzzard-roost-station.asp. 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2002. Siting Guide: Site Selection and Evaluation 

Criteria for an Early Site Permit Application, Final Report. Product ID: 1006878, EPRI, Palo 

Alto, California.

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 16 USC 1531 et seq.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2007. Obstruction Marking and Lighting. AC 70/7460-

1K, Washington D.C.

Gabbard, A. 1993. “Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger.” Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory Review. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accessed 

November 24, 2009 at http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2010. Rare Animals, Plants and Natural 

Communities of Burke County, Georgia. Generated from conservation database on July 16, 

2010. Georgia Wildlife Resources Division, Social Circle, Georgia. Available at 

http://georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/text/html/co_eos/burke_pri

nt.html.

Georgia Power. 2008. Entrainment Assessment at the Plant Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Waynesboro, Georgia. Prepared for Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., by Georgia 

Power. Accession No. ML090650638.

Georgia Power. 2009. Final Report of Fish Impingement at the Plant Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Waynesboro, Georgia. Prepared for Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., by Georgia Power. Accession No. ML100490044.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-220 April 2011

Godfrey, M.A. 1980. Field Guide to the Piedmont: The Natural Habitats of America’s Most 

Lived-in Region, from New York City to Montgomery, Alabama. The University of North 

Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S.Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data 

Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Greenwood County. 2008. Dam Failure, Buzzard Roost Dam Failure Preparedness. Public 

Safety Division, Emergency Management Office. Available at 

http://emergency.greenwoodsc.gov/eop-k.html.

Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Shafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, 

J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Reston, Virginia. 

Hayes, W.E. 1999. Parr Shoals Reservoir Fishery Management Plan. South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources. 

Hayes, G. and J. Bettinger. 2006. High Conservation Priority – Piedmont Species: Greenhead 

Shiner, Notropis chlorocephalus, Santee Chub, Cyprinella zanema, Carolina Darter Etheostoma 

collis. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia South Carolina. Accessed 

August 30 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html#P.

iData Technologies (iData). 2009. Welcome to Lake Murray, Lake Murray History. Available at

http://www.lakemurray.com/Lake_Murray_History.aspx. 

Integrated Waste Services Association, 2007. The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy 

Plants. Editor, T. Michaels. Accessed September 9, 2010 at http://www.wte.org/. Energy 

Recovery Council (formerly Integrated Waste Services Association), Washington, D.C.

Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA). 2008. Energy. Accessed October 21, 2008 at 

http://www.wte.org/energy/. 

Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries 

Society, Gethesda, Maryland.

Kirkman, L.K., C.L. Brown, and D.J. Leopold. 2007. Native Trees of the Southeast: An 

Identification Guide. Timber Press Inc., Portland, Oregon.

Kleinschmidt Energy and Water Resource Consultants (Kleinschmidt). 2005. Saluda Hydro 

Initial Consultation Document. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, 

Jenkinsville, South Carolina.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-221 NUREG-1939

Kleinschmidt Energy and Water Resource Consultants (Kleinschmidt). 2007. Saluda 

Hydroelectric Project Spring Use Addendum Study Report. Pittsfield, Maine.

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2006. Draft Environmental 

Assessment Santee Cooper Pee Dee Electrical Generating Station. Prepared for Santee 

Cooper, Santee, South Carolina.

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper. Prepared for Santee Cooper, 

Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082680275.

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2009. Supplement to Santee Cooper 

Transmission Line Siting Study Discussion of Alternative Sites. Prepared for Santee Cooper, 

Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Accession No. ML092250313. 

Marcy, B.C., D.E. Fletcher, F.D. Martin, M.H. Paller, M.J.M. Reichert. 2005. Fishes of the 

Middle Savannah River Basin with Emphasis on the Savannah River Site. University of Georgia 

Press, Athens, Georgia.

McCallum-Turner. 2005a. South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) Nuclear Power Plant Siting 

Study, 2005. Denver, Colorado. Accession No. ML091060805.

McCallum-Turner. 2005b. Nuclear Power Plant Site Selection Study (presentation). Denver, 

Colorado. Accession No. ML100331088.

McCord, J.W. 2006. Species Description – Sturgeons. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy Species Description. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/Sturgeon.pdf. 

McFarlane, R.W., R.F. Frietsche, and R.D. Miracle. 1978. Impingement and Entrainment of 

Fishes at the Savannah River Plant and NPDES 316b Demonstration. National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2007. Cost and Performance Baseline for 

Fossil Energy Plants. Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity. DOE/NETL2007/1281. Accessed at http://www.netl.doe.gov/energyanalyses/pubs/Bituminous%20Baseline_Final%20Report.pdf.

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

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon

(Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. 

Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_shortnose.pdf.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-222 April 2011

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2010. Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in 

the United States; Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers. Technical Report NREL/TP-500-

40745. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. Available at 

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/40745.pdf.

New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. 1978. New England Coalition on Nuclear 

Pollution v. NRC. 582 F.2d 87 (1st Circuit 1978).

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2008. 2008 Long-Term Reliability 

Assessment, 2008-2017. Available at www.nerc.com/files/LTRA2008.pdf.

Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC). 2005. “Demand Forecast.” Appendix A of The 

Fifth Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan. Portland, Oregon. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2009. Draft Northwest 6th Power Plan. 

Accessed September 29, 2009 at http://www.nwppc.org/energy/powerplan/6/default.htm. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2007. U.S. Nuclear Industry Capacity Factors (1971-2007),

Table. Accessed at 

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsand

charts/usnuclearindustrycapacityfactors/. 

Paller, M.H. and B.M. Saul. 1986. Effects of Thermal Discharges on the Distribution and 

Abundance of Adult Fishes in the Savannah River and Selected Tributaries: Annual Report, 

November 1984-August 1985. Environmental and Chemical Sciences, Inc., Aiken, South 

Carolina.

Paller, M.H., B.M. Saul, and D.V. Osteen. 1986. Distribution and Abundance of 

Ichthyoplankton in the Mid-Reaches of the Savannah River and Selected Tributaries. Primary 

Report Number DIST.-86-798, Environmental and Chemical Sciences, Inc., Aiken, South 

Carolina.

Palomar Energy. 2003. Project Purpose and Description. April 21, 2003. Docket no. 01-AFC24, California Energy Commission. Available at 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/palomar/documents/applicants_files/opening_brief/. 

Progress Energy (PE). 2008. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 2 and 3 COL 

Application Part 3 Applicant’s Environmental Report. Chapter 9 Alternatives to the Proposed 

Action. Accession No. ML080600913.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-223 NUREG-1939

Public Service Company 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 (1st Circuit 1978).

Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2007. Generic Proceeding to Explore 

a Formal Request for Proposal for Utilities That Are Considering Alternatives for Adding 

Generating Capacity. Docket 2005-191-E; Order 2007-626, p. 2. Columbia, South Carolina.

Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2009a. Amended Order Approving 

Combined Application. Docket No. 2008-196-E, Order 2009-104(a). Columbia, South Carolina.

Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2009b. Application of South Carolina 

Electric & Gas Company for the Establishment and Approval of DSM Programs and Rate Rider. 

Docket No. 2009-261-E. Columbia, South Carolina.

Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. 16 USC 2601-2645.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. 42 USC 6901, et seq. 

Riegert, D.S. 2006. “Reassessing Ranney Wells.” Public Works Magazine, April 15, 2006.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project 

Nuclear Unit No. 1). ALAB-502, 8 NRC 383, 39 (1978), affirmed, CLI-80-23, 11 NRC 731 

(1980).

Rohde, F.C. and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, 

and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South 

Carolina. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.

Santee Cooper. 2008. South Carolina Public Service Authority Integrated Resource Plan 2008. 

Santee Cooper, Moncks Corner, South Carolina.

Santee River Basin Accord (SRBA). 2008. Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish 

Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement. Final Administration and Policy Document. South 

Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission. Accession No. ML082830321.

Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC (SRS). 2009. Savannah River Site Environmental 

Report for 2008. SRNS–STI–2009–00190. Available at 

http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs/ERsum/er09/er2008.htm.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-224 April 2011

SC Code Ann. 48-39-10. 1997. “South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act of 1997.” 

South Carolina Code Annotated.

SC Code Ann. 58-33-160. 2009. “Decision of Commission.” South Carolina Code Annotated.

SC Code Ann. 58-33-220. 2009. “Definitions.” South Carolina Code Annotated.

SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). 2009. Information Summary. SERC Reliability 

Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina. Available at 

http://www.serc1.org/documents/SERC/SERC%20Publications/Information%20Summary/2009

%20SERC%20Information%20Summary_Final%2007-28-09.pdf.

South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2007. Economics. Office of Research & 

Statistics. Accessed January 14, 2010 at http://www.ors.state.sc.us/economics/economics.asp. 

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.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2004a. 

Watershed Water Quality Assessment: Edisto River Basin. Technical Report No. 005-04, 

Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2004b. 

Watershed Water Quality Assessment: Saluda River Basin. Technical Report No. 004-04, 

Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2005. Total 

Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for Edisto River Basin. SCDHEC Technical Report 

Number: 030-05. Available at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/tmdl/docs/tmdl_sfkedisto_fc.pdf.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007. Watershed 

Water Quality Assessment: Broad River Basin. Technical Report No.006-07, Bureau of Water, 

Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/shed/docs/bd_doc.pdf.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009a. South 

Carolina Fish Consumption Advisories: South Fork Edisto River – From Aiken State Park to 

Edisto River. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/fish/Advisories/south_fork_edisto.htm. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-225 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009b. South 

Carolina Fish Consumption Advisories: Savannah River. Columbia, South Carolina. Available 

at http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/fish/Advisories/Savannah.htm.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009c. 

