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

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2006 8-1 NUREG-1817

8.0 Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives

This chapter describes alternatives to the proposed action and discusses the environmental

impacts of those alternatives. The evaluation of alternative sites is a two-step process, as set

forth in NUREG-1555, Section 9.3 (NRC 2000), and stems from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) decision related to licensing the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant (Public |

Service Co. of New Hampshire 1977). The first step looks at a full suite of environmental |

issues, using reconnaissance-level information to determine if any of the alternative sites are

environmentally preferable to the proposed Grand Gulf early site permit (ESP) site. If an

alternative site appears environmentally preferable to the proposed site, the analysis proceeds

to the second step. If not, then the evaluation of alternative sites ends at the first step. The

second step considers economic, technological, and institutional factors among the

environmentally preferred sites to determine if any is obviously superior to the proposed site. If

there is no obviously superior site, then the proposed site prevails. A staff conclusion that an

alternative site is obviously superior to System Energy Resources, Inc.’s (SERI’s) proposed

ESP site would normally lead to a recommendation that the ESP application be denied.

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 guidelines (CEQ 1997) and set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of |

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. The impact

categories evaluated in this chapter are the same as those used in the Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1

and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999)(a) with the additional impact category of environmental justice. While

the GEIS was developed for license renewal, it provides useful information for this review and is

referenced throughout this chapter.

Because 10 CFR 52.18 does not require an environmental impact statement (EIS) for an ESP |

to include consideration of the benefits of construction and operation of a new reactor or

reactors at the ESP site, this EIS does not consider such matters. Accordingly, should the NRC

issue an ESP for the Grand Gulf ESP site, these matters would be considered in the EIS for |

any construction permit (CP) or combined license (COL) application that references such |

an ESP.

Section 8.1 discusses the no-action alternative. Section 8.2 addresses alternative energy

sources. Section 8.3 examines plant design alternatives. Section 8.4 reviews SERI’s region of

interest (ROI) and examines its suitability and the suitability of SERI’s alternative site-selection

process. It describes the method Entergy Nuclear used to select the candidate and alternative
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-2 April 2006

sites. Entergy Nuclear, a division of Entergy, documented the process used to identify

alternative sites in the Early Site Permit Selection Committee Notebook (Entergy Nuclear 2001).

Section 8.4 also examines issues that are common to all of the alternative sites and addresses

them collectively for all the alternative sites, and evaluates the selected alternative sites

individually. Section 8.5 summarizes the environmental impacts for the alternative sites. The

comparison of the alternative sites with the Grand Gulf ESP site is made in Chapter 9.

8.1 No-Action Alternative

For purposes of this ESP application, the no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which the

NRC would deny the ESP request. Upon such a denial, the construction and operation of one

| or more new nuclear units at the proposed ESP location in accordance with the 10 CFR Part 52

process referencing an approved ESP would not occur.

| The no-action alternative generally consists of two parts. First, under the no-action alternative

| NRC would not issue the ESP. There are no environmental impacts associated with not issuing

the ESP, except that the impacts associated with site preparation and preliminary work that

could be allowed pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(c) and 10 CFR 52.25(a) would be avoided. SERI

| chose not to include a site redress plan in its ESP application, and therefore, would not be

permitted to undertake site preparation and preliminary work pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(c).

Second, given that the EIS addresses the environmental effects of construction and operation

as directed by the Commission in 10 CFR 52.18, the no-action alternative would result in no

such construction and operation. Therefore, the impacts predicted in this EIS would not occur. 

In this context, the no-action alternative would accomplish none of the benefits intended by the

ESP process, which would include 

 C Early resolution of siting issues prior to large investments of financial capital and human

resources in new plant design and construction

 C Early resolution of issues on the environmental impacts of construction and operation of

reactors that fall within the plant parameters 

 C The ability to bank sites on which nuclear plants may be located 

 C The facilitation of future decisions on whether to construct new nuclear power

generation facilities.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-3 NUREG-1817

8.2 Energy Alternatives

This section examines the potential environmental impacts associated with electric generating

sources other than a new nuclear generation facility at the Grand Gulf ESP site; purchasing

electric power from other sources to replace power that would have been generated by a new

nuclear facility at the ESP site; a combination of new generating capacity and conservation

measures; and other generation alternatives that were deemed not to be viable replacements

for a new nuclear facility at the ESP site. Section 8.2.1 discusses energy alternatives not

requiring new generating capacity. Section 8.2.2 discusses energy alternatives requiring new

generating capacity. Other alternatives are discussed in Section 8.2.3. A combination of

alternatives is discussed in Section 8.2.4. Section 8.2.5 compares the environmental impacts

from new nuclear, coal-fired, and natural gas-fired generating units at the Grand Gulf ESP site.

In Section 9.2.2.2 of its ESP application, SERI established a target value for the desired

electrical output of 2000 MW(e) for a new nuclear generating facility constructed at the Grand

Gulf ESP site and used this value in its analysis of energy alternatives (SERI 2005). The staff |

also used this level in Section 8.2 for analyzing the potential environmental impacts of

alternative energy sources. The 2000 MW(e) output level is lower than the 3000 MW(e)

maximum output level used in the analysis of construction and operation impacts in Chapters 4

and 5. The 3000 MW(e) figure derives from the SERI plant parameter envelope (PPE) (see

Appendix I).

8.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity

|

Four alternatives to the proposed action that do not require SERI to construct new generating |

capacity are to |

 C Purchase the needed electric power from other suppliers |

 C Reactivate retired power plants |

 C Extend the operating life of existing power plants |

 C Implement conservation or demand side management programs. |

The Commission determined (NRC 2005) that conservation or demand side management |

programs are not a reasonable alternative to an ESP for a base load nuclear power plant. |

Consequently, this alternative is not further considered. |

The viability of the other three alternatives depends on when SERI would seek a CP or COL |

from NRC (assuming an ESP is granted). For example, the status of existing and retired |

nuclear power plants will vary over time. At the present time, no information is available on |

when SERI would seek to construct a new nuclear power facility at the Grand Gulf ESP site if it |

receives an ESP. If SERI is granted an ESP, the duration of the permit would be for 10 to |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-4 April 2006

| 20 years (10 CFR 52.27(a)). In addition, if SERI is granted an ESP, it may apply for renewal of

| the permit under the procedures in 10 CFR 52.29 through 52.33.

| The viability of the preceding alternatives also depends on whether the nuclear unit or units

| SERI would seek to build at the Grand Gulf ESP site would be merchant or regulated facilities. 

| Merchant power facilities generate electricity to sell on the open market to any buyer willing to

| pay the price asked by the facility owner. Owners of regulated nuclear power facilities are

| generally obligated to sell electricity to all buyers in the designated service area, usually at a

| price approved by a regulatory body. In return for assuming this obligation, the owners of

| regulated nuclear power facilities generally receive a guarantee that the approved price can

| provide a rate of return commensurate with the risk/return of comparable investments. SERI

| has indicated its intent that a new nuclear power facility built at the ESP location would be a

| merchant facility operated in a base load manner to provide electricity to the competitive

| marketplace (SERI 2005). However, SERI also stated that it is possible that a new nuclear

| facility constructed at the Grand Gulf ESP site could be operated as a regulated facility

| (SERI 2005).

| Because of the uncertainty in timing for the construction of a new nuclear generating facility at

| the Grand Gulf ESP site and whether the plant would be a merchant or a regulated facility,

| energy alternatives not requiring new generating capacity are not evaluated in great detail in

this EIS. 

| If power to replace the capacity of a new nuclear unit were to be purchased from sources within

| the United States or from a foreign country, the generating technology likely would be one of

| those described in the GEIS for license renewal (probably coal, natural gas, or nuclear)

| (NRC 1996). The description of the environmental impacts of other technologies described in

| the GEIS for license renewal is representative of the impacts associated with the construction

| and the operation of a new nuclear unit or units at the Grand Gulf ESP site. Under the

purchased power alternative, the environmental impacts of power production would still occur

| but would be located elsewhere within the region, nation, or in another country. The

| environmental impacts of coal-fired and natural gas-fired plants are discussed in Section 8.2.2.

| If the purchased power alternative is implemented, the only environmental unknown is whether

| new transmission line rights-of-way would be required. The construction of these lines could

| have both environmental and aesthetic consequences, particularly if new transmission line

| rights-of-way have to be acquired. The staff concludes that the local environmental impacts

| from purchased power would be SMALL when existing transmission line rights-of-way are used

| and could range from SMALL to LARGE if acquisition of new rights-of-way is required. The

| environmental impacts of power generation would depend on the generation technology and

| location of the generation site and, therefore, are unknown.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-5 NUREG-1817

Nuclear power facilities are initially licensed for a period of 40 years. The license can be |

renewed for up to 20 years, and NRC regulations permit additional license renewal. SERI did |

not consider nuclear power plant license renewal in its environmental report. While SERI does |

not hold operating licenses for other nuclear power plants, it is a subsidiary of Entergy |

Corporation and other Entergy Corporation subsidiaries hold operating licenses for nuclear |

power plants around the country. A number of these plants have had operating licenses |

renewed and others are expected to seek license renewal. |

The environmental impacts of continued operation of a nuclear power plant are significantly less |

than construction of a new plant. However, continued operation of an existing nuclear plant |

does not provide additional generating capacity. |

Fossil plants slated for refurbishment, predominately coal- and natural gas-fired plants, tend to |

be ones that are old enough to have difficulty in economically meeting today’s restrictions on air |

contaminant emissions and, as a result, would require extensive refurbishing to meet the more |

restrictive environmental standards at great economic cost. As a result, SERI concluded that |

the environmental impacts of a refurbishment scenario are bounded by the coal- and natural |

gas-fired alternatives. |

The staff believes that it is unreasonable for an applicant to request a CP or COL if power could |

be purchased from other electricity suppliers at a reasonable cost, or if the power could be |

obtained by reactivating one or more of SERI’s retired generating plants or by extending the life |

of one or more existing generating plants.

The staff concludes that the options of purchasing electric power from other suppliers, |

reactivating retired power plants, and extending the operating life of existing power plants are |

not reasonable alternatives to providing new base load power generation capacity. |

8.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity

In keeping with the NRC’s evaluation of alternatives to license renewal, a reasonable set of

energy alternatives to the construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units at the

Grand Gulf ESP site should be limited to analysis of discrete power generation sources and

those power generation technologies that are technically reasonable and commercially viable

(NRC 1996). The current mix of base load power generation options in Mississippi is one |

indicator of the feasible choices for power generation technology within the State.

This section discusses the environmental impacts of those energy alternatives to the proposed

action that would require SERI to construct new generating capacity, and is limited to the

individual alternatives that are viable: coal-fired and natural gas-fired generation. The impacts
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-6 April 2006

discussed in this section are estimates based on present technology. It is not known with

certainty when one or more new nuclear generating units might be constructed at the Grand

Gulf ESP site.

The staff assumed that new generation capacity would be located at the Grand Gulf ESP site

for the coal-fired and natural gas-fired alternatives. Consistent with the cooling system

assumption made by SERI for siting a new nuclear generating plant at the Grand Gulf ESP site

| (SERI 2005), a closed-cycle cooling system using either natural draft or mechanical cooling

towers is also assumed for the coal-fired and natural gas-fired alternatives. For the purpose of

its ESP application, SERI assumed that no new electric power transmission lines would be

| needed to serve a new generating facility located at the Grand Gulf ESP site (SERI 2005),

| albeit that upgrades, including transmission line right-of-way widening, may be necessary within

| the existing rights-of-way. Given the original plan for the Grand Gulf site was for multiple units,

the staff finds this reasonable for new capacity up to the available transmission capacity

| margin. The analysis of alternative energy sources provided by SERI in its application draws on

the information in Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 of the supplemental EIS prepared by NRC related to

the application to renew the operating licenses for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2

and 3 (NRC 2003).

Each year, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the U.S. Department of

| Energy (DOE), issues an annual energy outlook. In its Annual Energy Outlook 2005, the EIA

reference case projects that combined-cycle, combustion turbine, or distributed generation

| technology fueled by natural gas is likely to account for more than 60 percent of new electricity-

| generating capacity added between 2004 and 2025 (DOE/EIA 2005). Combined-cycle

technology can be used to meet base load requirements. In the combined-cycle unit, hot

combustion gases in a combustion turbine rotate the turbine to generate electricity. Waste

combustion heat from the combustion turbine is routed through a heat-recovery boiler to make

steam to generate additional electricity.

| Coal-fired plants are projected by EIA to account for nearly 33 percent of new capacity during

this period. Coal-fired plants are generally used to meet base load requirements. Renewable

| generating units are projected by EIA to account for approximately 5 percent of the projected

| capacity expansion during the 2004-2025 time period.

| The EIA projections are based on the assumption that providers of new generating capacity will

| seek to minimize cost while meeting applicable environmental requirements. EIA projects that

| oil-fired plants will account for no new generation capacity in the United States through the year

2025, except for limited industrial combined heat and power applications because of higher fuel

| costs and lower efficiencies (DOE/EIA 2005).
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-7 NUREG-1817

8.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Power Generation

SERI chose to evaluate coal-fired generation in its environmental report. The staff assumed

construction of four 509 MW(e) coal-fired units at the Grand Gulf ESP site. These assumptions

are consistent with the application submitted by SERI (SERI 2005). The plant is assumed to |

have an operating life of 40 years.