[Watershed] 03050106-04 (Broad River). Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/shed/docs/50106-04.pdf.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2011. South 

Carolina Fish Consumption Advisories: Saluda River. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/fish/Advisories/saluda.htm.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2002. South Carolina Boating 

Facilities Guide. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at: 

http://www.charlestonfishing.com/boatfacilities.pdf. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. Columbia, South Carolina.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2006a. South Carolina Rare, 

Threatened, & Endangered Species; Inventory County Selection from List. Accessed 

September 8, 2009 at https://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/county_species.select_county_map. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2006b. Species Description --

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Available at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2008. South Carolina Aquatic 

Invasive Species Management Plan. Prepared in coordination with the South Carolina Aquatic 

Invasive Species Task Force. Available at 

www.dnr.sc.gov/invasiveweeds/aisfiles/SC_SMP_Draft.pdf. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009a. South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources Fish Attractor Maps. Available at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/fishattract/fishattr.html. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009b. 2009 South Carolina 

Aquatic Plant Management Plan Part 2. Prepared by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Program. 

Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/water/envaff/aquatic/img/2009parttwo.pdf. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-226 April 2011

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009c. South Carolina Fish 

Consumption Advisories 2009. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/library/ML-004042.pdf.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009d. Lake Murray. Wildlife and 

Freshwater Fisheries Division. Available at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/aquaticed/pdf/Lakemurrayfc.pdf. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009e. Freshwater Fishing 

Regulations. SCDNR Couth Carolina Rules & Regulations 2009-2010. Available at 

www.dnr.sc.gov/freshwater.html.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2010. Rare, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species Inventory for Allendale, Aiken, Bamberg, Barnwell, Calhoun, Chester, 

Colleton, Dorchester, Fairfield, Greenwood, Hampton, Lancaster, Laurens, Lexington, 

Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, and Saluda Counties. Accessed on December 3, 2010 at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/species/index.html.

South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism (SCDPRT). 2009. Lake 

Greenwood State Recreation Area. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.southcarolinaparks.com/park-finder/state-park/926.aspx.

South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). 2009. South Carolina Strategic 

Corridor System Plan. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

http://www.scdot.org/inside/multimodal/pdfs/StrategicCorridorPlan.pdf. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. 2009 Integrated Resource Plan. 

Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Available at http://dms.psc.sc.gov/pdf/matters/B9AEAF4D-E782-

EB82-E79E7E7580306CF4.pdf.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

June 8, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: ACC-5 (Part2), ALT-2 (Part 1), ALT-2 (Part 3), CR-19, and SW-14.” NND09-0152. Accession No. ML091620580.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-227 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

President, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated December 28, 

2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009 and August 6, 2009, 

and Patricia J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

(VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined License Application (COLA) – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 

52-028 Supplemental Response to NRC Environmental Report (ER) Request for Additional 

Information (RAI) USACE-3.” NND-09-0346. Accession No. ML093650260.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated August 6, 

2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia J. 

Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): USACE-2, 3, 4, and 5.” 

NND-09-0236. Accession No. ML092230165.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009e. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

June 15, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: ALT-2 Part 2, AQ-1 Part b, GW-11 Parts 2 and 3, and LU-5.” NND-09-

0160. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009f. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

May 7, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: CR-17, 23, 24, 25, 26, GW-7 (Parts 1 and 5), SW-2, 4, 6, 10, SW-3 (Part 1), 

and T-3.” NND-09-0121. Accession No. ML091310563.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009g. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

July 13, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): Acc-1, 2, and 3, Alt-1, 2, 

and 4, Gen-1, SEcon-2, SW-1 and 3, CR-12.” NND-09-0181.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009h. Cope Station. Available at 

http://www.sceg.com/en/about-sceg/power-plants/fossil-fired/cope-station/cope-station.htm.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-228 April 2011

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009i. Saluda Hydro Project Relicense – Welcome. 

Available at http://www.saludahydrorelicense.com.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009j. Urquhart Station. Available at 

http://www.sceg.com/en/my-community/environment/air/Urquhart-Station.htm.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009k. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

May 18, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

Information Needs: CR-5 and CR-9.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. ML091480622.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010a. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

President, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated January 

19, 2010 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia J. 

Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): USACE-2 Revision 1.” 

NND-10-0022. Accession No. ML100700542.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010b. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 2, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML101930231. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010c. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

3 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 3, Jenkinsville, South 

Carolina. Accession No. ML100360598. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010d. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated October 6, 2010 referencing R.B. Clary letter dated 

October 2, 2010, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined 

License Application – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 – Voluntary Submittal for the 

Environmental Report to Update Transmission Line Information.” NND-10-0361. Accession No. 

ML102850211. 

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010e. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

July 9, 2010, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 

and 52-028, Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses 

for V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3.” NND-10-0268. Accession No. ML101900618.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-229 NUREG-1939

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2011. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated February 8, 2011 referencing R.B. Clary letter 

dated July 2, 2010 and email clarifications from NRC dated January 25, 2011 and February 1, 

2011, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined License 

Application (COLA) – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 – Response to Clarification 

Requests Concerning Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).” NND-11-0027. 

Accession No. ML110410185. 

South Carolina Energy Office. 2007. Biomass Energy Potential in South Carolina: A 

Conspectus of Relevant Information – Final Report. Prepared for Southeast Biomass State and 

Regional Partnership. Available at 

http://www.energy.sc.gov/publications/Biomass%20Conspectus%204-10-07.pdf. 

South Carolina Energy Office. 2009. Radioactive Waste Disposal Program. Available at 

http://www.energy.sc.gov/index.aspx?m=8.

South Carolina Public Utilities Review Committee. 2009. Energy Policy Report. Available at 

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/citizensinterestpage/EnergyIssuesAndPolicies/FinalPURCEnergy

Report.pdf.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, August 23, 2009. 

Accession No. ML092740400.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. 30 USC 1234-1328 (30 CFR Part 700, et 

seq.)

Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009. Nuclear Plant Site Selection Study Report. Prepared for South 

Carolina Electric & Gas Company. Accession No. ML090270990.

The Catena Group. 2007. Freshwater Mussel Surveys, The Savannah River from Augusta to 

Savannah: South Carolina & Georgia. Prepared for International Paper & U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Hillsborough, N.C. Accession No. ML090780554.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2006. RIMS II Multipliers for Savannah River, Cope 

Generating Station Site, and Saluda Site. Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), 

Regional Economic Analysis Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Accession No. 

ML090680645.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 2009. CA25N – Total full-time and part-time 

employment by NAICS Industry 1/: Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland S.C. 

Accession No. ML093280960.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-230 April 2011

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009. “Total Population, North Carolina.” American Fact Finder. 

Accessed August 29, 2009 at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DownloadDatasetServlet?_lang=eng. Accession No. 

ML100290499.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2006a. National Electric Transmission Congestion Study. 

Washington, D.C. Available at http://nietc.anl.gov/congestionstudy/index.cfm.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2006b. Geothermal FAQs. Accessed October 21, 2009 at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html. Accession No. ML100280701.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008a. Wind Energy Resource Potential. Accessed 

January 4, 2010 at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008b. Hydrogen Fuel Cells. DOE Hydrogen Program, 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML100280723.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008c. Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies 

Program - Fuel Cell Technology Challenges. Accessed at February 11, 2009 at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/fc_challenges.htm. Accession No. 

100280888.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008d. State Energy Alternatives: Biomass Energy. 

Accessed November 6, 2008 at http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/biomass.cfm.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008e. State Energy Alternatives: Alternative Energy 

Resources in South Carolina. Accessed February 11 2009 at 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/resources_SC.cfm. Accession No. 

ML100280898. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009a. NNSA Marks Two-Year Construction Milestone at 

MOX Facility in South Carolina. National Nuclear Security Administration. July 31, 2009.

Available at http://nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/07.31.09a.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009b. Savannah River Site. U.S. Department of Energy. 

Available at http://www.srs.gov/general/srs-home.html.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009c. Wind Powering America – South Carolina Wind 

Resource Map. Accessed January 4, 2010 at 

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/maps_template.asp?stateab=sc. Accession No. 

ML100290354.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-231 NUREG-1939

U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001. Renewable 

Energy 2000: Issues and Trends. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2008. Annual 

Energy Outlook 2008 with Projection to 2030. DOE/EIA-0383. Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2008).pdf. 

U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2009. Annual 

Energy Outlook 2009 with Projection to 2030. DOE/EIA-0383. Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo09/pdf/0383(2009).pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. “Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal 

Combustion.” Chapter 1 in AP 42. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s01.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. “Stationary Gas Turbines.” Chapter 3 in 

AP 42. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s01.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

Detail Report – Chemtrade Performance Chemicals, LLC. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110002182138. 

Accession No. ML100200469.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

Detail Report – NCW&SA/Broad RV. WWTF Phase 1A. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=SC0048020&p

gm_sys_acrnm_in=PCS. Accession No. ML100200549.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009c. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

Detail Report – Cone Mills Carlisle Finishing Company. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000587188. 

Accession No. ML100200476.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009d. “Non-Hazardous Waste.” Accessed 

December 27, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/waste/basic-solid.htm. Accession No. 100280908.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009e. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) –

Envirofacts Report- Rockland-Bamberg Industries. Available at 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control.tris_print?tris_id=29003RCKLNCALHO.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-232 April 2011

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009f. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) –

Detailed Reports- Norway, Town of. Available at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=SC0045993&npvalue=1&npvalu

e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009g. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) –

Detailed Reports – SCE&G/Parr Hydro Station. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=SC0001864&npvalue=1&npvalu

e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12. Accession No. ML100200614.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009h. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) –

Detailed Reports – NCW&SA/Cannons Creek WWTP. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=SC0048313&npvalue=1&npvalu

e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009i. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

Detail Report – Handon Brick East/Minchew Pit. Accessed at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=SCG730503&

pgm_sys_acrnm_in=PCS. Accession No. ML100200549.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009j. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

Detail Report – International Paper Silverstreet Chip Mill. Available at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=SC0022730&p

gm_sys_acrnm_in=PCS.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009k. Water Discharge Permits()PCs) – Query 

Results – Newberry County, South Carolina. Available at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_master.fii_retrieve?county_name=newberry&state_code=SC&al

l_programs=YES&program_search=1&report=1&page_no=1&output_sql_switch=TRUE&databa

se_type=PCS.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009l. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

Detail Report – Hibbitts Dirt Pit Mine. Available at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=SCG730516&

pgm_sys_acrnm_in=PCS.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-233 NUREG-1939

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009m. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

Detail Report – Threlko Inc./Holly #1 Mine. Available at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=SCG730997&

pgm_sys_acrnm_in=PCS.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009n. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) –

Detailed Reports – Clariant Corp/Martin Plant. Available at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=SC0042803&npvalue=1&npvalu

e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009o. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) -

Detailed Reports – International Paper Company. Available at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=GA0037711&npvalue=1&npvalu

e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage 

Restoration Plan. Available at

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12197642.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. South Carolina Distribution Records of 

Endangered, Threatened, Candidate and Species of Concern, July 2008. Accessed on 

September 13, 2009 at www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/etcountylist_3_08.pdf. Accession No. 

ML093270525.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010. South Carolina List of Endangered, Threatened, 

and Candidate Species March 2010. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/endangeredSpeciescountylist.pdf.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised 

Land and Resource Management Plan: Sumter National Forest. U.S. Forest Service, Southern 

Region. Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008a. Water-Data Report 2008, 02161000 Broad River at 

Alston, SC. Available at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2008/pdfs/02161000.2008.pdf. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008b. Water-Data Report 2008, 0217303 South Fork Edisto 

River Near Cope, SC. Available at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2008/pdfs/02173030.2008.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008c. Water-Data Report 2008, 02197000 Savannah River 

at Augusta, GA. Available at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2008/pdfs/02197000.2008.pdf.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1939 9-234 April 2011

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Statement Related to 

the Operation of Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit No. 1. NUREG-0719, 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, Washington, D.C.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan—

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

Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Final 

Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, Washington, D.C.

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, Volume 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. William States Lee III Nuclear Station, 

Units 1 and 2 Combined Operating License Application. Available at

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/lee.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle ESP Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, 

Volume 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 34, Regarding Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a. Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2. 

Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/cat2.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 

2. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/rob2.html. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009c. McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1. 

Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/mcg1.html.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

April 2011 9-235 NUREG-1939

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009d. Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1. 

Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/oco1.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009e. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1. 

Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/vog1.html. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009f. Vogtle, Units 3 and 4 Application. 

Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Staff Memorandum from Scott Flanders, 

DSER Division Director, to Brent Clayton, RENV Branch Chief, dated December 10, 2010, 

Subject: “Addressing Construction and Preconstruction Activities, Greenhouse Gas Issues, 

General Conformity Determinations, Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative Impact 

Analysis, and Cultural/Historical Resources Analysis Issues In Environmental Impact 

Statements.” Accession No. ML100760503.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Memorandum from Patricia Vokoun, 

Project Manager, to Ryan Whited, Branch Chief, dated March 18, 2010, Subject: “Summary of 

the Environmental Site Audit and Alternative Site Visit Related to the Review of the Combined 

License Application for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3.” Accession No. 

ML100480082.

University of Georgia. 2009. Herpetological Research at the Savannah River Ecology 

Laboratory. Accessed September 24, 2009 at http://www.uga.edu/srelherp/intro.htm. 

Vismor & Associates (V&A). 1997. Comprehensive Plan Update, 1997, Fairfield County. 

Accession No. ML090630407.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC. (Westinghouse). 2009. Columbia Site. Accessed 

December 3, 2009 at 

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Businesses/nuclear_fuel/columbia_site.shtm. 

Wike, L.D. 1998. Potential Effect of Increased SRS River Water Withdrawal on the Savannah 

River Shortnose Sturgeon Population. WSRC-TR-98-00424, Westinghouse Savannah River 

Company, Aiken, South Carolina.

April 2011 10-1 NUREG-1939

10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter provides a discussion of the conclusions reached in earlier parts of this 

environmental impact statement (EIS), as well as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) staff’s recommendations. Section 10.1 summarizes the impacts of the proposed action, 

Section 10.2 summarizes the proposed project’s unavoidable adverse impacts with an 

accompanying table, and Section 10.3 discusses the relationship between the short-term use of 

resources and long-term productivity of the human environment. Section 10.4 summarizes the 

irretrievable and irreversible use of resources and Section 10.5 summarizes the alternatives to 

the proposed action. Section 10.6 discusses benefits and costs. Section 10.7 includes the 

NRC staff’s recommendation.

On March 27, 2008, the NRC received an application from South Carolina Electric and Gas 

(SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, 

formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority), for combined construction permits 

and operating licenses (COLs) for two new nuclear reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, South Carolina (SCE&G 2008). The proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 would be jointly owned by SCE&G (55 percent) and Santee Cooper (45 percent), 

and operated by SCE&G (SCE&G 2010). VCSNS Unit 1 is also jointly owned by SCE&G 

(66.7 percent) and Santee Cooper (33.3 percent), and operated by SCE&G (NRC 2004). With 

the exception of transmission systems needed to route power from the proposed units, all of the 

construction and operation related to VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be completely within the 

confines of the VCSNS site (SCE&G 2010). The reactors specified in the application are 

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) 

pressurized water reactors. The application references Revision 17 of the AP1000 certified 

design. On March 2, 2010, SCE&G submitted an application to the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to conduct construction activities 

that would result in alteration of waters of the United States, including wetlands. The USACE is 

participating in preparing this EIS as a cooperating agency. 

The proposed actions in the COL and USACE joint permit applications are (1) NRC issuance of 

COLs for construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactors at the VCSNS site in 

Fairfield County, South Carolina, and (2) USACE issuance of permits pursuant to Section 404 of 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 USC 1251, et. seq. [Clean Water 

Act]), and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 USC 403) to 

perform certain construction activities on the site. 

SCE&G submitted the Combined Application of South Carolina Electric and Gas Company for a 

Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity and for a 

Base Load Review Order for the Construction and Operation of a Nuclear Facility in 
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-2 April 2011

Jenkinsville, South Carolina, to the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC) on 

May 30, 2008. The final order issued by the PSCSC approving the combined application and 

Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) was 

issued to SCE&G on March 2, 2009 (PSCSC 2009). 

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 USC 

4321) directs that an EIS is required for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality 

of the human environment. Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information 

about the following:

• 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.

The NRC has implemented NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. 

In 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC requires preparation of an EIS for issuance of COLs. Subpart C of 

10 CFR Part 52 contains the NRC regulations related to COLs. 

Included in this EIS are (1) the results of the review team’s preliminary analyses, which consider 

and weigh the environmental effects of the proposed action and of constructing and operating 

two new nuclear units at the VCSNS; (2) mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse 

effects; (3) the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and (4) the NRC 

staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action based on its environmental review. The 

USACE will base its evaluation of the DA Individual Permit application on the requirements of 

USACE regulations, the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and the USACE public 

interest review process. The USACE permit decision will be made following issuance of the 

final EIS. 

The environmental review described in this EIS was conducted by a joint NRC/USACE team. 

The review team was composed of NRC staff, its contractor’s staff, and staff from the USACE. 

During the course of preparing this EIS, the team reviewed the Environmental Reports (ERs) 

submitted by SCE&G (2009, 2010); consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; 

and followed the guidance set forth in Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2 (NRC 1976), NUREG1555, Environmental Standard Review Plans (NRC 2000), and the Staff Memorandum 

“Addressing Construction and Preconstruction, Greenhouse Gas Issues, General Conformity 
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-3 NUREG-1939

Determinations, Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative Impact Analysis, and 

Cultural/Historical Resources Analysis Issues in Environmental Impact Statements” 

(NRC 2010). In addition, the review team 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 review team also considered public comments received on the draft 

EIS. Those comments and responses are provided in Appendix E of this final EIS.

As a cooperating agency, the USACE has participated in the environmental review of the 

proposed action and has participated in the scoping meetings, public meetings, public-comment 

resolution, and EIS preparation. The proposed action includes impacts on waters of the United 

States, including wetlands. For action requiring a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit for the 

discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States, regulations 

promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require the USACE to limit its 

authorization to the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. The USACE will 

document its conclusion of the review process, including the requirement for compensatory 

mitigation, in accordance with 33 CFR Part 332, Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic 

Resources, in its permit-decision document.

Following the practice of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437) (NRC 1996) and supplemental license renewal EISs, 

environmental issues are evaluated using the three-level standard of significance—SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE—developed by the NRC using guidelines from the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (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 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.

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

appropriate sections. During its environmental review, the review team considered planned 

activities and actions that SCE&G indicates it and others would likely take should SCE&G 

receive the COLs. In addition, SCE&G provided estimates of the environmental impacts

resulting from building and operation of two new nuclear units on the VCSNS site.
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-4 April 2011

10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action

In a final rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416), the Commission limited the definition of 

“construction” to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority (10 CFR 51.4). Many of 

the activities required to construct a nuclear power plant are not part of the NRC action to 

license the plant. Activities associated with building the plant that are not within the purview of 

the NRC action are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities include 

clearing and grading, excavating, erection of support buildings and transmission lines, and other 

associated activities. Because the “preconstruction” activities are not part of the NRC action, 

their impacts are not reviewed as a direct effect of the NRC action. Rather, the impacts of the 

preconstruction activities are considered in the context of cumulative impacts. Certain 

preconstruction activities require permits from the USACE, as well as other Federal, State, and 

local agencies.

Chapter 4 of this EIS describes the relative magnitude of impacts related to preconstruction and 

construction activities with a summary of impacts in Table 4-18. Impacts associated with 

operation of the proposed facilities are discussed in Chapter 5 and are summarized in 

Table 5-23. Chapter 6 describes the impacts associated with the fuel cycle, transportation, and 

decommissioning. Chapter 7 describes the impacts associated with preconstruction and 

construction activities and operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 when considered along with the 

cumulative impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the 

geographical region around the VCSNS site. 