Coal and lime (calcium oxide) or limestone (calcium carbonate) for a coal-fired plant would be

delivered to the plant by railroad or barge. Currently there is no rail service to the Grand Gulf

site or in the vicinity of the site (SERI 2005). SERI estimates that the plant would consume |

approximately 6 million MT/yr (6.6 million tons/yr) of pulverized bituminous coal with an ash

content of approximately 11.9 percent (SERI 2005). Lime or limestone, used in the scrubbing |

process for control of sulfur dioxide emissions, is injected as a slurry into the hot effluent

combustion gases to remove entrained sulfur dioxide. The lime-based scrubbing solution

reacts with sulfur dioxide to form calcium sulfite, which precipitates and is removed from the

process as sludge. SERI estimates that approximately 223,000 MT (246,000 tons) of lime

would be used annually for flue gas desulfurization (SERI 2005). |

Air Quality

SERI has assumed a plant design that would minimize air emissions through a combination of

boiler technology and post-combustion pollutant removal. In the environmental report, SERI |

(SERI 2005) estimates the coal-fired alternative emissions for sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen |

oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM) to be as follows:

 C SOx – 12,100 MT (13,340 tons) per year

 C NOx – 11,600 MT (12,800 tons) per year

 C CO – 1500 MT (1650 tons) per year

 C PM – 350 MT (390 tons) per year.

The impacts on air quality from coal-fired generation would vary considerably from those of |

nuclear generation because of emissions of SOx, NOx, CO, PM, and hazardous air pollutants

such as mercury. A coal-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that

could contribute to global warming.

The acid rain requirements of the Clean Air Act capped the nation’s sulfur dioxide emissions

from power plants. SERI would have to obtain sufficient pollution credits either from a set-aside

pool or purchases on the open market to cover annual emissions from the plant. The marketbased allowance system used for sulfur dioxide emissions is not used for NOx

 emissions. A

new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the new source performance standard for such
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-8 April 2006

plants (40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1)), which limits the discharge of any gases that contain NOx

(expressed as nitrogen dioxide) to 200 ng/J (1.6 lb/MWh) of gross energy output, based on a

30-day rolling average. 

A new coal-fired generation plant would likely need a prevention of significant deterioration

permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act. The plant would need to comply with

| the new source performance standards for such plants in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da. The

standards establish emission limits for particulate matter and opacity (40 CFR 60.42a), sulfur

dioxide (40 CFR 60.43a), and nitrogen oxide (40 CFR 60.44a).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has various regulatory requirements for

visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of

any new major stationary source in an area designated as attainment or unclassified for criteria

pollutants under the Clean Air Act (40 CFR 51.307(a)). Criteria pollutants under the Clean Air

Act are lead, ozone, particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide. Ambient

air quality standards for criteria pollutants are in 40 CFR Part 50. The Grand Gulf ESP site is in

an area designated as attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.325).

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing

future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when

impairment occurs because of air pollution resulting from human activities. In addition, EPA

regulations provide that, for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a State, the

State must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress toward achieving natural

visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in

visibility for those days on which visibility is most impaired over the period of the implementation

plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least visibility-impaired days over the same

period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). If a new coal-fired power station were located close to a

mandatory Class I area, additional air pollution control requirements could be imposed. There

| are no mandatory Class I Federal areas within 160 km (100 mi) of the Grand Gulf ESP site. 

| Louisiana has one Class I Federal area, the Breton Wilderness. The Breton Wilderness is

| located approximately 320 km (200 mi) southeast of the Grand Gulf ESP site.

The GEIS for license renewal (NRC 1996) did not quantify emissions from coal-fired power

plants, but implied that air impacts would be substantial. The GEIS also mentioned global

warming from unregulated carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from 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 products of coal combustion. 

Overall, the staff concludes that air quality impacts from coal-fired generation would be

MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize air quality.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-9 NUREG-1817

Waste Management

The GEIS for license renewal (NRC 1996) and NRC experience from license renewal analyses

indicate that coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling |

air pollution generates additional ash, spent selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst, and

scrubber sludge. In the environmental report, SERI estimates that a 2000 MW(e) coal-fired |

plant would generate approximately 711,000 MT (784,000 tons) of ash and spent catalyst and |

an additional 660,000 MT (728,000 tons) of scrubber sludge annually (SERI 2005). |

In May 2000, EPA issued a “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the

Combustion of Fossil Fuels” (65 FR 32214). EPA concluded that some form of national

regulation is warranted to address coal combustion waste products because of health concerns. 

Accordingly, EPA announced its intention to issue regulations for disposal of coal-combustion

waste under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA 1976).

Waste impacts on groundwater and surface water could extend beyond the operating life of the |

plant if leachate and runoff from the waste storage area occurs. Disposal of the waste could

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.

For the reasons stated above, the staff concludes that the impacts from waste generated at a

coal-fired plant would be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not

destabilize any important resource.

Human Health

Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, worker

and public risk from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risk from disposal

of coal-combustion waste, and public risk from inhalation of stack emissions. In addition, the

discharges of uranium and thorium from coal-fired plants can potentially produce radiological

doses in excess of those arising from nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 1993).

Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, base air emission standards and

requirements on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific emission

limits as needed to protect human health. The EPA has recently concluded that certain

segments of the U.S. population (such as the developing fetus and subsistence fish-eating

populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse health effects caused by exposures

to mercury from sources such as coal-fired power plants. However, given the regulatory
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-10 April 2006

oversight exercised by the EPA and by State agencies, the staff concludes that the human

health impacts from radiological doses and inhaled toxins and particulates generated from coalfired generation would be SMALL. 

Other Impacts

Approximately 610 ha (1500 ac) of land would need to be converted to industrial use for the

power block, infrastructure and support facilities, coal and limestone storage and handling, and

landfill disposal of ash and scrubber sludge. Given the proximity of the ESP site to the

Mississippi River, ash, scrubber sludge, and spent SCR catalyst (used for control of nitrogen

oxide emissions) would likely be disposed of offsite. Disposal of ash and sludge over a 40-year

| plant life would require approximately 320 ha (790 ac) of the 610 ha (1500 ac). Additional land

may be needed in the site vicinity for infrastructure facilities, rail spur, and cooling water intake

and discharge facilities. Total land requirements would be approximately 1085 ha (2680 ac)

| (SERI 2005). Additional land adjacent to the ESP site would likely need to be acquired by SERI

| if the coal alternative were to be implemented. The Grand Gulf site consists of approximately

| 850 ha (2100 ac), about half of which lies in seasonally flooded bottomlands (SERI 2005). 

Land use changes would occur offsite in an undetermined coal-mining area to supply coal for

the plant. Overall, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts would be MODERATE.

The coal-fired generation alternative would introduce impacts from construction and new

incremental impacts from operations. The impacts could include wildlife habitat loss and

fragmentation, reduced productivity, and a local reduction in biological diversity. The impacts

could occur at the ESP site and at the sites used for coal and limestone mining. Extraction of

cooling makeup water could have adverse impacts on aquatic resources. Construction and

| maintenance of a rail spur and, only if needed, new or upgraded transmission lines would have

ecological impacts. Cooling tower drift would have minimal impacts on terrestrial ecology. 

Disposal of fly ash could affect water quality and the aquatic environment. The impacts on

| threatened and endangered species at the ESP site would be similar to the impacts from a new

| nuclear facility. Overall, the staff concludes that the ecological impacts could be MODERATE

| to LARGE.

The impacts on water use and quality from constructing and operating a coal-fired plant at the

ESP site would be comparable to the impacts associated with a new nuclear facility. Cooling

water would likely be withdrawn directly from the Mississippi River or from collector wells

located in the floodplain. Closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers is assumed. Plant

discharges would consist mostly of cooling tower blowdown, characterized primarily by an

increased temperature and concentration of dissolved solids relative to the receiving water body

and intermittent low concentrations of biocides (for example, chlorine). Treated process waste

streams and sanitary wastewater may also be discharged. All discharges would be regulated

by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) through a National Pollution

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Indirectly, water quality could be affected by
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-11 NUREG-1817

acids and mercury from air emissions. Water would be consumed because of evaporation from

the cooling towers. In the GEIS for license renewal the staff determined that some erosion and

sedimentation would likely occur during construction (NRC 1996). Overall, the staff concludes

that the water use and quality impacts would be SMALL.

Socioeconomic impacts would result from the approximately 300 workers needed to operate the

coal-fired facility, demands on housing and public services during construction, and the loss of

jobs after construction. Overall, the staff concludes that these impacts would be SMALL to

MODERATE, resulting from the mitigating influence of the site’s proximity to the surrounding

population area and the relatively small number of workers needed to operate the plant. The

plant would pay very significant property taxes to Claiborne County. Considering the population |

and economic condition of the County, the staff concludes that the taxes would have a LARGE |

beneficial impact on the County.

The four coal-fired power block units would be as much as 60 m (200 ft) tall and would be

visible offsite during daylight hours. The four exhaust stacks would be as much as 180 m

(600 ft) high. The stacks and associated emissions would likely be visible in daylight hours for

distances greater than 16 km (10 mi). Cooling towers and associated plumes also would have

aesthetic impacts. Natural draft towers could be up to 170 m (550 ft) high (SERI 2005), and |

mechanical draft towers could be up to 30 m (100 ft) high. The stacks would be visible from

parks and other recreational areas in the vicinity of the plant. The power block units and

associated stacks and cooling towers would also be visible at night because of outside lighting. 

The Federal Aviation Administration generally requires that all structures exceeding an overall

height of 61 m (200 ft) above ground level have markings and/or lighting so as not to impair

aviation safety (FAA 2000). A mitigating factor is that the Grand Gulf ESP site is currently an

industrial site located in a rural, forested area. The visual impacts of a new coal-fired plant

could be further mitigated by landscaping and color selection for buildings that is consistent with

the environment. Visual impacts at night could be mitigated by reduced use of lighting,

provided the lighting meets Federal Aviation Administration requirements, and appropriate use

of shielding. For the purpose of its ESP application, SERI assumed that no new electric power |

transmission lines would be needed to serve a new generating facility located at the Grand Gulf |

site (SERI 2005). However, as discussed in Section 4.1.2, some widening of the transmission |

line rights-of-way and related support structures could be needed. |

Coal-fired power generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible

offsite. Sources contributing to the noise produced by plant operation are classified as

continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment associated

with normal plant operations and mechanical draft cooling towers. Intermittent sources include

the equipment related to coal handling, solid-waste disposal, transportation related to coal and

lime/limestone delivery, use of outside loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant employees. 

Noise impacts associated with rail delivery of coal and lime/limestone would be most significant

for residents living in the vicinity of the facility and along the rail route if rail service is |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-12 April 2006

| re-established. Although noise from passing trains significantly increases noise levels near the

rail corridor, the short duration of the noise reduces the impacts. Nevertheless, given the

frequency of train transport and the fact that many people are likely to be within hearing

distance of the railway, the impacts of noise on residents in the vicinity of the facility and of the

rail line are considered significant. Noise associated with barge transportation of coal and

lime/limestone would be minor. Noise and light from the plant would be detectable offsite.

For the purpose of its ESP application, SERI assumed that no new electric power transmission

| lines would be needed to serve a new generating facility located at the ESP site (SERI 2005). 

| Given the original plan for the Grand Gulf site was for multiple units, the staff finds this

| assumption reasonable for new capacity up to the available transmission capacity margin.

Constructing and operating a coal-fired generation plant would be consistent with the industrial

nature of the ESP site. Although best management practices would be expected to be

implemented, the viewshed would be affected. Therefore, the staff concludes that the visual

and aesthetic impacts of a coal-fired generation plant would be MODERATE.

The ESP site was disturbed during construction of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS). As

| a result, significant historic and cultural resource impacts would be unlikely and would be

minimized by survey and recovery techniques. A cultural resources inventory would likely be

needed for any onsite property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that

are acquired to support the plant would also likely need an inventory of field cultural resources,

identification and recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible

mitigation of the adverse effect from ground-disturbing actions. Before construction, studies

would likely be needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of

new power plant construction on cultural resources. The studies would likely be needed for all

areas of potential disturbance at the plant site, any offsite affected areas, such as mining and

| waste disposal sites, and along associated rights-of-way where new construction would occur,

| for example, roads, transmission line rights-of-way (if transmission capacity margins were

| approached), rail lines, or other rights-of-way. The staff concludes that the historic and cultural

resource impacts would be SMALL.

| There is evidence of potential environmental justice issues at the ESP site. Some MODERATE

| adverse impacts on housing availability and prices during construction might occur, which could

| disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Local property tax yields,

| however, should be beneficial and LARGE. Therefore, the staff concludes that environmental

| justice impacts would be LARGE and beneficial.

Other construction and operation impacts would be SMALL. In most cases, the impacts would

be detectable, but they would not destabilize any important attribute of the resource involved. 

Due to the minor nature of these impacts, mitigation beyond that discussed would not

be warranted.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-13 NUREG-1817

The impacts of coal-fired power generation at the ESP site are summarized in Table 8-1. |

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation – 2000 MW(e)

Impact Category Impact Comment

Air quality MODERATE SOx – 12,100 MT (13,340 tons) per year

NOx – 11,600 MT (12,800 tons) per year

CO – 1500 MT (1650 tons) per year

PM – 350 MT (390 tons) per year

Small amounts of hazardous air pollutants.

W aste

 managem ent

MODERATE Total waste volum e would be approxim ately 711,000 MT/yr

(784,000 tons/yr) of ash and spent catalyst and an additional

660,000 MT/yr (728,000 tons/yr) of scrubber sludge.

Human health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of

human health.