10.2 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 the NRC action and 

the USACE action that cannot be avoided and for which no practical means of mitigation are 

available.

The unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the granting of the COLs for 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would include impacts of both construction and operation. 

10.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction and Preconstruction 

Activities

Chapter 4 discusses in detail the potential impacts from construction and preconstruction of the 

proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. Table 10-1 presents the adverse impacts 

associated with construction and preconstruction activities to each of the resource areas 

evaluated in this EIS and the mitigation measures that would reduce impacts. All building 

activities for VCSNS Units 2 and 3, including ground-disturbing activities, would occur within the 
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-5 NUREG-1939

existing VCSNS site boundary. Unavoidable adverse impacts are the result of both construction 

and preconstruction activities, unless otherwise noted. 

The impact determinations in Table 10-1 are for the combined impacts of construction and 

preconstruction, but the impact determinations for NRC-regulated construction are the same for 

water use, water quality, aquatic ecology, socioeconomic and environmental justice, air quality, 

and nonradiological and radiological health resource areas. The impact determinations for 

building and NRC-related construction are different for land use, terrestrial and wetland 

ecosystems, and historic and cultural resources. For the impact determinations that differ for 

the NRC-regulated activities, the impacts from the NRC-regulated activities are discussed below 

the table.

Table 10-1. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction and 

Preconstruction Activities

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to Mitigate 

Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Land Use MODERATE for 

transmission lines

SMALL for other 

offsite areas; 

SMALL for NRCauthorized 

construction 

activities

Follow best 

management 

practices (BMPs); 

use flexibility in 

transmission-line 

corridor routing

Use of roughly 556 ac of land 

throughout period of construction and 

preconstruction. New transmissionline routing would convert 426 ac over 

45 mi to utility corridor use, of which 

204 ac are currently forested.

Water-Related Impacts

Water Use SMALL Implement BMPs to 

control erosion; use 

of turbidity curtain to 

control sediment from 

dredge operations

Temporary degradation of surface 

water quality because of sediment 

loading.

Water Quality SMALL

Ecology

(Terrestrial)

MODERATE; 

SMALL for NRCauthorized 

construction 

activities

Implement wetland 

mitigation as required 

by USACE; 

implement BMPs 

during construction 

and preconstruction; 

use flexibility in 

transmission-line 

corridor routing to 

avoid adverse 

impacts on important 

species and habitats. 

Approximately 0.66 ac of wetlands 

would be filled; vegetation would be 

cleared and up to 592 ac of wetlands 

traversed by new transmission lines; 

permanent loss of terrestrial habitat 

onsite and in proposed new 

transmission-line corridors; increased 

habitat fragmentation from 

transmission lines; and potential 

impacts on important species in 

proposed transmission-line corridors. 
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-6 April 2011

Table 10-1. (contd)

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to Mitigate 

Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Ecology

(Aquatic)

SMALL Comply with Federal 

permits and State 

401 water-quality 

certification.

Prepare and 

implement SWPPP 

and use appropriate 

BMPs to control 

erosion and 

sedimentation.

774 linear feet of Stream L would be 

filled. Temporary benthic habitat 

disturbance associated with the 

installation of cooling-water intake, 

water-treatment plant intake, 

discharge pipeline and diffuser, and 

temporary sanitary waste-treatment 

plant discharge.

Loss of river bottom habitat 

associated with the installation of 

concrete pile foundations in Parr 

Reservoir for the VCSNS-Varnville 

line.

Localized, temporary site-preparation 

impacts on onsite streams include the 

widening of an existing rail spur rightof-way adjacent to a seasonal stream,

and the construction of a new bridge 

at Mayo Creek.

Installation of new transmission-line 

corridors and clearing unmaintained 

transmission-line corridors would 

result in disturbance of riparian 

buffers adjacent to streams and other 

waterways.

Socioeconomics

Infrastructure 

and Community 

Services

MODERATE for 

traffic impacts, 

SMALL for other 

infrastructure and 

community service 

impacts;

MODERATE for 

traffic impacts 

SMALL for other 

infrastructure and 

community service 

impacts for NRCauthorized 

construction 

activities

Implement trafficmanagement plan 

during site 

development.

Temporary highly localized periodic 

traffic impacts.
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-7 NUREG-1939

Table 10-1. (contd)

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to Mitigate 

Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Physical 

Impacts

SMALL

Demography SMALL

Economic 

Impacts on the 

Community

SMALL

Environmental Justice

Health and 

Environmental

SMALL

Socioeconomic MODERATE; 

MODERATE for 

NRC-authorized 

construction 

activities

Implement traffic 

management plan 

during site 

development.

Temporary highly localized traffic 

impacts would occur in an 

environmental justice community.

Subsistence and 

Special 

Conditions

SMALL

Historic and 

Cultural 

MODERATE; 

SMALL for 

NRC-authorized 

construction 

activities

Implement 

management 

agreement with 

SHPO. Develop 

resource-specific 

mitigation plans if 

significant cultural 

resources are located 

within transmissionline corridors.

Cultural resources would be 

permanently altered by the proposed 

action and from the installation of 

transmission lines. Cultural resource 

attributes that would be affected 

include the context and landscape of 

the surrounding area, the relationship 

of these resources with regional 

history, settlement patterns, and the 

historical use of the land. Visual 

impacts (alteration of the historic 

landscape) would affect the integrity 

of the resources. 

Air Quality SMALL Development of a 

dust-control plan 

prior to construction 

that would include 

specific dustmitigation measures. 

Air quality permits 

would be obtained 

from the SCDHEC 

(as required).

Temporary degradation of local air 

quality due to dust particle emissions 

during ground clearing, grading 

excavation activities, and operation of 

concrete batch plant.
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-8 April 2011

Table 10-1. (contd)

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to Mitigate 

Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Nonradiological

Health

SMALL Train all workers in 

appropriate safety 

requirements. 

Occupational injuries to personnel

Noise-limiting 

devices on vehicles 

and equipment.

Restrict noise-related 

activities to daylight 

hours.

Noise from construction activities

Radiological

Health

SMALL Doses to construction 

workers would be 

maintained below 

NRC public dose 

limits.

Small doses to construction workers 

that would be less than NRC public 

dose limits.

BMPs = best management practices

SCDHEC = South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office

SWPPP = Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The NRC staff concludes that the potential unavoidable adverse impacts on land use, terrestrial 

and wetland ecosystems, and historic and cultural resources from NRC-authorized construction 

activities would be SMALL. Nearly all such unavoidable adverse impacts would be attributable 

to preconstruction activities due mainly to the conversion of about 1171 ac from undeveloped or 

forested uses to utility corridor use. 

The NRC staff concludes that the potential unavoidable adverse impacts for infrastructure and 

community services from NRC-authorized construction activities would be MODERATE for 

traffic impacts and SMALL for other infrastructure and community service impacts. The South 

Carolina Department of Transportation road-capacity standards would not be exceeded, but the 

increase in traffic would be noticeable to local residents in the Jenkinsville area for the worker 

commuting hours during the limited period of peak building employment. Impacts would be 

largely temporary and of short duration, based on the size of the workforce during any one 

period, and would abate as construction and preconstruction activities wind down.

Construction and preconstruction traffic-related unavoidable adverse impacts would be 

noticeable but not destabilizing to the Jenkinsville community. The Socioeconomic 

Environmental Justice impacts from NRC-authorized construction is estimated to be 80 percent 

of combined construction and preconstruction.
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-9 NUREG-1939

The primary unavoidable adverse environmental impacts during building activities would be 

related to land use and terrestrial habitat loss, because approximately 500 ac would be 

permanently disturbed. 

10.2.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation

Chapter 5 provides a detailed discussion of the potential impacts from operation of the proposed 

Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. The unavoidable adverse impacts related to operation are 

listed in Table 10-2 and are summarized below. 

Table 10-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to 

Mitigate Impacts

Unavoidable 

Adverse Impacts

Land Use SMALL None Long-term dedication of 290 ac 

of land.

Water-Related 

Impacts

Water Use SMALL Comply with Federal and 

State permits

Increased water use because 

of the addition of Units 2 and 3

Water Quality SMALL Comply with SCDHEC 

NPDES permit

Increased temperature and 

concentrations of chemicals in 

discharge

Ecology 

(Terrestrial) 

SMALL Implement BMPs during 

vegetation maintenance 

on transmission-line 

rights-of-way

Vegetation maintenance on 

transmission-line rights-of-way

Ecology 

(Aquatic)

SMALL Comply with SCDHEC 

NPDES permit.

Cooling-water withdrawal 

results in impingement and 

entrainment of aquatic biota 

from Monticello Reservoir.

Comply with SCDHEC 

NPDES permit

Thermal, chemical, and 

physical effects associated 

with station blowdown into Parr 

Reservoir have the potential to 

affect the distribution and 

abundance of some aquatic 

species.
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-10 April 2011

Table 10-2. (contd)

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to Mitigate 

Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse

Impacts

Comply with SWPPP and 

implement BMPs.

Lack of stormwater 

management could introduce 

sediments and pollutants into 

onsite waterbodies and 

waterways crossed by 

transmission-line corridors and 

injure aquatic biota.

Use EPA-approved 

herbicides adjacent to 

streams and waterbodies.

Maintenance and operation 

activities (e.g., application of 

chemicals for vegetation 

management) along 

transmission-line corridor could 

harm aquatic species.

Socioeconomics SMALL Traffic mitigation would 

have been performed 

during the construction 

phase.

Increased traffic; increased 

use of services.

Environmental 

Justice

SMALL None

Historic and 

Cultural

SMALL Finalize and implement 

management agreement 

with SHPO.

Potential for inadvertent 

discoveries during 

maintenance and operational 

activities.

Air Quality SMALL Cooling towers are 

operated with drift 

eliminators to limit salt 

deposition. Operation of 

generators is regulated by 

SCDHEC.

Impact on local aesthetic due 

to cooling tower plumes, 

increased salt deposition in 

and near the site due to 

operation of the cooling 

towers. Emissions associated 

with intermittent operation of 

standby and ancillary 

generators.

Nonradiological

Health

SMALL Strict adherence to NRC 

and Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration 

safety standards. 

Occupational injuries such as 

falls, noise and inhalation of air 

contaminants.
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-11 NUREG-1939

Table 10-2. (contd)

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to Mitigate 

Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse

Impacts

Radiological

Health

SMALL Doses to members of the 

public would be 

maintained below NRC 

and EPA standards; 

worker doses would be 

maintained below NRC 

limits and ALARA; and 

doses to biota other than 

humans would be 

maintained below NCRP 

and IAEA guidelines.

Small radiation doses to 

members of the public, below 

NRC and EPA standards; 

ALARA doses to workers; and 

biota doses less than NCRP 

and IAEA guidelines.

BMPs = best management practices

EAB = exclusion area boundary

NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

SCDHEC = South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office

SWPPP = Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

Increased water use is an unavoidable adverse impact due to operation of the proposed plant. 

Stormwater would be managed with a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and 

operations-related monitoring would be performed to ensure compliance with South Carolina 

Department of Health and Environmental Control requirements. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts to terrestrial resources would include herbicide use, mowing, and 

similar activities for vegetation maintenance on transmission-line rights-of-way. Assuming that 

best management practices are followed, terrestrial impacts during operation would be minor. 

Within transmission-line corridors, low-growing vegetated buffer zones would be maintained 

adjacent to streams and waterbodies to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation. Only EPAapproved and registered herbicides would be used.

Unavoidable adverse aquatic impacts would be minimal during operation because the design of 

the intake structures on Monticello Reservoir would have minimal effects to aquatic organisms 

from impingement and entrainment. Aquatic impacts from station blowdown to Parr Reservoir 

would also have minimal effects to aquatic organisms due to design of the diffuser. Operation 

of the intake and discharge structures would comply with any NPDES permit.

Adverse socioeconomic impacts likely would be similar in character to those during the building 

phase but much smaller due to the smaller project-related population and the fact that much of 

the mitigation of housing and infrastructure shortages would have occurred in response to the 

larger impacts during the building period. Socioeconomic impacts would primarily be increased 
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-12 April 2011

traffic, some damage to roads, an increase in the demand for housing and public services, 

along with increased employment opportunities and an increase in tax revenue to support the 

increase in service-demand.

Unavoidable adverse air-quality impacts would be negligible and that pollutants emitted during 

operations would be insignificant. Nonradiological and radiological health impacts would be 

minimal. Nonradiological health impacts to members of the public from operation, including 

etiological agents, noise, electromagnetic fields, occupational health and transportation of 

materials and personal, would be minimal through controls and measures by SCE&G 

associated with compliance to Federal and State regulations.

10.3 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 local use of the human environment by the proposed project can be summarized in terms of 

the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of preconstruction, construction, and operation 

and the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. With the exception of the 

consumption of depletable resources as a result of plant construction and operation, these uses 

may be classed as short term. The principal short-term benefit of the plant is represented by 

the production of electrical energy; and the economic productivity of the site, when used for this 

purpose, would be extremely large compared to the productivity from agriculture or from other 

probable uses for the site.

The maximum long-term impact on productivity would result if the plant were not immediately 

dismantled at the end of the period of plant operation, and consequently the land occupied by 

the plant structures would not be available for any other use. However, the enhancement of 

regional productivity resulting from the electrical energy produced by the plant is expected to 

result in a correspondingly large increase in regional long-term productivity that would not be 

equaled by any other long-term use of the site. In addition, most long-term impacts resulting 

from land-use preemption by plant structures can be eliminated by removing these structures or 

by converting them to other productive uses. 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.

The review team concludes that the negative aspects of plant construction, preconstruction, and 

operation as they affect the human environment are outweighed by the positive long-term 

enhancement of regional productivity through the generation of electrical energy.
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-13 NUREG-1939

10.4 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 actions are 

implemented. The term “irreversible commitments of resources” refers to environmental 

resources that would be irreparably changed by the new units and that could not be restored at 

some later time to the resource’s state before the relevant activities. “Irretrievable commitments 

of resources” refers to materials that would be used for or consumed by the new units in such a 

way that they could not, by practical means, be recycled or restored for other uses. The 

irreversible commitment of resources are the environmental resources discussed in Chapters 4, 

5, and 6 of this EIS. 

10.4.1 Irreversible Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of environmental resources resulting from Units 2 and 3, in addition to 

the materials used for the nuclear fuel, include those described in the following sections.

10.4.1.1 Land Use

Land committed to the disposal of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes is committed to that 

use, and cannot be used for other purposes. The land used for Units 2 and 3, with the 

exception of any filled wetlands, would not be irreversibly committed because once Units 2 and 

3 cease operations and the plant is decommissioned in accordance with NRC requirements, the 

land supporting the facilities could be returned to most other industrial or nonindustrial uses.

10.4.1.2 Water Use

Under average conditions, 27,160 gpm of cooling water would be lost through consumptive use 

(evaporation) during operation.

10.4.1.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota

Construction and preconstruction would temporarily adversely affect the abundance and 

distribution of local flora and fauna on the VCSNS site and transmission-line corridors. 

However, the staff expects that minimal adverse impacts on shoreline, stream, reservoir benthic 

habitat, terrestrial habitat, or on individual species are expected to occur at the VCSNS site. 

Similar impacts could occur during the installation and maintenance of transmission-line

corridors. Once construction and preconstruction are complete, the staff expects that flora and 

fauna would recover in areas that are not directly adjacent to or part of operations. Also, 

impacts on biota would cease post-operations. The staff considers that the 0.66 ac of wetlands

and 774 linear feet of Stream L that would be filled during preconstruction of Units 2 and 3 

would be irreversible.
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-14 April 2011

10.4.1.4 Socioeconomic Resources

The staff expects that no irreversible socioeconomic commitments would be made to 

socioeconomic resources because they would be reallocated for other purposes once the plant 

is decommissioned.

10.4.1.5 Historic and Cultural Resources

Cultural resource attributes would be permanently altered by the construction, preconstruction 

and operation of the proposed plant and transmission lines. Nearly all impacts would be 

attributable to preconstruction activities, particularly transmission lines. Cultural resource 

attributes that could be impacted include the context and landscape of the surrounding area, the 

relationship of these resources with regional history, settlement patterns, and the historical use 

of the land. Visual impacts (alteration of the historic landscape) could affect the integrity of the 

resources.

10.4.1.6 Air and Water

Air pollutants would be released to the environment during routine operations. Because these 

releases would conform to applicable Federal and State regulations, their impact to the public 

health and the environment would be limited.

Dust and other emissions such as vehicle exhaust would be released to the air during 

construction. During operations, vehicle exhaust emissions would continue and other air 

pollutants and chemicals including very low concentrations of radioactive gases and particulates 

would be released from the facility to the air and surface water. The staff expects no irreversible 

commitment to air or water resources because all Unit 2 and 3 releases would be made in 

accordance with duly issued permits.

10.4.2 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

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) of new reactor construction estimated that the following quantities of 

materials would be required for the reactor building of a typical new 1300-MW(e) nuclear power 

plant: 12,239 yd3 of concrete, 3107 tons of rebar, and 2,500,000 ft of cable. An estimated 

additional 6,500,000 ft of cable and 275,000 ft of piping would be required for each unit. A total 

of approximately 182,900 yd3 of concrete and 20,512 tons of structural steel would be required 

to construct the reactor building, major auxiliary buildings, the turbine-generator building, and 

the turbine-generator pedestal. Therefore, about twice these amounts would be needed for the 

construction of two units at the VCSNS site. Hazardous materials such as asbestos would not 

be used, if possible. Use of materials such as asbestos would be in accordance with applicable 

safety regulations and practices.
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-15 NUREG-1939

The review team expects that the use of construction materials in the quantities associated with 

those expected for VCSNS Units 2 and 3, 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 

(OECD NEA and IAEA 2008) so that the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of this 

resource would be negligible. 

10.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Alternatives to the proposed action are discussed in Chapter 9 of this EIS. Alternatives 

considered are the no-action alternative, energy-production alternative, system-design 

alternatives, and alternative sites. For the purposes of the USACE’s evaluation, onsite 

alternatives are also addressed. 

The no-action alternative, described in Section 9.1, refers to a scenario in which the NRC would 

deny the request for COLs. Upon such a denial, the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units at the VCSNS site would not occur and the predicted environmental impacts 

associated with the project would not occur. The USACE could deny SCE&G’s permit request. 

If the permit were denied, SCE&G’s construction of the two new units would not go forward as 

proposed. If no other power plant were built or electrical power supply strategy implemented to 

take its place, the electrical capacity to be provided by the project would not become available, 

and the benefits (electricity generation) associated with the proposed action would not occur 

and the need for power would not be met. Failure to supply the needed electricity would have 

significant adverse impacts within the region of interest and the staff expects that the PSCSC 

would take steps to confirm that the need for power would be met.

Alternative energy sources are described in Section 9.2 of this EIS. Alternatives not requiring 

additional generating capacity are described in Section 9.2.1. Detailed analyses of coal- and 

natural-gas-fired alternatives are provided in Section 9.2.2. Other energy sources are 

discussed in Section 9.2.3 and a combination of energy alternatives is discussed in 

Section 9.2.4. The staff concluded that none of the alternative power production options were 

both practical and environmentally preferable to the proposed action.