Land use MODERATE Uses up to 1085 ha (2680 ac) for power block; coal handling,

storage, and transportation facilities; infrastructure facilities;

waste disposal; rail spur; and cooling-water facilities. Mining

activities would have additional impacts offsite. 

Ecology MODERATE to

LARGE

Uses the undeveloped upland area of the ESP site and

probably some adjacent offsite undeveloped land. Potential

upland hardwood forest loss and fragmentation, reduced

productivity and biological diversity, and impacts on terrestrial |

ecology from cooling tower drift. Additional impacts associated

with coal mining and construction of a rail spur.

W ater use and

 quality

SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for a new nuclear

facility located at the ESP site.

Socioeconomics LARGE |

Beneficial |

Construction-related impacts would be noticeable. Impacts |

during operation would be minor. Local property tax base |

would benefit mainly during operations. Depending on where |

the workforce lives, the construction-related impacts would be |

noticeable or minor. Impacts during operation likely would be

smaller than during construction.

Aesthetics MODERATE Best management practices can be used to mitigate visual

impacts from exhaust stacks, cooling towers, and plum es. 

Som e offsite noise impacts would occur.

Historic and

 cultural

 resources

SMALL Any potential impacts could likely be effectively managed. 

Most of the facility and infrastructure would be built on

previously disturbed ground.

Environmental

 justice

LARGE |

Beneficial |

Some adverse impacts on housing availability and prices

during construction may occur. Local property tax revenues |

could be major and beneficial during operations. |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-14 April 2006

8.2.2.2 Natural Gas-Fired Power Generation

SERI chose to evaluate natural gas-fired generation in its environmental report. For this

alternative, the staff assumed construction and operation of a natural gas-fired plant with a

closed-cycle cooling system and cooling towers located at the Grand Gulf ESP site. The staff

| assumed that the natural gas-fired plant would use combined-cycle combustion turbines, which

| is consistent with the SERI ESP application (SERI 2005). The staff also used the SERI

| assumption of four units with a net capacity of 508 MW(e) per unit (SERI 2005).

Air Quality

Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel. When compared with a coal-fired plant, a natural

gas-fired plant would release similar types of emissions but in lower quantities.

A new natural gas-fired power generation plant would likely need a prevention of significant

deterioration permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act. A new combined-cycle,

natural gas-fired plant would also be subject to the new source performance standards

| specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Da and GG. These regulations establish emission limits

for particulates, opacity, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides.

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 attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act. The Grand Gulf ESP site is

in an area designated as attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.325).

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. There are no mandatory Class I

| Federal areas within 160 km (100 mi) of the Grand Gulf ESP site. Louisiana has one Class I

| Federal area, the Breton Wilderness. The Breton Wilderness is located approximately 320 km

| (200 mi) southeast of the Grand Gulf ESP site.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-15 NUREG-1817

SERI estimates that a natural gas-fired plant equipped with appropriate pollution control

technology would have approximately the following emissions (SERI 2005): |

 C SOx – 109 MT (120 tons) per year

 C NOx – 417 MT (460 tons) per year

 C CO – 553 MT (610 tons) per year

 C PM10 – 63 MT (70 tons) per year.

PM10 is particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 μm

(40 CFR 50.6(c)). A natural gas-fired power plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide

emissions that could contribute to global warming.

The combustion turbine portion of the combined-cycle plant would be subject to EPA’s National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Combustion Turbines

(40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YYYY) if the site is a major source of hazardous air pollutants. Major |

sources have the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or more of any single hazardous air pollutant or

25 tons/yr or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants (40 CFR 63.6085(b)).

The fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be mitigated using best

management practices; such emissions would be temporary.

The impacts of emissions from a natural gas-fired power generation plant would be clearly

noticeable, but would not be sufficient to destabilize air resources. Overall, the staff concludes

that air quality impacts resulting from construction and operation from new natural gas-fired

power generation at the ESP site would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Waste Management

In the GEIS, the staff concluded that waste generation from natural gas-fired technology would

be minimal (NRC 1996). The only significant waste generated at a natural gas-fired power

plant would be spent SCR catalyst, which is used to control NOx 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 office waste. 

Construction-related debris would be generated during construction activities. Overall, the staff

concludes that waste impacts from natural gas-fired power generation would be SMALL.

Human Health

In the GEIS, the staff identified cancer and emphysema as a potential health risk from natural

gas-fired plants (NRC 1996). The risk may be attributable to NOx emissions that contribute to

ozone formation, which in turn contribute to health risk. Air emissions from a natural gas-fired

power generation plant located at the Grand Gulf ESP site would be regulated by the MDEQ. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-16 April 2006

The human health effect is expected to be either undetectable or sufficiently minor. Overall, the

staff concludes that the impacts on human health from natural gas-fired power generation would

be SMALL. 

Other Impacts

| The natural gas-fired generating plant would require approximately 45 ha (110 ac) for the power

block and support facilities and likely would be sited on land that was previously disturbed during

| the construction of GGNS Unit 1 (SERI 2005). Assuming the natural gas-fired plant uses a

closed-cycle cooling system, an additional land area of up to 12 ha (30 ac) would be required for

cooling towers and support systems. Construction of a natural gas pipeline from the Grand Gulf

| ESP site to the closest natural gas distribution line could require up to 34 ha (85 ac) (SERI 2005).

| Thus, the total land use commitment would be approximately 91 ha (225 ac) (SERI 2005). For

any new natural gas-fired power plant, additional land would be required for natural gas wells and

collection stations. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 1500 ha (3600 ac) would

be needed for a 1000-MW(e) plant (NRC 1996). Information from the GEIS for license renewal is

useful for this analysis as well. Overall, the staff concludes that land-use impacts from new

natural gas-fired power generation would be SMALL.

Siting of the natural gas-fired plant would have ecological impacts that would be less than a new

nuclear facility. Much of the impact would occur in areas that were previously disturbed during the

construction of GGNS 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 or endangered species, although some wildlife habitat loss and

fragmentation, reduced productivity, and a local reduction in biological diversity would be likely.

Withdrawal and discharge of makeup water for the cooling system could affect aquatic resources,

and drift of condensation from the cooling towers could affect terrestrial ecology. Overall, the staff

concludes that ecological impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

| The impacts on water use and quality from constructing and operating a natural gas-fired plant at

the Grand Gulf ESP site would be comparable to the impacts associated with constructing and

operating a new nuclear facility. Closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers is assumed. The

| impacts on water quality from sedimentation during construction of a natural gas-fired plant were

characterized in the GEIS as SMALL (NRC 1996). NRC also noted in the GEIS that the impacts

| on water quality from operations would be similar to, or less than, the impacts from other

generating technologies. Information from the GEIS for license renewal is useful for this analysis

| as well. Overall, the staff concludes that impacts on water use and quality would be SMALL.

Socioeconomic impacts would result from the approximately 150 workers needed to operate the

natural gas-fired facility, demands on housing and public services during construction, and the

loss of jobs after construction. Overall, the staff concludes that these impacts would be SMALL

because of the mitigating influence of the site’s proximity to the surrounding population area and
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-17 NUREG-1817

the relatively small number of workers needed to construct and operate the plant in comparison to

nuclear and coal-fired generation alternatives. The plant would pay property taxes to Claiborne

County. Considering the population and economic condition of the County, the staff concludes

that the taxes would have a MODERATE beneficial impact on the County. |

The turbine buildings, four exhaust stacks (approximately 60 m (200 ft) tall) and associated |

emissions, cooling towers, condensation plumes from the cooling towers, and the gas pipeline

compressors would be visible during daylight hours from offsite. Noise and light from the plant

would be detectable offsite. For the purpose of its ESP application, SERI assumed that no new

electric power transmission lines would be needed to serve a new generating facility located at the

Grand Gulf site (SERI 2005). However, as discussed in Section 4.1.2, some widening of the |

rights-of-way and related support structures could be needed. A mitigating factor is that the |

Grand Gulf ESP site is currently an industrial site located in a rural, forested area. Overall, the

staff concludes that the aesthetic impacts associated with new natural gas-fired power generation

at the Grand Gulf ESP site would be SMALL. |

The ESP site was disturbed during construction of the GGNS. As a result, significant historical |

and cultural and historic resource impacts would be unlikely and would be minimized by survey |

and recovery techniques. A cultural resources inventory would likely be needed for any onsite

property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to support

the plant would also likely need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and

recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of the adverse

effects from ground-disturbing actions. Before construction, studies would likely be needed to

identify, evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new power plant construction

on cultural resources. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at

the plant site, any offsite affected areas, and along associated rights-of-way where new |

construction would occur (for example, roads, transmission line rights-of-way, rail lines, or other

rights-of-way). The staff concludes that the historic and cultural resource impacts would

be SMALL.

There is evidence of potential environmental justice issues at the ESP site. Some temporary |

impacts on housing availability and prices during construction might occur, which could

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations, but there would be moderate |

property tax revenues during operations. Therefore, the staff concludes that environmental justice |

impacts would be MODERATE and beneficial. |

Other construction and operation impacts would be SMALL. In most cases, the impacts would be

detectable, but they would not destabilize any important attribute of the resource involved. Due to

the minor nature of these impacts, mitigation beyond that discussed would not be warranted.

The impacts of natural gas-fired power generation at the ESP site are summarized in Table 8-2. |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-18 April 2006

Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Power Generation –

2000 MW(e)

Impact Category Impact Comment

Air quality

|

SMALL to

MODERATE

SOx – 109 MT (120 tons) per year

NOx – 417 MT (460 tons) per year

CO – 553 MT (610 tons) per year

PM10 – 64 MT (70 tons) per year

Some hazardous air pollutants. 

W aste management SMALL The only significant waste would be from spent SCR catalyst

used for control of NOx emissions.

Human health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of

human health.

Land use SMALL 90 ha (225 ac) would be needed for power block, cooling

towers and support systems, and connection to a natural gas

pipeline. Additional land m ight be needed for infrastructure

and other facilities.

Ecology

|

SMALL to

MODERATE

Many of the impacts would occur in areas that were

previously disturbed during the construction of GGNS Unit 1. 

Thus, potential habitat loss and fragmentation and reduced

productivity and biological diversity would be negligible. 

Impacts on terrestrial ecology from cooling tower drift could

occur.

W ater use and quality SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for a new

nuclear plant located at the ESP site.

| Socioeconomics MODERATE

| Beneficial

Construction and operations workforces are both relatively

| small. Addition to property tax base, while smaller than for a

| nuclear or coal-fired plant, might still be quite noticeable. 

| Construction-related impacts would be noticeable. Impacts

during operation would be minor because of the small workforce involved.

| Aesthetics SMALL Best management practices can be used to mitigate visual

impacts from the plant buildings, exhaust stacks, cooling

towers, and condensation plumes from operation of the

cooling towers. 

Historic and cultural

 resources

SMALL Any potential impacts could likely be effectively managed. 

Most of the facility and infrastructure would be built on

previously disturbed ground.

Environmental justice

|

| MODERATE

| Beneficial

Some impacts on housing availability and prices during

| construction may occur, as might beneficial impacts from

| property tax revenues.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-19 NUREG-1817

8.2.3 Other Alternatives

This section discusses alternatives that SERI determined are not reasonable, the staff’s

conclusions about the overall environmental impacts of each alternative, and the staff’s basis

for the conclusions. New nuclear units at the ESP site would be a base load generation plant. 

Any feasible alternative to the new units would need to generate base load power. In

performing its initial evaluation in the environmental report, SERI relied on the GEIS for license

renewal (NRC 1996). The staff reviewed the information submitted by SERI and conducted the |

NRC staff’s independent review and finds that SERI’s conclusion that these generation options |

are not reasonable alternatives to one or more new nuclear units is acceptable.

The staff has not assigned significance levels to the environmental impacts associated with the

alternatives discussed in this section because, in general, the generation alternatives would

have to be installed at a location other than the ESP site. Any attempt to assign significance

levels would require staff speculation about the unknown site.

8.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Power Generation

The EIA projects that, because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies, oil-fired power plants

will not provide new power generation capacity in the United States through the year 2025,

except for limited industrial combined heat and power applications (DOE/EIA 2005). Oil-fired |

generation is more expensive than either the nuclear or coal-fired generation options. In

addition, future increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-fired generation increasingly

more expensive than coal-fired generation. The high cost of oil has resulted in a decline in its

use for electricity generation. In Section 8.3.11 of the GEIS for license renewal, the staff

estimated that construction of a 1000 MW(e) oil-fired plant would require about 49 ha (120 ac)

of land (NRC 1996).

For the proceeding reasons, the staff concludes that an oil-fired power plant at or in the vicinity

of the Grand Gulf ESP site would not be an economical alternative to construction of a

2000 MW(e) nuclear power generation facility that would be operated as a base load plant.

8.2.3.2 Wind Power

Mississippi and Louisiana are in a wind power Class 1 region (average wind speeds lower than

5.6 m/s) (DOE 2004a). Class 1 regions have the lowest potential for wind energy generation

(DOE 2004a). Mississippi does not have sufficient wind resources to use large-scale wind

turbines (DOE 2004b). Small wind turbines may have applications in some areas of the state |

(DOE 2004b). Wind turbines typically operate at a 25 to 35 percent capacity factor compared

to 90 to 95 percent for a base load plant such as a nuclear plant (NWPPC 2000).
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-20 April 2006

For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that a wind energy facility at or in the vicinity

of the Grand Gulf ESP site would not be an economical alternative to construction of a

2000 MW(e) nuclear power generation facility that would be operated as a base load plant.

8.2.3.3 Solar Power

Solar technologies use energy and light from the sun to provide heating and cooling, light, hot

water, and electricity for consumers. Solar power technologies (both photovoltaic and thermal)

cannot currently compete with conventional nuclear and fossil-fueled technologies in gridconnected applications because of solar power’s higher capital cost per kilowatt of capacity. 

Energy storage requirements also limit the use of solar energy systems as base load electricity

supply. In the GEIS for license renewal, the staff determined that the average capacity factor of

photovoltaic cells is about 25 percent, and the capacity factor for solar thermal systems is about

25 to 40 percent (NRC 1996). 

Construction of solar generating facilities has substantial impacts on natural resources (such as

wildlife habitat, land use, and aesthetics). As stated in the GEIS, land requirements are high –

142 km2 (55 mi2) per 1000 MW(e) for photovoltaic (NRC 1996) and approximately 57 km2

(22 mi2) per 1000 MW(e) for solar thermal systems (NRC 1996). Neither type of solar electric

system would fit the land area footprint available at the Grand Gulf ESP site.

The Grand Gulf ESP site receives approximately 4500 to 5000 watt-hr/m2/day that can be used

for flat-plate solar systems, and approximately 4000 to 4500 watt-hr/m2/day that can be used for

solar concentrating systems (DOE 2004c). Areas in the southwest United States receive up to

7500 watt-hr/m2/day (DOE 2004c). The solar resource in Mississippi can be used for water

heating or photovoltaic systems but not for large concentrating solar thermal utility systems

(DOE 2004c).

For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that a solar energy facility at or in the vicinity of

the Grand Gulf ESP site would not be an economical alternative to construction of a

2000 MW(e) nuclear power generation facility that would be operated as a base load plant.

8.2.3.4 Hydropower

Mississippi has an estimated 92 MW of developable hydroelectric resources (INEEL 1997). As

stated in Section 8.3.4 of the GEIS 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. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that

land requirements for hydroelectric power are approximately 400,000 ha (1 million ac) per

1000 MW(e) (NRC 1996). Because of the relatively low amount of undeveloped hydropower
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-21 NUREG-1817

resource in Mississippi and the large land-use and related environmental and ecological

resource impacts associated with siting hydroelectric facilities large enough to produce

2000 MW(e), the staff concludes that local hydropower is not a feasible alternative to

construction of a new nuclear power generation facility operated as a base load plant at the

Grand Gulf ESP site.

8.2.3.5 Geothermal Energy

Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for base load

power where available. However, geothermal technology is not widely used as base load

power generation because of the limited geographical availability of the resource and immature

status of the technology (NRC 1996). Geothermal plants are most likely to be sited in the

western continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii, where hydrothermal reservoirs are

prevalent. Mississippi has low-to-moderate geothermal resources that can be tapped for direct

heat or for geothermal heat pumps. However, electricity generation is not possible with these

resources (DOE 2004d). No feasible eastern location for geothermal capacity can serve as an

alternative to a base load nuclear power plant.

For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that a geothermal energy facility at or in the

vicinity of the Grand Gulf ESP site would not be an economical alternative to construction of a

2000 MW(e) nuclear power generation facility operated as a base load plant.

8.2.3.6 Wood Waste

In the GEIS for license renewal, the staff determined that a wood-burning facility can provide

base load power and operate with an average annual capacity factor of around 70 to 80 percent

and with 20 to 25 percent efficiency (NRC 1996). The fuels required are variable and sitespecific. A significant impediment to the use of wood waste to generate electricity is the high

cost of fuel delivery and high construction cost per megawatt of generating capacity. The larger

wood-waste power plants are only 40 to 50 MW(e) in size. Estimates in the GEIS suggest that

the overall level of construction impacts per megawatt of installed capacity would be

approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities using wood waste for

fuel would be built at smaller scales (NRC 1996). Similar to coal-fired plants, wood-waste

plants require large areas for fuel storage and processing and involve the same type of

combustion equipment.

Because of uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a

base load power plant, the ecological impacts of large-scale timber cutting (for example, soil

erosion and loss of wildlife habitat), and high inefficiency, the staff has determined that wood

waste is not a feasible alternative to a 2000 MW(e) nuclear power generation facility operated

as a base load plant. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-22 April 2006

8.2.3.7 Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal solid-waste combustors incinerate the waste and use the resultant heat to produce

steam, hot water, or electricity. The combustion process can reduce the volume of waste by up

to 90 percent and the weight of the waste by up to 75 percent (EPA 2004). Municipal waste

combustors use three basic types of technologies: mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived

fuel (DOE/EIA 2001). Mass burning technologies are most commonly used in the United

States. This group of technologies processes raw municipal solid waste “as is,” with little or no

sizing, shredding, or separation before combustion. In the GEIS for license renewal, the staff

determined that the initial capital cost for municipal solid-waste plants is greater than for

comparable steam-turbine technology at wood-waste facilities because of the need for

specialized waste-separation and waste-handling equipment for municipal solid waste

(NRC 1996). 

Municipal solid waste combustors generate an ash residue that is buried in landfills. The ash

residue is composed of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash refers to that portion of the

unburned waste that falls to the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly ash represents the small

particles that rise from the furnace during the combustion process. Fly ash is generally

removed from flue gases using fabric filters and/or scrubbers (DOE/EIA 2001).

Currently, approximately 89 waste-to-energy plants are operating in the United States. These

plants generate approximately 2500 MW(e), or an average of approximately 28 MW(e) per

plant (IWSA 2004). For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that generating electricity

from municipal solid waste would not be a feasible alternative to a 2000 MW(e) nuclear power

generation facility operated as a base load plant.

8.2.3.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels

In addition to wood and municipal solid waste fuel, several other biomass-derived fuels are

available for fueling electric generators, including burning crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel

such as ethanol, and gasifying crops (including wood waste). In the GEIS for license renewal,

the staff determined that none of these technologies has progressed to the point of being

competitive on a large scale or of being reliable enough to replace a large base load plant

(NRC 1996). For these reasons, the staff concludes that such fuels do not offer a feasible

alternative to a 2000 MW(e) nuclear power generation facility operated as a base load plant.

8.2.3.9 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,
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-23 NUREG-1817

and then separating the two by an electrolyte. The only by-products are heat, water, and

carbon dioxide. Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon resources by subjecting

them to steam under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the source of hydrogen.

Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. Highertemperature, second-generation fuel cells achieve higher fuel-to-electricity and thermal

efficiencies. The higher temperatures contribute to improved efficiencies and give the secondgeneration fuel cells the capability to generate steam for cogeneration and combined-cycle

operations.

During the past three decades, significant efforts have been made to develop more practical

and affordable fuel cell designs for stationary power applications, but progress has been slow

(DOE 2004e). Currently, the most widely marketed fuel cells cost about $4500 per kW of |

installed capacity. By contrast, a diesel generator costs $800 to $1500 per kW of installed

capacity, and a natural gas turbine can be even less (DOE 2004e).

DOE initiated a program – the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance – to bring about dramatic

reductions in fuel cell cost. DOE’s goal is to cut costs to as low as $400 per kW of installed |

capacity by the end of this decade, which would make fuel cells competitive for virtually every

type of power application (DOE 2004e).

The staff concludes that, at the present time, fuel cells are not economically or technologically

competitive with other alternatives for base load electricity generation. Future gains in cost

competitiveness for fuels cells compared to other fuels are speculative.

For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that a fuel cell energy facility located at or in the

vicinity of the Grand Gulf ESP site would not be an economical alternative to construction of a

2000 MW(e) nuclear power generation facility operated as a base load plant.

8.2.4 Combination of Alternatives

Individual alternatives to the construction of one or more new nuclear units at the Grand Gulf

ESP site might not be sufficient on their own to generate SERI’s target value of 2000 MW(e)

because of the small size of the resource or lack of cost-effective opportunities. Nevertheless, 

it is conceivable that a combination of alternatives might be cost effective. There are many

possible combinations of alternatives.

Section 8.2.2.2 assumes the construction of four 508 MW(e) natural gas combined-cycle

generating units at the Grand Gulf ESP site using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers. For
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-24 April 2006

a combined alternatives option, the staff assessed the environmental impacts of an assumed

combination of three 508 MW(e) natural gas combined-cycle generating units at the Grand Gulf

ESP site using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers, 30 MW of wind energy, 30 MW of

hydropower, 90 MW from biomass sources including municipal solid waste, and 326 MW from

conservation and demand-side management programs. A summary of the environmental

| impacts of this combination of alternatives is in Table 8-3.

8.2.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Table 8-4 contains a summary of environmental impact characterizations for constructing and

operating new nuclear, coal-fired, and natural gas-fired, combined-cycle generating units at the

Grand Gulf ESP site. The combination of alternatives shown in Table 8-4 assumes siting of

natural gas-fired/combined-cycle units at the ESP site and siting of other generating units in the

| general vicinity (within 160 km (100 mi)) of the site. Closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers is

assumed for all thermal plants. 

The staff reviewed the available information on the environmental impacts of power generation

alternatives compared to the construction of new nuclear units at the Grand Gulf ESP site. 

Based on this review, the staff concludes that, from an environmental perspective, none of the

viable energy alternatives are obviously superior to construction of a new base load nuclear

power generation plant. If significant changes in generation technology or environmental

impacts associated with particular generation technologies should occur and an ESP holder

| seeks a CP or COL to build a new nuclear generating plant at an ESP location, the staff would

verify the analysis of energy alternatives conducted at the ESP stage.

8.3 Plant Design Alternatives

An important factor in assessing environmental impacts on the terrestrial and aquatic

environments in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant site is the selection of heat-dissipation

and circulating water systems. In Sections 9.4.1 and 9.4.2 of its environmental report, SERI

described the selection and evaluation process that resulted in its decision to propose natural or

mechanical draft cooling towers or both with a makeup water intake in the Mississippi River and

| a blowdown discharge outfall downstream of the intake (SERI 2005).
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-25 NUREG-1817

Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources –

2000 MW(e)

Impact Category Impact Comment

Air quality(a) SMALL to

MODERATE

SOx – 82 MT (90 tons) per year

NOx – 313 MT (345 tons) per year

CO – 415 MT (458 tons) per year

PM10 – 48 MT (53 tons) per year |

Some hazardous air pollutants. |

Waste management SMALL The only significant waste would be spent SCR catalyst used for

control of NOx emissions and ash from biomass sources. |

Human health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of human

health.

Land use SMALL to

MODERATE

Natural gas-fired plant would have land use impacts for power |

block, cooling towers and support systems, and connection to a

natural gas pipeline. Wind, hydro, and biomass facilities and |

associated transmission lines would also have land use impacts. |

Ecology SMALL to

MODERATE

Many of the impacts would occur in areas that were previously

disturbed during the construction of GGNS Unit 1. Thus, potential

habitat loss and fragmentation and reduced productivity and

biological diversity would be minimal. Impacts on terrestrial |

ecology from cooling tower drift could occur. Wind energy facilities

could result in some avian mortality. Hydropower facilities would |

impact terrestrial and aquatic habitat. |

Water use and quality SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for a new nuclear

plant located at the ESP site.

Socioeconomics MODERATE |

Beneficial |

Construction and operations workforces are both relatively small. 

Addition to property tax base, while smaller than for a nuclear, coal- |

fired, or solely natural gas-fired plant, might still be quite noticeable. |

Construction-related impacts would be noticeable. Impacts during |

operation would be minor because of the small workforce involved.

Aesthetics SMALL to

MODERATE

Best management practices can be used to mitigate visual impacts |

from plant buildings, exhaust stacks, cooling towers, and |

condensation plumes from operation of the cooling towers. Wind

energy towers would have aesthetic impact.

Historic and cultural

 resources

SMALL Any potential impacts could likely be effectively managed. Most of

the facilities and infrastructure at the Grand Gulf ESP site would be |

built on previously disturbed ground. |

Environmental justice MODERATE |

Beneficial |

Some impacts on housing availability and prices during

construction may occur as might beneficial impacts from property |

tax revenues. |

(a) Impacts are principally from natural gas-fired power generation. Municipal solid waste or biomass facilities

may generate some additional emissions.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-26 April 2006

Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Construction and Operation of New

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

of Alternatives 

Impact Category Nuclear Coal Natural Gas

Combination of

Alternatives

| Air quality SMALL MODERATE SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

W aste

 managem ent

SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL

Human health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Land use

|

SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

Ecology SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE to

LARGE 

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

W ater use and

 quality

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

| Socioeconomics

|

| LARGE Beneficial LARGE Beneficial MODERATE

Beneficial

| MODERATE

| Beneficial

| Aesthetics

|

| SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

| Historic and

| cultural resources

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

| Environmental

| justice

LARGE Beneficial LARGE Beneficial MODERATE

Beneficial

| MODERATE

| Beneficial

8.3.1 Heat-Dissipation Systems

The purpose of the plant cooling system is to dissipate energy to the environment. The various

cooling system options differ in how the energy transfer takes place, and therefore have

different environmental impacts. SERI considered seven heat-dissipation alternatives in its

| environmental report (SERI 2005):

 C Once-through cooling

 C Wet mechanical draft cooling towers

 C Wet natural draft cooling towers

 C Wet-dry cooling towers
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-27 NUREG-1817

 C Dry cooling towers

 C Cooling pond

 C Spray canals.

Of these systems, SERI determined that the only alternatives suitable for the Grand Gulf ESP

site were wet mechanical draft towers, wet natural draft towers, and wet-dry cooling towers. 