Alternative sites are discussed in Section 9.3 of this EIS, and the cumulative impacts in the 

VCSNS site vicinity, including the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 increment, are compared with 

the impacts of the same physical facilities at each of the alternative sites in Chapter 9 of this 

EIS. Table 9-35 contains the staff’s characterization of cumulative impacts at the proposed and 

alternative sites. Based on this review, the NRC staff concludes that while there are differences 

in cumulative impacts at the proposed and alternative sites, none of the alternative sites is 

environmentally preferable or obviously superior to the proposed VCSNS site. The NRC’s 
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-16 April 2011

determination is independent of the USACE’s determination of a Least Environmentally 

Damaging Practicable Alternative pursuant to Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The USACE will 

conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite alternatives in its Record of Decision.

Alternative system designs are discussed in Section 9.4 of this EIS, focusing on alternative 

cooling-system designs. The staff determined none of the alternative system designs were 

environmentally preferable to the proposed design.

10.6 Benefit-Cost Balance

NEPA (42 USC 4321, et seq.) requires that all agencies of the Federal Government prepare 

detailed EISs on proposed major Federal actions that can significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment. A principal objective of NEPA is to require each Federal agency to 

consider, in its decision-making process, the environmental impacts of each proposed major 

action and the available alternative actions. In particular, Section 102 of NEPA requires all 

Federal agencies to the fullest extent possible:

(B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the 

Council on Environmental Quality established by Title II of this Act, which will 

insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be 

given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and 

technical considerations. (42 USC 4321)

However, neither NEPA nor CEQ requires the costs and benefits of a proposed action be 

quantified in dollars or any other common metric.

The intent of this section is not to identify and quantify all of the potential societal benefits of the 

proposed actions and compare these to the potential costs of the proposed actions. Instead, 

this section will focus on only those the benefits and costs of such magnitude or importance that 

their inclusion in this analysis can inform the decision-making process. This section compiles 

and compares the pertinent analytical conclusions reached in earlier chapters of this EIS. It 

gathers all of the expected impacts from building and operations of the proposed VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 and aggregates them into two final categories; the expected costs and the 

expected benefits. The benefit-cost balancing for the NRC action will be based on a balancing 

of the benefits and costs of construction and operation.

Although the analysis in this section is conceptually similar to a purely economic benefit-cost 

analysis, which determines the net present dollar value of a given project, the analysis identifies 

the important potential societal benefits of the proposed action and compares them to the 

potential internal (i.e., private) and external (i.e., societal) costs of the proposed actions. In this 

section, the benefits assessment provides the insight to determine if the benefits of the 

proposed actions outweigh the aggregate costs. 
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-17 NUREG-1939

General issues related to SCE&G’s financial viability and those of its parent organizations are 

outside NRC’s mission and authority and, thus, would not be considered in this EIS. Issues 

related to the financial qualifications of SCE&G’s will be addressed in the NRC staff’s safety 

evaluation report. It is not possible to quantify and assign a value to all benefits and 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.

Section 10.6.1 discusses the benefits associated with the proposed action. Section 10.6.2 

discusses the costs associated with the proposed action. A summary of benefits are shown in 

Table 10-3. Section 10.6.3 provides a summary of the impact assessments by integrating 

information from previous sections to frame the relative magnitude of the proposed actions’ 

benefits and costs.

10.6.1 Benefits

The most apparent benefit from a power plant is that it generates power and provides 

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 

the resource is the foundation for economic stability and growth and is fundamental to 

maintaining the current standard of living. In addition to nuclear power, however, a number of

different power-generation technology options could meet the need for baseload power, 

including natural-gas-fired, coal-fired plants, or a combination of alternatives. Because the 

focus of this EIS is on the proposed expansion of the VCSNS site generating capacity, this 

section focuses primarily on the relative benefits of the VCSNS option rather than the broader, 

more generic benefits of electricity supply. 

10.6.1.1 Societal Benefits

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. From a societal perspective, price stability and longevity and energy 

security and fuel diversity are the primary benefits associated with nuclear power generation 

relative to most other alternative generating options. These benefits are described in this 

section.
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-18 April 2011

Table 10-3. Monetary and Nonmonetary Benefits of the Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3

Category of Benefit Description of Benefit

Value of Benefit Over 

License Period

Net Electrical Generating Benefits

Net generating capacity ~2200 MW(e)

Electricity generated (operating at 

85-percent to 93-percent capacity)

16,000,000 – 18,000,000 MWh per 

year

Taxes and Other Revenue During Plant Construction and Operation Period (transfer payments –

not independent benefits)

Annual property taxes from 

operating plant (paid to Fairfield 

County)

Proposed Unit 2 and Unit 3 could 

pay on average $21.5 million in 

property taxes annually 

$860 million over the 

40-year license period

Local direct income generated 

during construction

$133.2 million annual direct worker

regional income during peak 

employment

$256.5 million total annual 

regional income impact

Local direct income generated 

during operation

$121 million per year during 

40-year life of plant

$220 million total annual 

regional income impact

Effects on Regional Productivity

Construction workers Direct Impact: Approximately 3600 

workers at project peak.

3762 additional indirect 

regional employment 

supported by peak direct 

employment

Operational workers Direct Impact: 800 operations 

workers added over 40-year life of 

plant

1704 additional indirect 

regional employment 

supported by the direct 

employment

Socioeconomics Increased tax revenue supports 

improvements to public 

infrastructure and social services. 

The increased revenue spurs 

future growth and development

Technical and other non-monetary 

benefits

Fuel diversity reduces exposure to 

supply and price risks associated 

with reliance on any single fuel 

source

Price volatility Dampens potential for fuel price 

volatility.

Electrical reliability Enhances reliability of the 

electricity supply.

Source: SCE&G 2010 unless otherwise indicated.
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-19 NUREG-1939

Price Stability and Longevity

Because of the relatively low and nonvolatile cost of nuclear power (approximately 

0.5 cents/kWh) and the reactor’s projected availability rate of 85 to 93 percent, nuclear energy is 

a dependable source of electricity that can be provided at relatively stable prices. Nuclear 

power plants are generally not subject to fuel-price volatility as are natural-gas-fired and oil-fired 

power plants; there is less price volatility with coal than the other fossil fuels. In addition, 

uranium fuel constitutes only 3 to 5 percent of the cost of a kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated 

electricity. Doubling the price of uranium increases the cost of electricity by about 7 percent, 

while doubling the price of natural gas would add about 70 percent to the cost of gas-fired 

electricity generation, and doubling the cost of coal would add about 36 percent to the cost of 

coal-fired electricity generation (WNA 2010).

Energy Security and Fuel Diversity

Currently, more than 70 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is from fossilbased technologies. Nuclear power contributes to the diverse U.S. energy mix, thereby hedging 

the risk of shortages and price fluctuations for any one type of power-generation system.

In Chapter 8 of this EIS the NRC staff analyzed the relevant load forecasts, which revealed a 

need for an additional 2214 MW(e) of baseload power capacity in the region of interest by the 

year 2020. The proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would generate approximately 2200 MW(e) 

net, which would help meet this baseload need in the region. Assuming a reasonably low 

capacity factor of 85 percent, the plant’s average annual electrical energy generation would be 

about 16,400,000 MWh. A reasonably high-capacity factor of 93 percent would result in slightly 

more than 17,900,000 MWh of electricity.

10.6.1.2 Regional Benefits

The region would benefit from additional VCSNS-related tax revenues, regional productivity, 

and community impacts.

Tax Revenue Benefits

In recent years, SCE&G’s property tax payments to Fairfield County for Unit 1 on the VCSNS 

site have been between $12.2 million to $14.3 million, annually. On average, 37 to 45 percent 

of the Fairfield County property tax revenue comes from real property taxes generated by Unit 1 

operations (see Table 2-33). With the completion of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County 

would receive additional property tax revenue.

Upon completion and operation of Units 2 and 3, based on information provided by SCE&G 

(SCE&G 2010), the staff expects SCE&G will enter an agreement with Fairfield County to pay 
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-20 April 2011

from $13 to $31 million annually in property taxes over the 40-year operating life of the new 

units (see Table 5-5). Taxes on the new units would be in addition to existing taxes being 

collected by Fairfield County on Unit 1 operations.

In addition to property taxes, the construction-related and preconstruction jobs and salaries 

would generate State income tax revenue. The review team assumed that 50 percent of the 

skilled crafts workforce would relocate into the region while the plant is being built. However, 

impacts in the state would occur only to the degree that construction and operations workers 

would be relocating from out of state or when in-state workers significantly upgrading their 

disposable income compared to previous in-state employment. The review team concludes, 

when viewed in the context of total sales tax revenue to the State of South Carolina, the net 

impact on sales tax revenue caused by potential relocations to South Carolina, or from the 

effect of upgrading disposable income through better employment, would be minimal. 

Once the plant is operational, it would be subject to corporate income tax, which in South 

Carolina is 5.533 percent of net taxable income. Sales taxes would be levied on materials 

purchased in-state to construct VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Retail sales of tangible personal property 

are subject to general State sales or use taxes of 6.0 percent. In addition, the local counties 

collect an additional 1.0 percent in sales and use taxes bringing the total rate to 7 percent 

(SCE&G 2010). 

Regional Productivity and Community Impacts

The new units would require a peak-level workforce of approximately 3600 workers and an 

operating workforce of about 800. The long-term impact would be realized from the operations 

employment multiplier effect, which suggests that 1704 additional indirect and induced jobs 

would be created to support the 800 jobs during the operation period. In total, approximately 

2504 jobs (apart from outage employment impacts) within the economic impact area affected by 

the site would be supported 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. The final demand economic multiplier effect means that every dollar spent by 

nuclear plants results in the creation of an additional $0.33 of induced income in the community. 

Sections 4.5.4 and 5.5.4 provide additional information about the economic impacts of 

constructing and operating Units 2 and 3 on the VCSNS site.

10.6.2 Costs

Internal costs to SCE&G and external costs to the surrounding region and environment would 

be incurred during the preconstruction, construction, and operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 

and 3. Internal costs include the costs to physically construct the power plant (capital costs), as 

well as operating and maintenance costs, fuel costs, waste disposal costs, and 

decommissioning costs. External costs include all costs imposed on the environment and 
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-21 NUREG-1939

region surrounding the plant that are not internalized by the company and may include such 

things as a loss of regional productivity, environmental degradation, or loss of wildlife habitat. 