However, SERI only included wet natural draft and wet mechanical draft cooling towers in |

its PPE. |

SERI eliminated dry cooling towers, cooling pond, and spray canals from consideration because

it determined that the land requirements for these systems made them unsuitable for the site. 

SERI eliminated once-through cooling because of the aquatic impacts associated with the large

volumes of water that would need to be withdrawn from the Mississippi River and subsequently

returned to the river at an elevated temperature.

The Grand Gulf site includes approximately 850 ha (2100 ac) in a rural setting along the |

Mississippi River. Lowlands below the bluffs make up about half of the site. The lowlands

include Hamilton and Gin lakes and wetlands that are subject to frequent flooding from the

river. Therefore, the staff determined that the lowlands would be less suitable for development

than the upland area.

Approximately 60 ha (150 ac) of the uplands area is committed to the existing GGNS Unit 1

facility. Some additional wetlands, particularly along the Stream A and Stream B corridors,

occur above the bluffs. The staff determined that the ESP site was unsuitable for cooling pond

or spray canal heat-dissipation designs based on the limited area of the site.

The staff also concluded that the Mississippi River is not a suitable source for a once-through

cooling system. EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart I) issued in 2001 contain

requirements applicable to cooling water intake structures for new facilities under

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act that make it very difficult for large new generating plants

to use once-through cooling. In addition, the staff determined that high sediment

concentrations in the Mississippi River may require extensive large-scale water treatment, and

that some adverse impacts would occur during the construction and maintenance activities

associated with intake and discharge structures and buried piping.

Dry cooling tower systems use either a natural or a mechanical air draft to transfer heat from

the condenser tubes to the air. Since dry cooling uses essentially no water, water use is

bounded by the wet-tower designs. Although noise from the fans in a dry tower or a wet-dry

tower would likely be greater than for a mechanical draft system, the staff believes that these

impacts would be minimal in a rural environment such as the Grand Gulf ESP site. In the |

environmental report, SERI determined that dry cooling for the ESP site would not be suitable

because insufficient land would be available (SERI 2005). However, even using SERI’s high |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-28 April 2006

estimate of the land requirements for the dry cooling alternative, land requirements would only

be approximately 65 ha (160 ac), which is considerably less than the available area. 

Nevertheless, the staff concludes that dry cooling tower systems would not be suitable for the

ESP site for the reasons discussed by EPA in the preamble to EPA’s final rule on NPDES

| regulations addressing cooling water intake structures for new facilities (66 FR 65256). EPA

determined that dry cooling is not the best technology available for minimizing adverse

environmental impacts in part because the technology of dry cooling carries costs that are

sufficient to pose a barrier to entry to the marketplace for some projected new facilities, and dry

cooling technology has some detrimental effects on electricity production by reducing the

| energy efficiency of steam turbines. Therefore, the staff concludes that dry cooling tower

systems should only be considered if water supply is an issue. Water supply is not an issue at

the Grand Gulf ESP site.

In conventional closed-cycle recirculating wet cooling towers, cooling water that has been used

to cool the condensers is pumped to the top of a recirculating cooling tower; as the heated

water falls, it cools through an evaporative process and warm, moist air rises out of the tower,

often creating a vapor plume. The GEIS for license renewal has a summary of the impacts of

wet cooling towers on terrestrial resources (NRC 1996). The impacts identified in the GEIS

include visible plumes; noise; icing; deposition of salts, biocides, and microorganisms in the

vicinity of towers; avian mortality from collisions of birds with towers; and the visual impacts of

the towers themselves. Some of these impacts (for example, icing and deposition of salts) are

associated with low, mechanical draft cooling towers, while others (such as avian mortality and

visual impacts) are associated with natural draft towers. 

Wet-dry cooling towers employ both a wet section and dry section and reduce or eliminate the

visible plumes associated with wet cooling towers. Water use for the wet-dry cooling tower

alternative is bounded by mechanical and natural draft wet cooling towers. Compared to wet

cooling towers, less evaporation, makeup water, and blowdown are involved in the wet-dry

cooling process, thus reducing water-related impacts. However, the disadvantages of dry

cooling discussed in the EPA preamble to the final NPDES rule (66 FR 65256) apply to the dry

cooling portion of the heat-dissipation process. The dry cooling process is not as efficient as

the wet cooling process because it requires the movement of a large amount of air through the

heat exchanger to achieve the necessary cooling. This results in less net electrical power

for distribution. 

| Water supply is not an issue at the Grand Gulf ESP site. Based on the NRC staff’s

independent review, the staff concludes that wet mechanical draft cooling towers and wet

natural draft cooling towers are suitable for the site. The specific cooling system design for one
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-29 NUREG-1817

or more new nuclear units or units at the Grand Gulf ESP site has not been selected; therefore, |

system design alternatives would be discussed at the CP or COL stage if an application were |

submitted to build a new plant at the site.

8.3.2 Circulating Water Systems

In a once-through cooling process, water is withdrawn from a cooling water source, passed

through the condenser once, and then returned to the receiving water body. In a closed-loop

system, heat transferred from the condenser to the circulating water is dissipated through

auxiliary cooling facilities, after which the cooled water is recirculated to the condenser. This

recirculation step means that much less water needs to be withdrawn from the water source

than for a once-through cooling system with the same heat rejection capacity. Alternative

intake, discharge, water supply, and water treatment systems for a closed-loop design at the

Grand Gulf ESP site are discussed below.

8.3.2.1 Intake Systems

GGNS Unit 1 uses multiple radial collector wells located next to the Mississippi River. The wells

pump from the alluvial aquifer to provide makeup water for the natural and mechanical draft

cooling system used for Unit 1. SERI states in its environmental report that a similar

arrangement of collector wells drawing water from the alluvial aquifer for a new power plant

located at the Grand Gulf ESP site could not be supported by the aquifer (SERI 2005). |

Therefore, SERI states that, for a new plant, makeup water for the heat-dissipation system and

the circulating water system would be withdrawn directly from the Mississippi River through a

shoreline embayment and intake constructed on the bank of the river (SERI 2005). |

Two alternative types of river intakes were considered by SERI in its environmental report. One

alternative would involve a direct intake from the river with a structure located on the riverbed

and a pipeline connecting it to the bank. The Mississippi River is very active with vast amounts

of sediment moving along the riverbed making it difficult to maintain structures located on the

riverbed. Additionally, the Mississippi River is a critical transportation corridor and any

in-stream construction and maintenance activities must consider possible impacts on river

traffic. The second alternative would involve a channel directing water to the intake structure on

the shoreline. The staff found no basis to suggest that these two water intake alternatives

would be environmentally preferable to SERI’s proposed intake system.

8.3.2.2 Discharge Systems

GGNS Unit 1 uses a cooling tower/circulating water system. The blowdown from the cooling

tower is discharged to the Mississippi River through the existing barge slip embayment. SERI
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-30 April 2006

states that the thermal effluent from a new facility would also be released to the river through a

| new outfall structure that would be located downstream of the existing outfall (SERI 2005).

The staff evaluated a shoreline diffuser outfall and a submerged single-point discharge. The

| shoreline diffuser would result in a larger plume; however, its impact on the Mississippi River

would be localized and small as discussed in Section 5.3.2. For a submerged port-diffuser

located beneath the water surface, the buoyant jet would entrain ambient water as it rises to the

surface, thus enhancing mixing. However, a submerged outfall could interfere with traffic on

the river, would be more difficult to construct, and may require maintenance dredging. The

shoreline discharge proposed by SERI would avoid dredging and in-stream construction. The

staff found no basis to suggest that the two discharge alternatives would be environmentally

preferable to SERI’s proposed discharge system.

8.3.2.3 Water Supply

A source of makeup water at the ESP site would be needed to offset the continuous loss of

water from evaporation, drift, and blowdown. The two sources of water on or near the Grand

Gulf ESP site that could provide an adequate volume of makeup water are the Mississippi River

and wells in the alluvial aquifer. Because of the hydraulic connection between the alluvial

aquifer and the river, the wells would effectively withdraw water from the river. The staff also

found that the Catahoula aquifer would not provide adequate water supply for any but the dry

| cooling heat-dissipation system alternative. The staff did not identify any other environmentally

preferable water supply.

8.3.2.4 Water Treatment

At this stage, the final design of the various water systems for a new nuclear plant located at

the Grand Gulf ESP site has not been specified. The water treatment requirements and water

system effluents are not known. However, all chemical and thermal discharges from the water

treatment systems, regardless of the methods chosen, would be regulated by the MDEQ

through the NPDES process.

8.4 Region of Interest and Alternative Site Selection Process

NRC regulations require that the environmental report submitted in conjunction with an

application for an ESP include an evaluation of alternative sites to determine whether any

obviously superior alternative exists to the site proposed (10 CFR 52.17(a)(2)). This section

| includes a discussion of Entergy’s ROI for possible siting of a new nuclear power plant and

| Entergy’s alternative site selection process.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-31 NUREG-1817

SERI is the applicant for an ESP at the Grand Gulf site. SERI is a subsidiary of Entergy

Corporation and has the exclusive rights to develop the proposed Grand Gulf ESP site property

outside the existing power plant and support facilities (SERI 2005). Entergy Nuclear, a division |

of Entergy Corporation, conducted the alternative site selection process for the Grand Gulf ESP |

application.

8.4.1 Applicant’s Region of Interest

Generally, the ROI is the geographic area considered in searching for candidate ESP sites |

(NRC 2000). More specifically, the ROI is |

The geographical area initially considered in the site selection process. This area may

represent the applicant’s system, the power pool or area within which the applicant’s |

planning studies are based, or the regional reliability council or the appropriate

subregion or area of the reliability council (NRC 1976).

Entergy Nuclear selected its ROI for examining potential ESP sites as the locations of the

seven existing Entergy sites with operating nuclear power plants licensed by the NRC

(SERI 2005) at the time of its application for an ESP. These seven sites are |

 C Arkansas Nuclear One, located approximately 10 km (6 mi) west of

Russellville, Arkansas

 C Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, located approximately 40 km (25 mi) south of

Vicksburg, Mississippi

 C James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, located approximately 13 km (8 mi) northeast

of Oswego, New York

 C Indian Point Energy Center, located approximately 39 km (24 mi) north of New York

City, New York

 C Pilgrim Nuclear Station, located approximately 6 km (4 mi) southeast of

Plymouth, Massachusetts

 C River Bend Station, located approximately 39 km (24 mi) northwest of Baton Rouge,

Louisiana

 C Waterford-3, located approximately 32 km (20 mi) west of New Orleans, Louisiana.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-32 April 2006

Entergy Nuclear’s ROI was limited to the preceding seven sites for the following reasons

| (SERI 2005):

 C NRC has approved the sites for nuclear plant construction and operation.

 C Site infrastructures appropriate for nuclear plant operation are in place.

 C Site characterization data have been collected and are available.

 C Access to the sites is readily available.

 C Programs, procedures, and arrangements have been established and are in place with

State and local governmental agencies.

 C Entergy liaisons with the local communities exist.

 C Operational impact of the existing nuclear plants is documented.

 C Site records document the presence of any radiological and non-radiological spills and

contamination events on the sites.

 C The sites and related facilities are controlled by Entergy.

Environmental review guidance promulgated by NRC for alternative nuclear plant sites

recognizes there will be special cases for which the proposed site was not selected on the basis

of a systematic site selection process (NRC 2000). One example cited in the guidance is when

an existing nuclear power plant site is proposed for the siting of a new nuclear plant.

| The staff concludes that the criteria used to identify the ROI used in the ESP application were

reasonable for consideration and analysis of potential ESP sites.

8.4.2 Applicant’s Alternative Site Selection Process

Entergy Nuclear’s process for selection of a preferred ESP site consisted of the following steps:

| C An ROI was established. Based on the ROI, a set of potential sites was identified for

consideration in the selection process.

 C The initial set of sites was screened, using Entergy Nuclear’s criteria, to further refine it

to a listing of candidate sites warranting more detailed evaluation.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-33 NUREG-1817

 C Candidate sites were subjected to more detailed evaluation, using Entergy Nuclear’s

criteria, to arrive at a preferred site for an ESP application (SERI 2005). |

8.4.2.1 Screening of Seven Sites to Four

First, Entergy Nuclear eliminated the Indian Point Energy Center site from further review

because the population density in the vicinity of the site exceeds 500 persons per square mile

(SERI 2005). Entergy Nuclear conducted an initial screening of the remaining six sites to |

reduce the potential ESP sites to a smaller subset of sites for detailed review. In conducting

the initial screening, Entergy Nuclear (2001) used the screening criteria, the bases for

screening criteria, and relative weighting factors for each criterion shown in Table 8-5.

The relative weighting factors were determined by Entergy Nuclear. Weights were assigned

on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being most important and 1 least important. Each site was also

qualitatively assigned a score by Entergy Nuclear for each criterion using a scale of 1 to 5 with

5 representing most favorable and 1 least favorable. After application of the scores and

weighting factors, Entergy Nuclear ranked the six potential ESP sites in the following order of

preference (Entergy Nuclear 2001):

(1) Grand Gulf Nuclear Station

(2) River Bend Station

(3) James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

(4) Waterford-3 

(5) Arkansas Nuclear One 

(6) Pilgrim Nuclear Station.

At this stage, Entergy Nuclear eliminated the Waterford-3 and Arkansas Nuclear One sites from

further consideration because it wished “to gain ESP experience in a variety of technical and

public acceptance environments, as well as to capitalize on two separate power markets”

(SERI 2004a). Further consideration of the Pilgrim site, even though it had the lowest weighted |

score of the six sites, was driven by Entergy Nuclear’s interest in ensuring regional diversity.

Entergy Nuclear determined that both the Waterford-3 and Arkansas Nuclear One sites are

viable for new nuclear plants, but the two sites are currently viewed by Entergy Nuclear as less

suitable than Grand Gulf and River Bend (Entergy Nuclear 2001).
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-34 April 2006

Table 8-5. Initial Screening Criteria for Selecting an Early Site Permit Site

Initial Screening Criteria Basis for Screening Criteria Relative Weighting Factor 

Seismic Evaluation Probability of ground acceleration

greater than 0.3 g

7.2

Demographic Changes Total population in nearby areas from

| the year 2000 U.S. Census

| 6.1

Emergency Planning Status of existing emergency plans 5.6

Exclusion Area Available room for new nuclear

generating units

6.1

Transmission Access Potential for achieving required injection

capacity and the cost of providing the

capacity

8.2

Power Pricing Expected price for power and ease of

delivering power to the anticipated load

center

9.1

W ater Availability Extent and ease to which water for plant

use is available

7.1

| Permitting/Licensing Status Relative ease to which required perm its

and licenses for a new nuclear plant

can be obtained

6.4

Plans for Existing Units Compatibility of Entergy plans for

existing nuclear units with new nuclear

units

3.0

Spent Fuel Storage Availability of onsite spent fuel storage 2.6

Public Acceptance Perceived level of public acceptance of

a new nuclear plant at each site

6.6

| Source: Entergy Nuclear 2001

Given Entergy Nuclear’s interest in ensuring regional diversity (i.e., sites in its two power

markets), the staff concluded that the down-selection of the Waterford-3 and Arkansas Nuclear

One sites is reasonable. The staff continued to review the Pilgrim alternative site because it

permits an assessment of regional diversity. In the end, had there been concerns with the

overall impacts of the preferred site, the staff would have reconsidered this step.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-35 NUREG-1817

8.4.2.2 Screening of Four Sites to One

For the final screening of sites from four to one preferred site, Entergy Nuclear used a similar

approach to the initial screening. Screening criteria and weighting factors were developed. 

Relative weights and scores for each criterion for each site were assigned by Entergy Nuclear

(Entergy Nuclear 2001). In conducting the final screening, Entergy Nuclear used the screening

criteria and relative weighting factors for each criterion shown in Table 8-6.

Table 8-6. Final Screening Criteria for Selecting an Early Site Permit Site

Final Screening Criteria Elem ents of the Screening Criteria

Weighting

Factor 

Geology/Seism ology Vibratory ground motion, capable tectonic structures

or sources, surface faulting and deformation,

geologic hazards, and soil stability

3.77

Cooling System

 Requirem ents

Quantity of cooling water available and the ambient

air temperature

3.27

Flooding Flooding potential at the site 2.4

Nearby Hazardous Land

 Uses

NRC reactor site criteria in 10 CFR Part 100 and

existing and projected hazards within 8 km (5 mi) of

the site

3.35

Extreme W eather

 Conditions

Plant parameter envelope criteria regarding

tornadoes, wind, and precipitation

2.36

Accident Effect-Related NRC population criteria in 10 CFR 100.21,

population density guidance in NRC Regulatory

Guide 4.7 (NRC 1998), emergency planning

characteristics, and short-term atm ospheric

dispersion characteristics

4.09

Surface-W ater

 Radionuclide Pathway

Potential liquid pathway dose consequences

including dilution capacity, existing radionuclides in

the stream, and proximity to downstream

consumptive users

2.5

Groundwater Radionuclide

 Pathway

Vulnerability of shallow groundwater resources to

potential contamination

2.55

Air Radionuclide Pathway Radionuclide pathways as a function of topographic

effects and atmospheric dispersion

2.5

Air-Food Ingestion Pathway Em ission of radionuclides into the food chain via

local crops and pastures

2.5
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-36 April 2006

Table 8-6. (contd)

Final Screening Criteria Elem ents of the Screening Criteria

Weighting

Factor 

Surface-W ater-Food

 Radionuclide Pathway

Use of irrigation water by downstream users as a

potential pathway for exposure

2.41

Transportation Safety Increase of highway traffic safety risk as a result of

fogging and ice caused by cooling towers

2.14

Disruption of Important

 Aquatic and Marine

 Species or Habitats

Construction-related impacts on aquatic and marine

ecology

2.64

| Bottom Sediment

 Disruption Effects

Short-term impacts on aquatic and marine

resources resulting from dredging activities during

construction

2.14

Disruption of Important

| Plant and Animal Species

Construction-related impacts on important species,

their habitats, and terrestrial ecology

3.18

Dewatering Effect on

 Adjacent W etlands

Impacts of construction related dewatering activities

on area wetlands

2.77

Therm al Discharge Effects Impacts of thermal discharges on migratory species,

other important species and habitat, and water

quality

3.64

Entrainment and

 Impingement Effects

Entrainment and impingement effect on marine

organisms resulting from cooling water withdrawal

and screening

3.23

Dredging and Disposal

 Effects

Environmental impacts related to maintenance

dredging at the cooling water intake structure

2.36

Cooling Tower Drift Effects

 on Surrounding Areas

Impacts related to the emission and downwind

deposition of cooling water salts

2.36

Socioeconomics Socioeconomic impacts during construction of new

nuclear power plants

2.0

Environmental Justice Possible disproportionate adverse impacts on

minority and low-income populations

1.95

W ater Supply Raw water consumption cost 3.7

Pumping Distance Cost of construction associated with supplying a

primary water source for the plant

3.05

Flood Mitigation Cost of flood mitigation features and insurance 2.9
Impacts of the Alternatives

Table 8-6. (contd)

Final Screening Criteria Elem ents of the Screening Criteria

Weighting

Factor 

April 2006 8-37 NUREG-1817

Vibratory Ground Motion Incremental construction cost to account for

vibratory ground motion

4.0

Soil Stability Incremental construction cost to account for soil

stability

3.4

Railroad Access Cost of constructing railroad spur 2.6

Highway Access Cost of constructing roads to from plant site to

nearby highway

2.8

Barge Access Cost of constructing barge terminal 2.85

Transmission Cost of transmission line to connect site to grid and

necessary system upgrades 

4.8

Topography Land preparation cost related to the topography 2.55

Land Rights Cost of acquiring land area and relocating existing

structures

2.75

Labor Rates Relative cost of labor 3.3

Source: Entergy Nuclear 2001 |

After applying the scores and weighting factors, Entergy Nuclear ranked the four potential ESP

sites in the following order of preference (Entergy Nuclear 2001):

(1) Grand Gulf Nuclear Station

(2) James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant

(3) River Bend Station

(4) Pilgrim Nuclear Station.

Accordingly, SERI submitted the ESP application for the Grand Gulf site as the preferred site. 

The staff concluded that SERI’s overall site selection process for alternative sites is reasonable |

and the identification of the Grand Gulf ESP site is consistent with SERI's approach. 

8.5 Evaluation of Alternative Sites

The three alternative sites examined in detail in this section are the River Bend Station near |

Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Pilgrim Nuclear Station near Plymouth, Massachusetts; and
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-38 April 2006

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant near Oswego, New York. All three of the alternative

sites have existing nuclear power plants that are owned and operated by Entergy Corporation. 

The staff visited each of the three alternative sites as well as the proposed Grand Gulf ESP

| site, and collected additional reconnaissance-level information about the alternative sites.

8.5.1 Evaluation of the River Bend Station Site

This section covers the staff’s evaluation of the potential environmental impact of siting new

nuclear units within the scope of the SERI PPE at the River Bend Station (River Bend) site.

8.5.1.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Site and Vicinity

The River Bend site is located on over 1200 ha (3000 ac) along the east bank of the Mississippi

River, about 6 km (4 mi) south of the town of St. Francisville, Louisiana. The area around the

site and the vicinity remains largely agricultural with significant crop production and some

industrial forestry. Similar in many respects to the Grand Gulf site, there is adequate land area

available within the existing site boundary to house a generating facility based on the PPE. 

Because the potential site of the ESP facility would use a portion of the existing River Bend site,

| no land would be preempted for additional facilities built at this site (SERI 2005). The types of

impacts of new facility construction and operations (i.e., physical, ecological, social, and

radiological impacts) are likely to be similar to those expected for the Grand Gulf ESP site. The

River Bend site is not affected by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. 

| Based on the information provided by SERI and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff

concludes that the land-use impacts on the site and vicinity of construction and operation are

expected to be SMALL.

Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

| Five transmission lines exit the River Bend site in three separate rights-of-way. One 500-kV

line runs due east from the site crossing mostly agricultural and forested land for 43 km (27 mi)

to a substation near the junction of State Highways 959 and 63 (McKnight Crossing). Another

500-kV line runs south-southwest from the site, crosses the Mississippi River, and then runs

| across agricultural and forested land 46.9 km (29.3 mi) to a substation near Rosedale,

| Louisiana. Three lines (230 kV) run south-southeast for 18.1 km (11.3 mi) paralleling the

Mississippi River and U.S. Highway 61, and then across lowlands and swamps to a substation

near Irene, Louisiana. None of these transmission line rights-of-way cross any known protected

land designations or special land uses. Section 3.3 details the regulatory procedure required to

link new large generation to the grid. The issues that could result in potential impacts from

| construction and operations in these transmission line rights-of-way (i.e., physical and
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-39 NUREG-1817

ecological impacts) would be similar to those land-use impacts for construction and operations

in the transmission line rights-of-way associated with the Grand Gulf ESP site. Therefore, the |

staff concludes that the land-use impacts of transmission system construction and continued

operation would be SMALL.

8.5.1.2 Water Use and Quality

Water Use

The River Bend site is located adjacent to the Mississippi River downstream of the Grand Gulf

ESP site where flows, rainfall, and floodplain characteristics are similar. Construction activities

for a new nuclear unit or units at River Bend would have similar water usage impacts

(i.e., physical and ecological impacts) as at the Grand Gulf ESP site. During operation, the

consumptive use of water from the proposed mechanical draft cooling towers would be a very

small fraction of the supply available in the river, even during record low flows. Therefore, the

staff concludes that the impacts on water use and water supply at the River Bend site would |

be SMALL.

Water Quality

Construction activities of a new nuclear unit or units at the River Bend site would follow best

management practices and have similar water-quality impacts as the Grand Gulf ESP site, and |

would be bounded by the operational impacts. The additional heat from blowdown water could

be commingled with the discharge from the existing River Bend Station. This would increase |

the size of the thermal plume that currently exists. Thermal and chemical discharges to the

Mississippi River would be regulated by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality via

an NPDES permit issued to protect the environment. Since the combined discharge represents

a very small fraction of the flow in the Mississippi River, the staff concludes that the impacts to |

water quality at the River Bend site would be SMALL.

8.5.1.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

Construction Impacts

Three general vegetation types are onsite: upland forests, bottomland hardwoods, and

meadows and pastures. Following construction of the existing River Bend plant, remaining land

cover for the three vegetation types were upland forests (347 ha (858 ac)), bottomland |

hardwoods (282 ha (697 ac)), and meadows and pastures (105 ha (259 ac)) (AEC 1974a), |

totaling 734 ha (1814 ac).
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-40 April 2006

Construction of a new generating facility would likely remove the three vegetation types listed

above in similar proportions as did construction of the existing units at the River Bend site,

which were upland hardwood forests, 63.3 percent; bottomland hardwoods, 3.0 percent; and

| meadows and pastures, 33.7 percent (AEC 1974a). SERI (2005) denotes the total area that

| would be disturbed by construction of the Grand Gulf ESP facility to be 162 ha (400 ac). In

| Figure 2-5, however, SERI (2005) denotes the disturbed area to be 160 ha (395 ac). 

| Construction of a new facility at the River Bend site would disturb roughly the same area. Of

| the 160 ha (395 ac), 101 ha (250 ac) of upland hardwood forest, 5 ha (12 ac) of bottomland

hardwood forest, and 54 ha (133 ac) of meadows and pastures would be lost. These values

| account for 29, 2, and 51 percent of the upland forest, bottomland hardwood forest, and

meadows and pastures remaining on the River Bend site. The combined loss of upland and

bottomland hardwood forest would be about 106 ha (262 ac), or approximately 17 percent of

the total available onsite, constituting a modest loss of forest habitat.

The potential impacts from construction, such as erosion and dust generation, would be typical

of large construction projects. These impacts could be mitigated using standard industrial

procedures and best management practices. Standard practices, such as silt fences to control

sedimentation and water sprays to limit dust generation, would protect wetlands and other

ecological resources in the site vicinity.

| Five transmission lines in three separate rights-of-way, extending over a total length of 109 km

| (68 mi) (Section 8.5.1.1) and covering 417 ha (1031 ac) (NRC 1996), currently serve the River

Bend Station. Land cover along these lines consists of pasture (43 percent), forest

(38 percent), crops (15 percent), residential (2 percent), and water (2 percent) (AEC 1974a). It

is assumed that these transmission lines would not have the capacity to carry the power

generated by a new facility and that a transmission system upgrade, including new transmission

lines and an additional right-of-way, would be needed. It is assumed that any additional right-

| of-way would be an expansion of the existing right-of-way (see Section 4.4.12). Consequently,

| a modest amount of forest habitat, up to 159 ha (392 ac), could be lost due to the expansion.

| Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy, and the NRC staff’s independent review, the

| staff concludes the impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from construction of a new

generating facility at the River Bend site and construction associated with possible expansion of

| the existing River Bend transmission line rights-of-way would be MODERATE.