The external costs listed in Table 10-4 summarize environmental impacts to resources that 

could result from preconstruction, construction, and operation of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 

and 3. The external costs listed in Table 10-4 summarize environmental impacts on resources 

that could result from construction, preconstruction, and operation of Units 2 and 3. Because 

Table 10-4 includes costs for pre-construction activities as well as for NRC-authorized 

construction and operation, the costs presented for an individual resource may be greater than 

the costs solely for the NRC-authorized portion of the project.

10.6.2.1 Internal Costs

The most substantial monetary cost associated with nuclear energy is the cost of capital. 

Nuclear power plants typically have relatively high capital costs for building the plant, but very 

low fuel costs relative to alternative power-generation systems. Because of the large capital 

costs for nuclear power plants, and the relatively long construction period before return on 

capital investment, servicing the capital costs of a nuclear power plant is one of the most 

important factors in determining the economic competitiveness of nuclear energy. Construction 

delays can add significantly to the cost of a plant. Because no new nuclear plants have been 

built in the United States in many years to establish an empirical cost basis, there is some 

uncertainty regarding the actual costs of constructing a new unit and how it would relate to 

construction costs for similarly large industrial facilities. 

Table 10-4. Internal and External Costs of Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3

Category of Cost Description of Cost Impact Assessment(a)

Internal Costs

Construction (overnight 

cost) for both units 

(including 

preconstruction costs)

$7.0 billion (about $3182 per installed kW(e))

(SCE&G 2010)

Transmission, 

distribution, and general 

plant costs

$576 million (about $262 per installed kW(e))

(SCE&G 2010)

Levelized cost of 

operation (includes fuel 

costs, decommissioning, 

and waste disposal)

$37 to $42 per MWh (SCE&G 2010)

Fuel costs $4.50 MWh (calculated based on WNA 2010)

Decommissioning 

(NRC minimum)

Approximately $1–$2 per MWh
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-22 April 2011

Table 10-4. (contd)

Category of Cost Description of Cost Impact Assessment(a)

External Costs

Land use Project impacts including site and 

transmission lines would convert land use on 

about 556 acres of land at the site and about 

426 ac of land for transmission lines. 

(See Sections 4.1 and 5.1.)

MODERATE for 

transmission lines; SMALL 

for NRC-authorized 

construction activities

Water use and water 

quality

There are some costs associated with 

providing water for various needs during 

construction and operation. Cooling water is 

taken from Monticello Reservoir. Impact on 

water quality would be regulated by the South 

Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SCDHEC) and the 

South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources (SCDNR). (See Sections 4.2 

and 5.2.)

SMALL

Terrestrial and wetlands 

ecosystems

Some impacts on wildlife due to mortality 

during construction operations are 

anticipated. However, these impacts do not 

affect long-term wildlife populations. Wildlife 

mortality during operations is expected to be 

minimal. (See Sections 4.3 and 5.3.)

SMALL

Aquatic ecosystems Filling in of the headwaters for Stream L, 

which flows into Mayo Creek, would result in a 

noticeable change for that immediate area. 

However, water-quality impacts are likely to 

be negligible with the use of BMPs to control 

sedimentation. (See Sections 4.3 and 5.3.)

SMALL

Radioactive effluents 

and emissions

Radioactive waste is generated. The plant 

produces radioactive air emissions. 

Relatively small levels of radioactive effluents 

are introduced into the Broad River. 

(See Sections 4.9 and 5.9.)

SMALL

Hazardous and 

radioactive waste

Storage, treatment, and disposal of high-level 

radioactive spent nuclear fuel. Commitment 

of underground geological resources for 

disposal of radioactive spent fuel. 

(See Sections 4.9 and 5.9.)

SMALL
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-23 NUREG-1939

Table 10-4. (contd)

Category of Cost Description of Cost Impact Assessment(a)

Air quality Air emissions from diesel generators, auxiliary 

boilers, equipment, and vehicles that have a 

small impact on workers and local residents. 

Emission sources would be operated 

intermittently and emissions would be within 

Federal, State, and local air quality limits. 

Avoidance of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, 

carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and 

particulate emissions (relative to other 

baseload fossil-fired generation). 

(See Sections 4.7 and 5.7.)

SMALL

Materials, energy, and 

uranium

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

materials and energy, including depletion of 

uranium. Construction materials include 

concrete, aggregate, rebar, conduit, cable, 

piping, building supplies, tools. Equipment 

needs include cranes, cement trucks, 

excavation equipment, dump trucks, and 

graders.

SMALL

Socioeconomics The external costs of building and operating 

Units 2 and 3 have been discussed in detail in 

Chapters 4 and 5. The review team 

determined all of these external costs would 

be SMALL, with the exception of buildingrelated traffic impacts, which were identified 

as MODERATE for each preconstruction and 

construction. (See Sections 4.4 and 5.4) 

MODERATE for traffic 

impacts, SMALL for other 

infrastructure and 

community service impacts; 

MODERATE for traffic 

impacts, SMALL for other 

infrastructure and 

community service impacts 

for NRC-authorized 

construction activities

Cultural Resources SCE&G and Santee Cooper have signed 

management agreements to be protective of 

cultural resources in the event of inadvertent 

discovery. (See Sections 4.6 and 5.6.)

MODERATE; SMALL for 

NRC-authorized construction 

activities

Health impacts 

(nonradiological and 

radiological)

Small estimated temperature increases would 

not significantly increase the abundance of 

thermophilic microorganisms. Radiological 

doses and nonradiological health hazards to 

the public and occupational workers would be 

monitored and controlled in accordance with 

regulatory limits. (See Sections 4.8, 4.9, 5.8, 

and 5.9.)

SMALL

(a) Impact assessments are listed for all impacts evaluated in detail as part of this EIS. The details on impact 

assessments are found in the indicated sections of this EIS.
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-24 April 2011

Construction Costs

In evaluating the monetary costs related to constructing VCSNS Units 2 and 3, SCE&G 

reviewed recently published literature and internally generated, site-specific information. 

Construction cost estimates are provided below in Table 10-4. These estimates are based on a 

number of studies that were conducted by government agencies, universities, and other entities; 

the estimates include a significant contingency to account for uncertainty. In its ER, SCE&G 

expressed the construction-cost estimate in terms of “overnight capital cost,” which is a 

commonly used approach in the construction industry. “Overnight capital cost” is a term used to 

describe the monetary cost of constructing large capital projects such as a power plant, where 

costs are exclusive of interest and escalation, but include engineering, procurement, and 

construction costs, as well as owner's costs and contingencies. The owner’s costs include such 

things as site work and preparation, cooling-water intake structures and cooling towers, import 

duties on components, insurance, spare parts, transmission interconnection, development 

costs, project management costs, owner’s engineering, State and local permitting, legal fees, 

and staffing-related training.

SCE&G’s initial cost analysis was primarily based on the four following studies:

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2003. The Future of Nuclear Power: An 

Interdisciplinary MIT Study. 

• University of Chicago. 2004. The Economic Future of Nuclear Power.

• 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. 

• Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development and International Energy 

Agency (OECD/IEA). 2005. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2005 Update. 

In addition to the four studies referenced by SCE&G, the NRC staff reviewed two additional

reports, one published by The Keystone Center entitled Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding

(The Keystone Center 2007), which concluded, based upon alternative discount rates and 

construction times, overnight construction costs range between $3600 and $4200 per kW(e). 

The second study is a 2009 update to the MIT study (2003) that revised capital cost estimates 

to $4000 per kW(e).

In its revised ER, SCE&G estimated an overnight capital cost of $7.0 billion to construct both 

units (SCE&G 2010), which amounts to about $3182 per kW(e) in 2007 dollars. An additional 

$576 million would be required to connect Units 2 and 3 to the grid. That estimate more closely 

reflects estimates reported in the 2007 Keystone study (The Keystone Center 2007) and by MIT 

(2009).
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-25 NUREG-1939

Operation Costs

Operation costs are frequently expressed as levelized cost of electricity, which is the lowest 

price per kWh of producing electricity, including the amounts needed to cover operating costs 

and annualized capital costs. Overnight capital costs account for one-third of the levelized cost, 

and interest costs on the overnight costs account for another 25 percent (University of Chicago 

2004). Levelized cost estimates based on the MIT study (2009) range from $66 to $84 per 

MWh (6.6 to 8.4 cents per kWh). A number of factors can affect the range, such as the choice 

of discount rate, construction duration, plant lifespan, capacity factor, tax rates, and premium for 

uncertainty. Estimates include decommissioning, but 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. In its revised ER, SCE&G estimated that operating costs for Units 2 

and 3 would be in the range of $37 to $42 per MWh (3.7 to 4.2 cents per kWh) (SCE&G 2010). 

Considering the more recent information provided by SCE&G, the review team did not find 

SCE&G’s estimates to be unreasonable approximations, based on expected costs.

Fuel Costs

The cost of fuel is included in the calculation of levelized cost. Based on the recent World 

Nuclear Association’s study (WNA 2010), the review team estimates nuclear fuel costs to be 

less than half a cent (0.45 cents) per kWh.

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 also should be recognized, however, that radioactive nuclear 

waste poses unique disposal challenges for long-term management. While spent fuel and 

radioactive nuclear waste are being stored successfully in onsite facilities, the United States and 

other countries have yet to implement final disposition of spent fuel or high-level radioactive 

waste streams created at various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 

Decommissioning

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.75, the NRC requires that licensees provide reasonable 

assurance that funds will 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. Decommissioning costs are about 9 to 15 percent of the initial capital cost of a nuclear 

power plant. However, when discounted, decommissioning costs contribute only a few percent 

to the investment cost and even less to the generation cost. In the United States, they account 

for 0.1 to 0.2 cents per kWh, which is no more than 5 percent of the cost of the electricity 

produced (WNA 2010). 
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-26 April 2011

10.6.2.2 External Costs

External costs are social and/or environmental effects that would be caused by the building of 

and generation of power by two new reactors at the VCSNS site. 