Threatened and Endangered Species

| The only Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species that may occur in

| the River Bend area is the threatened Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

(FWS 2004a). The River Bend site is located adjacent to the Atchaflaya River Basin breeding

sub-population of Louisiana black bears (FWS 1995). The proposed Atchaflaya River Basin

Floodway critical habitat unit is located at least 16 km (10 mi) to the west of the River Bend site. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-41 NUREG-1817

No occurrences of the bear are known within 16 km (10 mi) of the site (Table 8-7)

(LNHP 2004a). Therefore, it appears unlikely the subspecies occurs on the River Bend site

(SERI 2004d) and so would not be impacted by construction or operation of a new generating

facility. None of the five River Bend transmission lines are located within 16 km (10 mi) of the

Atchaflaya River Basin Floodway critical habitat unit. Consequently, critical habitat would not be

impacted by expansion of the existing transmission line rights-of-way. |

Table 8-7. Terrestrial Federally and State-Listed Species Occurring in the Vicinity of the River

Bend Site

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a)

Distance from the 

River Bend Site(b) Source

Mammals

Mustela frenata long-tailed weasel S2-S4 beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a

Sorex longirostris southeastern shrew S2-S3 beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a

Spilogale putorius eastern spotted skunk S1 beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a

Ursus americanus luteolus Louisiana black bear FT/S2 >10 mi (16 km) FWS 2004a;

LNHP 2004a

Plants

Actaea pachypoda white baneberry S2 beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a |

Antennaria solitaria single-head pussytoes S2 beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a

Circaea lutetiana

 canadensis

intermediate enchanter’s

nightshade

S2 beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a

Deparia acrostichoides silvery glade fern S2 <3.2 km (2 mi) LNHP 2004a

Dichanthelium

 clandestinum

deer-tongue witchgrass S2 <3.2 km (2 mi) LNHP 2004a

Dryopteris ludoviciana southern shield wood-fern S1 beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a

Eleocharis radicans rooted spike-rush S1 beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a

Magnolia pyramidata pyramid magnolia S2 beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a

Mimulus ringens square-stemmed monkeyflowerS2 beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-42 April 2006

Table 8-7. (contd)

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a)

Distance from the 

River Bend Site(b) Source

Pachysandra procumbens Allegheny-spurge S2 beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a

Physalis carpenteri carpenter’s ground-cherry S1 <3.2 km (2 mi) LNHP 2004a

Stewartia malacodendron silky camelia S2-S3 beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a

Triphora trianthophora nodding pogonia S2 beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a

(a) Federal status rankings developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act,

| FT = Federal threatened (FWS 2004a). State status rankings developed by the Louisiana Natural Heritage

| Program, S1 = critically imperiled, S2 = imperiled, S3 = rare, S4 = secure (LNHP 2004a). Hyphenated state

status ranks indicate a range in the status of the species based on insufficient data to make a determination.

(b) Distances provided by LNHP (2004a).

Three State-listed imperiled or critically imperiled terrestrial animal species are known to occur

beyond 3.2 km (2 mi) but within 16 km (10 mi) of the River Bend site: the long-tailed weasel

(Mustela frenata), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and eastern spotted skunk

(Spilogale putorius) (Table 8-7) (LNHP 2004a). The long-tailed weasel is found in a wide

variety of habitats, including farmland, woodlands, and swamps, with areas near water being

preferred (Linzey and Brecht 2002a). The southeastern shrew occurs in a variety of habitats

from fields to forests (Linzey and Brecht 2002b), as does the eastern spotted skunk

(Pennington 2002). These three species are habitat generalists and could occur on the River

| Bend site and along its transmission line rights-of-way. Therefore, they could potentially be

affected by construction of a new generating facility at the River Bend site and possible

| expansion of the existing transmission line rights-of-way.

There are three State-listed imperiled or critically imperiled terrestrial plant species known to

occur within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the River Bend site: silvery glade fern (Deparia acrostichoides),

deer-tongue witchgrass (Dichanthelium clandestinum), and carpenter’s ground-cherry (Physalis

| carpenteri) (Table 8-7) (LNHP 2004a). Silvery glade fern occurs in damp woods (FNA 2004a).

Deer-tongue witchgrass occurs in moist soils of woodland edges and clearings (Ernst

Conservation Seeds 2004). Carpenter’s ground-cherry occurs in mixed hardwood-loblolly pine

(Pinus taeda) woods, southern mesophytic woods, and hardwood slope forest (LNHP 2004b). 

These three species are habitat generalists that could occur on the River Bend site and along

| its transmission line rights-of-way. Consequently, they could be adversely affected by

construction of a new generating facility on the River Bend site and by possible expansion of

| the existing transmission line rights-of-way.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-43 NUREG-1817

Ten additional State-listed imperiled or critically imperiled terrestrial plant species are known to

occur beyond 3.2 km (2 mi) but within 16 km (10 mi) of the River Bend site: white baneberry

(Actaea pachypoda), single-head pussytoes (Antennaria solitaria), intermediate enchanter’s

nightshade (Circaea lutetiana canadensis), southern shield wood-fern (Dryopteris ludoviciana),

rooted spike-rush (Eleocharis radicans), pyramid magnolia (Magnolia pyramidata), squarestemmed monkey-flower (Mimulus ringens), Allegheny-spurge (Pachysandra procumbens),

silky camelia (Stewartia malacodendron), and nodding pogonia (Triphora trianthophora)

(Table 8-7) (LNHP 2004a). White baneberry occurs in deciduous forests (FNA 2004b). Single- |

head pussytoes grows in woods and woodland clearings (NearActica 2004). Intermediate |

enchanter’s nightshade occurs in deciduous woodlands (Verburg 1998). Southern shield woodfern occurs in swamps and wet woods (FNA 2004c). Rooted spike-rush occurs in stream

alluvium and around lake margins, meadows, seeps, and bogs (FNA 2004d). Pyramid

magnolia occurs in woods and on river bluffs (FNA 2004e). Square-stemmed monkey-flower

occurs along stream banks, lake margins, and wet meadows (Missouriplants 2004). Alleghenyspurge occurs in riparian forest habitat (SERPIN 2004). Silky camelia inhabits the understory of

wooded bluffs and ravine slopes and the open edges of transition zones (ecotones) between

sand hills and creek swamps (GSRCORP 2004). Nodding pogonia occurs on rotten logs and in

rich humus and leaf mold of low hammocks, hardwood and coniferous forests, woods along

streams, edges of swamps, floodplain forests, and mountain slopes (LNHP 2004c). These ten

species are habitat generalists that could occur on the River Bend site and along its

transmission line rights-of-way. Consequently, they could be affected by construction of a new |

generating facility on the River Bend site and by possible expansion of the existing

transmission line rights-of-way. |

Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy, and the NRC staff’s independent review, the |

staff concludes that the impacts on threatened and endangered species from construction of a |

new generating facility on the River Bend site and possible expansion of the existing

transmission line rights-of-way could range from SMALL to MODERATE. |

Operation Impacts

Impacts on terrestrial resources that may result from operation of one or more new nuclear |

units at the River Bend site include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. 

The River Bend plant currently employs cooling towers, and more cooling towers would be

added for one or more new nuclear units. The impacts of cooling tower drift and bird collisions

for existing nuclear power plants were evaluated previously in the GEIS (NRC 1996) and were

found to be small for all plants, including those with multiple cooling towers of various types. 

The staff is not aware of any information that would cause it to modify its earlier conclusion. On

this basis, for the purposes of consideration of alternative sites, the impacts of cooling tower

drift and bird collisions with cooling towers resulting from operation of one or more new nuclear

units at the River Bend site would be negligible.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-44 April 2006

For both natural and mechanical draft cooling towers, the noise level from cooling tower

| operation is anticipated to be 55 decibels (dBA) at 300 m (1000 ft) (SERI 2005). The noise

level for dry cooling towers is somewhat higher. However, these noise levels are all 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 River Bend site would

| not be likely to disturb wildlife beyond 300 m (1000 ft) from the source. Further, impacts within

this distance, if any, would be considered negligible owing to the large expanses of open habitat

available into which mobile wildlife species could move if disturbed. Consequently, the impacts

of cooling tower noise on wildlife from operation of one or more new nuclear units at the River

Bend site would be minimal.

The cooling towers from one or more new nuclear units at the River Bend site would withdraw a

small quantity of water relative to Mississippi River flows, and would discharge water back into

the river at a temperature greater than ambient conditions. The amount of water withdrawn

from the Mississippi River would represent only about 0.2 percent of the total flow and would

not detectably alter shoreline habitat.

| The impacts usually associated with transmission line operation consist of bird collisions with

| transmission lines. The staff assumes that the addition of new lines for expansion of the

| transmission system for one or more new nuclear units at the River Bend site would present

| few new opportunities for bird collisions and that no measurable reduction in local bird

| populations would result. The issue of bird collisions with transmission lines was evaluated

| previously in the GEIS (NRC 1996) and was found to be small for all facilities, including those

| with multiple transmission line rights-of-way with various numbers of transmission lines. Based

| on the above rationale and the associated conclusions presented in GEIS (NRC 1996), the

| effects on bird collisions of transmission line operation for one or more new nuclear units at the

| River Bend site would be negligible.

| The impacts usually associated with transmission line right-of-way maintenance (cutting and

| herbicide application) consist of erosion/siltation and disturbance of wildlife and wildlife habitat,

| and similar impacts where rights-of-way cross floodplains and wetlands. The staff assumes

| that right-of-way maintenance would be conducted similar to current operations, only over a

| wider area. The effects of right-of-way maintenance were evaluated previously in the GEIS

| (NRC 1996) and were found to be small for all plants, including those with transmission line

| rights-of-way of various widths. The staff is not aware of any new information that would cause

| it to modify its earlier conclusion. Therefore, general wildlife and wildlife habitat would be

| expected to be minimally affected by right-of-way maintenance in transmission line rights-of-

| way expanded for one or more new nuclear units at the River Bend site.

| The staff reviewed the operation of one or more nuclear units at the River Bend site, including

| the associated heat-dissipation system and transmission line operation and right-of-way

| maintenance. Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy, and the NRC staff’s
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-45 NUREG-1817

independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of operation of one or more nuclear |

units at the River Bend site on terrestrial resources and threatened and endangered species |

would be SMALL. |

8.5.1.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

Construction and Operation Impacts

The aquatic resources at the River Bend site are associated with the Mississippi River and the

watershed of Grants Bayou. The station is located on a terrace above the river’s floodplain at

approximately River Mile 262. Other water resources on the site within Grants Bayou

watershed include Alexander Creek, West Creek, Alligator Bayou, and 19 small farm ponds,

including Grassy Lake and a constructed wildlife management lake (AEC 1974a; NRC 1985).

The River Bend Station uses a closed-cycle cooling system that draws water from the

Mississippi River and discharges it back into the river at a downstream location. The intake and

discharge systems for the existing River Bend Station would be used for operation of a new |

facility, and minimal construction activities are anticipated in upgrading these facilities to handle

discharges from the new unit(s). Any construction impacts, such as erosion and sedimentation

into the water resources, could be mitigated using standard industrial procedures and best

management practices.

Operation of the new unit(s) would have minimal impacts on the aquatic resources of the

Mississippi River. Water withdrawn from the river for the cooling system would be a very small

fraction of the supply available in the river, even during record low flows. Because of the use of |

closed-cycle cooling, incremental impacts from entrainment, impingement, and heat shock on |

aquatic resources would be negligible. The additional heat from blowdown water would be |

commingled with the discharge from the other units, resulting in a greater thermal plume in the

area of the discharge. |

The other water resources at the River Bend site are not anticipated to be affected by

construction and operation of a new unit or units. West Creek was rerouted when the current

facility was built and is used for collection of runoff water. Additional facilities at the site would

increase runoff into the creek; however, the aquatic resources in this concrete channel are of a

poor quality and have adapted to the changes in water flow from precipitation events. Impacts

on Alligator Bayou would not be anticipated because the river access road connecting a new |

generation facility to the Mississippi River would not be changed.

The staff concludes that the overall impacts on aquatic resources from construction and

operation of one or more new nuclear units and associated cooling towers at the River Bend |

site would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-46 April 2006

Threatened and Endangered Species

Table 8-8 lists the Federally and State-listed threatened and endangered aquatic species within

16 km (10 mi) of the River Bend site. The only Federally listed threatened or endangered

aquatic species that could occur in the River Bend area is the endangered pallid sturgeon

(Scaphirhynchus albus) (FWS 2004a). The River Bend site is adjacent to the shores of the

Mississippi River within the known range of the pallid sturgeon. The species was designated as

endangered throughout its entire range in 1990 (55 FR 36641; FWS 1993). Pallid sturgeon

| have not been caught in the vicinity of the River Bend site (River Mile 262). The closest and

most recent catches have been at River Miles 229 and 314 (LDOTD 2003).

There are two State-listed imperiled or rare species that are known to occur within 16 km

(10 mi) of the River Bend site. The bluntface shiner (Cyprinella camura) is an imperiled or rare

fish found within the tributaries of the Mississippi River. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife

| and Fisheries lists the bluntface shiner as known to occur within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the River Bend

| site (LNHP 2004a); however, past studies of the aquatic resources from the onsite tributaries

have not reported the fish (AEC 1974a; NRC 1985). The rainbow darter (Etheostoma

caeruleum) is an imperiled or rare fish found within 16 km (10 mi) of the River Bend site. The

rainbow darter is found in moderately swift runs and riffles of shallow tributaries of the

| Mississippi River. Neither the bluntface shiner nor the rainbow darter have been found on the

River Bend site during past sampling programs (AEC 1974a; NRC 1985).