Environmental and Social Costs

The impacts of building and operating the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 have been identified and 

analyzed in Chapters 4 and 5, and a significance level of potential adverse impacts 

(i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned. Such impacts cannot be universally 

monetized. Chapter 6 similarly 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 VCSNS site. A summary of project internal and 

external costs is shown in Table 10-4. 

Unlike generation of electricity from coal and natural gas, normal operation of a nuclear power 

plant does not result in significant emissions of criteria air pollutants (e.g., oxides of nitrogen or 

sulfur dioxide), methyl mercury, or greenhouse gases associated with global warming and 

climate change. Whereas combustion-based power plants are responsible for at least 

70 percent of the sulfur dioxide, at least 21 percent of nitrogen oxides, and 51 percent of the 

mercury emissions from industrial sources in the United States (EPA 2009), and 40 percent of 

the carbon dioxide (DOE/EIA 2008a). Eighty-two percent of the electric power industry’s 

emissions are from coal-fired plants (DOE/EIA 2008b). Chapter 9 of this EIS analyzes coal- and 

natural-gas-fired alternatives to the construction and operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Air 

emissions from these alternatives and nuclear power are summarized in Chapters 4, 5, and 9.

As discussed previously, Table 10-4 summarizes the external costs (i.e., environmental 

impacts) associated with the building and operation of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

Impacts to air quality, aquatic ecology, housing, public services, aesthetics and recreation, 

cultural resources, and radiological and nonradiological health all would be SMALL. Because 

the overall impact to these resources from the proposed project in its entirety would be SMALL, 

the impacts from the NRC action (i.e., construction as defined in 10 CFR 51.4, and operation of 

the proposed new units) accordingly would also be SMALL. For land use, the impact from the 

total project would be MODERATE, the impact from the NRC portion of the project would be 

SMALL. For terrestrial ecology the impact from the total project would be MODERATE, the 

impact from the NRC portion of the project would be SMALL. For traffic near the VCSNS site, 

the review team determined the total impact would be MODERATE and the NRC portion of the 

project would be MODERATE.

10.6.3 Summary of Benefits and Costs

SCE&G’s business decision to pursue expansion of VCSNS generating capacity by adding two 

additional nuclear reactors is an economic decision, based on private financial factors subject to 
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-27 NUREG-1939

regulation by the PSCSC. The internal costs to construct additional units appear to be 

substantial; however, SCE&G’s decision to pursue this expansion is an indication that the 

company has already concluded that the private, or internal, benefits of the proposed facility 

outweigh the internal costs. Although the identified societal benefits are not specifically 

monetized, the review team determined that the potential societal benefits of the proposed 

expansion of the VCSNS site are substantial. In comparison, the external socio-environmental 

costs imposed on the region appear to be relatively small. The external costs listed in 

Table 10-4 summarize environmental impacts on resources that could result from construction, 

preconstruction, and operation of Units 2 and 3. Because Table 10-4 includes costs for preconstruction activities as well as for NRC-authorized construction and operation, the costs 

presented for an individual resource may be greater than the costs solely for the NRCauthorized portion of the project.

Table 10-3 and Table 10-4 include summaries of the internal and external costs of the proposed 

activities at the VCSNS site, as well as the identified benefits. The tables include references to 

other sections of this EIS when impact assessments or more detailed analyses are available for 

specific topics. 

On the basis of the assessments summarized in this EIS, the construction and operation of the 

proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, with the mitigation measures identified by the staff, would have 

accrued benefits that most likely would outweigh the economic, environmental, and social costs. 

For the NRC-proposed action (NRC-authorized construction and operation) the accrued benefits 

would also outweigh the costs of construction and operation of Units 2 and 3.

10.7 Staff Recommendation

The NRC staff’s recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the 

proposed action is that the COLs should be issued. The staff’s evaluation of the safety and 

emergency preparedness aspects of the proposed action will be addressed in the staff’s safety 

evaluation report that is anticipated to be published in 2011.

This recommendation is based on (1) the ER submitted by SCE&G (2010), (2) consultation with 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, (3) the review team’s independent review, (4) the 

NRC staff’s consideration of comments related to the environmental review that were received 

during the public scoping process, (5) the NRC staff’s consideration of comments on the draft 

EIS, and (6) the assessments summarized in this EIS, including the potential mitigation 

measures identified in the ER and in the EIS.

The NRC’s determination is independent of the USACE’s determination of whether the VCSNS 

site is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative pursuant to Clean Water Act 

Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The USACE will conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite 

alternatives in its Record of Decision. 
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-28 April 2011

10.8 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.”

33 CFR Part 332. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

Part 332, “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources.”

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

Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.”

72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. “Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act [FWPCA]).

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2003. The Future of Nuclear Power: An 

Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Available at http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2009. Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear 

Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Available at http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/.

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

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development and International Energy Agency

(OECD/IEA). 2005. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2005 Update. Paris, France.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency and 

International Atomic Energy Agency (OECD NEA and IAEA). 2008. Uranium 2007. 22nd 

Edition, Paris, France. 
Conclusions and Recommendations

April 2011 10-29 NUREG-1939

Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2009. Amended Order Approving 

Applied Application − Combined Application of South Carolina Electric and Gas Company for a 

Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity and for a 

Base Load Review Order for the Construction and Operation of a Nuclear Facility in 

Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Docket No 2008-196-E; Order 2009-104A. Columbia, South 

Carolina.

Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 USC 403, as amended.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008. Letter from Stephen A. Byrne (SCE&G 

Senior Vice-President, Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission dated March 27, 2008, “Subject V.C. Summer Nuclear Stations Units 2 and 3; 

Project Number 743 Submittal of a Combined License Application for V.C. Summer Nuclear 

Stations Units 2 and 3”. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. NND-08-0004. Accession No. 

ML081300460. COL Application Accession No. ML081300569.

South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G). 2009. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 

COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261.

South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 

COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

Revision 2, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML101930231. 

The Keystone Center. 2007. Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding. Keystone, Colorado.

University of Chicago. 2004. The Economic Future of Nuclear Power. Available at 

http://www.anl.gov/Special_Reports/NuclEconAug04.pdf.

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. Prepared by Dominion Energy, Inc., Bechtel Power Corporation, TLG, Inc., 

and MPR Associates under Contract DE-AT01-020NE23476. Available at 

http://nuclear.energy.gov/np2010/reports/1DominionStudy52704.pdf.

U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2008a. Figure 

3S_1. U.S. Electric Power Industry Net Generation, 2007. Accessed March 10, 2009 at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html

U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2008b. Emissions of 

Greenhouse Gases in the United States. DOE/EIA-0573(2008). Accessed online February 3, 

2010, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/gwp_gases.html.
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1939 10-30 April 2011

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Report on the Environment. A-Z 

Indicators List. Accessed on February 3, 2010, at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=list.listByAlpha#E.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976 Preparation of Environmental Reports for 

Nuclear Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, Washington, D.C.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 & 2,

Washington, D.C.

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

(ESRP) − Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. 

NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, NRC, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 15, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

Station, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Staff Memorandum from Scott Flanders

(DSER Division Director) to Brent Clayton (RENV Branch Chief) dated December 10, 2010, 

“Subject: Addressing Construction and Preconstruction Activities, Greenhouse Gas Issues, 

General Conformity Determinations, Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative Impact 

Analysis, and Cultural/Historical Resources Analysis Issues In Environmental Impact 

Statements.” Accession No. ML100760503.

World Nuclear Association (WNA). 2010. The New Economics of Nuclear Power. Accessed 

January 27, 2010, at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=410&terns=price. 
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(12-2010)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG 1939, Vol. 1

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

04

YEAR

2011

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Final Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear

Station, Units 2 and 3

5. AUTHOR(S)

n/a (multiple)

6. TYPE OF REPORT

Final

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

2008-2011

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Division of Site and Environmental Review Regulatory Division

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Division of Site and Environmental Review Regulatory Division

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969, as amendeed (NEPA). The EIS was prepared in response to an application submitted to the U.S. NRC by South

Carolina Electric and Gas (SDE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (aka the South Carolina Public Service Authority) for

combined construction permits and operating licenses (COLs). The proposed actions related to the SCE&G application are (1)

NRC issuance of COLs for two new nuclear power reactor units (Units 2 and 3) at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS)

site in Fairfield County, SC, and (2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit action on a Department of the Army (DA)

Individual Permit application to perform certain activities on the site. The USACE is participating with the NRC in preparing this

EIS as a cooperating agency and participates collaboratively on the review team. This EIS includes the analysis by the NRC

and USACE staff that considers and weighs the environmental impacts fo building and operating two new nuclear units at the

VCSNS site and at alternative sites, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. The EIS also

addresses Federally listed species, cultural resources, and essential fish habitat issues.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

Environmental Impact Statement, EIS, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA, U.S. NRC,

South Carolina Electric and Gas , Santee Cooper, South Carolina Public Service Authority, combined

construction permits and operating licenses, COLs, proposed actions, SCE&G, application, new

nuclear power reactor units, Units 2 and 3, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, VCSNS, Fairfield County,

SC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACE, permit, Department of the Army, DA, Individual Permit

application, participating, cooperating agency, review team, environmental impacts, building, operating,

two new nuclear units, alterantive sites, mtigation measures, reducing or avoiding adverse impacts,

Federally listed species, cultural resources, fish habitat issues.

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (12-2010)

Office of New Reactors Special Projects Branch

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charleston District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Charleston, SC 29403-5107

Office of New Reactors Special Projects Branch

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charleston District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Charleston, SC 29403-5107


UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

--------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
NUREG

-1939, Vol. 1

Final 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses for

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3