Table 8-8. Federally and State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species Reported

within a 16-Kilometer (10-Mile) Radius of the River Bend Site

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a)

Distance from the

River 

Bend Site(b) Source

Fish

Cyprinella camura bluntface shiner S2-S3 <3.2 km (2 m i) LNHP 2004a

Etheostoma caeruleum rainbow darter S2-S3 beyond 3.2 km (2 m i)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

LNHP 2004a

Scaphirhynchus albus pallid sturgeon FE; S1 <3.2 km (2 m i) LNHP 2004a;

FW S 2004a

(a) Federal status rankings developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act,

FE = Federal endangered (FWS 2004a). State status rankings developed by the Louisiana Natural Heritage

| Program: S1 - critically imperiled, S2 = imperiled, S3 = rare (LNHP 2004a). Hyphenated state status ranks

indicate a range in the status of the species based on insufficient data to make a determination. 

(b) Distances provided by LNHP (2004a).
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in southern Louisiana displaced tens of thousands of people, which |

affected baseline socioeconom ic conditions throughout the Gulf Coast states. Estimates in the DEIS |

have been affected, but no changes have been made to the text because of the uncertainty regarding |

to what extent the changes brought about by Katrina and Rita are perm anent. |

April 2006 8-47 NUREG-1817

The staff concludes that the overall impacts on Federally and State-listed threatened and

endangered aquatic species from one or more new nuclear units and associated cooling towers |

at the River Bend site would be SMALL.

8.5.1.5 Socioeconomics

In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of construction at the River Bend site, the staff and

Entergy Nuclear undertook a reconnaissance survey of the site using readily obtainable data |

from the Internet or published sources. The staff conducted some local interviews with

knowledgeable local officials. No new data were collected.(a) The socioeconomic subsections

follow the organizational structure of the socioeconomic discussions in Sections 2.8, 4.5, and |

5.5. Impacts from both construction and station operation are discussed.

Physical Impacts

Construction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor,

vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emissions. The use of public

roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport construction materials and

equipment. However, extensive work is planned on the existing roads, and new routes are

being built to reduce existing bottlenecks in the regional highway system, so no physical impact

on the existing road network is expected. It is expected that all construction activities would |

occur within the existing River Bend site. Offsite areas that would support construction

activities (for example, borrow pits, quarries, and disposal sites) are expected to be already

permitted and operational. Impacts on those facilities from construction of the new unit or units |

would be small incremental impacts associated with their normal operation.

Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and |

visual intrusions. New units would produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling tower |

fans, transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard equipment, and traffic at the site would

also be a source of noise. SERI states in its environmental report that any noise coming from

the proposed Grand Gulf ESP site would be controlled in accordance with standard noise |

protection and abatement procedures (SERI 2005). By inference, this is also expected to apply |

to the River Bend site. Commuter traffic would be controlled by speed limits. Good road

conditions and appropriate speed limits would minimize the noise level generated by the

workforce commuting to River Bend site (SERI 2005). |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-48 April 2006

New units would have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power systems. Permits

obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions comply with 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 (SERI 2005).

Construction activities would be temporary and would occur mainly within the boundaries of the

River Bend site. Offsite impacts would represent small incremental changes to offsite services

supporting the construction activities. During station operations, noise levels would be

managed to local ordinances. Air quality permits would be required for the diesel generators,

and chemical use would be limited, which should limit odors. Based on the information

| provided by SERI and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the physical

impacts of construction and operation would be SMALL.

Demography

The population base is considered to be the population of significant population centers within a

80-km (50-mi) radius of the River Bend site. The combined population of West Feliciana

Parish, East Feliciana Parish and the East Baton Rouge Parish, West Baton Rouge Parish, and

Pointe Coupee Parish was 494,000 (USCB 2004) and, in 1997, was projected to grow by

approximately 15 percent to about 570,000 by 2020 (LPDC 1997). The estimated population

| within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the River Bend site is 907,000 (NRC 2004b). Most

(approximately 70 percent) of the construction workforce are expected to come from within the

region, and those who might relocate to the region would represent a small percentage of the

larger population base (Entergy Nuclear 2001). While part of the station operation workforce is

| also expected to relocate into the region, their numbers are small (about 2000 total new

employees and family members during construction, and a smaller, unspecified number during

operations) when compared to the total base population, and their locations of residence would

| probably be scattered throughout the region. Based on the information in the environmental

| report (SERI 2005) and the Early Site Permit Selection Committee Notebook (Entergy

| Nuclear 2001) prepared by Entergy Nuclear and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff

| concludes that the demographic impacts from construction and operation within an 80-km

(50-mi) radius of the River Bend site would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-49 NUREG-1817

Social and Economic Impacts

Economy

The River Bend site is located in one of the stronger economic areas in Louisiana. The Baton

Rouge area is the primary economic driving force in the area within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of

the River Bend site. In recent years, the regional economy has become more diversified, with

major chemicals, papermills, and refining businesses; financial and health care components;

and a growing high-tech business sector. The local economic development leaders consider an

additional unit or units at the River Bend site to be highly compatible with the current economy

and their economic plans for the parish (Scott 2004a). Regionally, the service sector now offers

the most employment opportunities. Construction and operation of one or more new nuclear |

units at the River Bend site would be expected to add to the economic prosperity of the region,

especially in West Feliciana Parish.

Based on the information provided by SERI and its own independently obtained information, the

staff reviewed the impacts of construction and operation on the economy of the region and

concludes that the impacts would be minor everywhere in the region except West Feliciana

Parish, where the impact could be beneficial and significant. Although the economic impacts |

would be diffused over several local jurisdictions, employment in West Feliciana Parish would

increase by 50 percent during the peak of construction. Much of the economic impacts likely

would be felt in the larger economic bases of East Baton Rouge Parish and the city of |

Baton Rouge. 

Entergy Nuclear estimates that it would take 3150 construction workers 5 years to build one or |

more new nuclear units at the River Bend site (Entergy Nuclear 2001). Entergy Nuclear is |

expected to be able to attract the necessary workforce for construction activities at the River

Bend site because of its proximity to the major population center of Baton Rouge. The

availability of construction workers for regular construction projects of longer duration is

reported to be good. The number of construction workers employed within the five parishes

nearest the River Bend site was estimated to be approximately 27,000 in 2002 (Louisiana

Department of Labor 2003).

The addition of new units would require an increase in the operations workforce of

1160 employees. Approximately 454 permanent employees currently work at the River Bend

site (SERI 2004c). In its site comparison study, Entergy Nuclear (2001) stated that it expected |

30 percent of the construction labor force for the new units would relocate from outside the

region. Some nuclear defense sites are reducing their workforces as they change missions,

and workers from these sites could be potential pools of labor for the operating workforce at

River Bend.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-50 April 2006

| Based on the information provided by Entergy Nuclear and the NRC staff’s independent review,

the staff concludes that construction labor would be readily available from within the region, and

there would be little problem recruiting the required labor skills to enable the construction of

| new nuclear units at the River Bend site. Some of the operations workforce would already be in

the region.

Taxes

Construction and operations workers would pay income, sales, and use taxes to Louisiana and

to the local governments in the region where sales take place and property taxes to the

counties in which they own a residence. Sales and use taxes would be paid from the sales of

construction materials and supplies purchased for the project and on expenditures of both the

construction and operations workforce for goods and services. SERI has made no estimate of

the day-to-day expenditures that would occur in the region during construction. Corporate

income taxes on profits would also be paid by those companies engaged in construction at

the site.

There are two types of property taxes in Louisiana: tangible personal property taxes and real

property taxes. Tangible personal property taxes would be paid by contractors during

construction of the additional units. This tax is based on the value of property owned by the

contractors that acquire taxable status in West Feliciana Parish during the construction period. 

Real property taxes are levied for the incremental increase in value to the entire site from the

operation of the additional units. It is expected that West Feliciana Parish would be the only

beneficiary of the these taxes. Property owned by Entergy currently accounts for 90 percent of

| the local tax base. The tax rate in West Feliciana Parish is the lowest in the state (70 mills);

elsewhere in the state, tax rates generally range from 100 to 130 mills. In a few jurisdictions,

tax rates as high as 200 mills are levied. For schools, the state reduces its funding allocation

for education as the local jurisdictions provide more. In West Feliciana Parish, the state

provides nothing, but the local district spends much more per student than the state average. 

| Entergy Nuclear has a significant impact on the economic well being of West Feliciana Parish,

| with Entergy Nuclear paying over 80 percent of the property taxes between 1996 and 2000

| (Housing Assistance Council 2002; Scott 2004a). The property tax base represented by a new

| nuclear facility on the Grand Gulf ESP site would represent nearly a doubling of the West

| Feliciana Parish tax base, but would have relatively little impact on adjacent parish finances. 

| Based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent

review, the staff concludes that the overall impacts from construction and operation on taxes

collected through the income, sales and use, and property taxes would be barely noticeable,

with the exception of West Feliciana Parish. The taxes paid, while substantial, are nevertheless

a small sum when compared to the total amount of taxes collected by Louisiana and local

governments in the region. Depending on the outcome of tax negotiations between Entergy
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-51 NUREG-1817

and the state of Louisiana on the amount of property taxes, the staff considers that the overall |

impacts of the property taxes collected in West Feliciana Parish would be significant and

beneficial relative to the total amount of taxes the county currently collects through property

taxes.

Summary of Social and Economic Impacts

Based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent |

review, the staff concludes that the overall impacts of construction and operation of new unit(s)

at the River Bend site would be LARGE beneficial to SMALL beneficial in the parishes near the |

site. |

Infractructure and Community Services

Transportation

The general area around the River Bend site is served by several major highways, including

Interstate 10, Interstate 12, U.S. Highways 61 and 190, and State Route (SR) 10. Baton Rouge

is about a 20-minute drive from the River Bend site on four-lane roads. Site access from the

west side of the Mississippi River is currently limited, but a new bridge is expected to replace

existing ferry service at St. Francisville. The principal road access to the River Bend site is via

the River Bend Access Road and via Louisiana SR 965, which is a two-lane paved road. 

The construction of a new power facility would require additions to the workforce. In addition,

construction materials, wastes, and excavated materials would be transported both to and from

the site. These activities would result in increases in operation of personal-use vehicles by

commuting construction workers, in commercial truck traffic, and in traffic associated with daily

operations. However, five of the seven reactor types referred to in the SERI environmental

report are generally smaller and modular in nature. Consequently, transportation of plant

equipment could be less challenging and workforce requirements are expected to be less than

those for the conventional nuclear plants.

The level-of-service designation on River Bend Access Road and Louisiana SR 965 would likely

be degraded during the peak construction period for a new nuclear plant at the River Bend site. 

Louisiana SR 965 intersects U.S. Highway 61 approximately 2.6 km (1.6 mi) from the plant and

River Bend Access Road intersects U.S. Highway 61 approximately 2.2 km (1.4 mi) from the

plant. Because it is the principal route from the direction of Baton Rouge, portions of

U.S. Highway 61 would receive significantly more traffic during plant construction.

Direct rail access and a barge slip (which would have to be dredged) are available to the River

Bend site, so large equipment would not have to be offloaded and transported by road. The
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-52 April 2006

Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport and New Orleans International Airport serve the area. The

airports in Baton Rouge and New Orleans provide regular freight and passenger jet services

and are of sufficient size to accommodate the relatively small air shipments normally associated

with a construction project.

The impacts of station operation employees on the transportation system would be less than

| that incurred during construction of the ESP facilities. However, there would be increases in

| personal-use vehicles by commuting operations staff. Portions of U.S. Highway 61 may be

affected by commuters to the plant site, particularly during shift changes. During new plant

operation, the level-of-service designation on the access roads and U.S. Highway 61 may

degrade to stable flow instead of the free flow indicated under a level-of-service “A”

designation. This change in designation would indicate that the freedom to select speed is

unaffected, but the freedom to maneuver is slightly diminished.

| Based on a review of information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s

reconnaissance-level review, the staff concludes that the impacts of a construction workforce

and related transportation of construction supplies and materials on the transportation

infrastructure at the River Bend site would be noticeable (and temporary). Some of the local

roads could have their level of service degraded during construction to the point where

operations of individual drivers could be significantly affected by interactions with the rest of the

traffic. This would be at level-of-service “C” or lower. Also, it is possible that, given the heavy

loads carried by vehicles transporting construction materials to the River Bend site, some of the

roads may need improvement to carry the additional load.

| Based on a review of information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s

independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of an operations workforce and related

transportation impacts would be much less noticeable than during construction. There may be

some minor congestion at shift changes and level of service may degrade.

Recreation

The River Bend site is an industrial site not used for recreation. Its current structures are not

visually obtrusive from any vantage point because of the large size and wooded nature of the

site. The existing units are well isolated from the river and from other vantage points. Any new

units would not use a once-through cooling system, so cooling towers would be necessary. 

| However, the River Bend site already has mechanical draft cooling towers, so additional cooling

towers for the new reactors would not significantly change the existing appearance of the site

that would affect any nearby recreation experience. Traditionally, visible plumes resulting from

| operation of cooling towers could cause a negative aesthetic effect. As long as any new

| transmission lines are confined to (possibly expanded) existing rights-of-way, as assumed in

| Section 8.5.1.3, the aesthetic effects of new transmission lines are not likely to be significant. 

| Based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy, and the NRC staff’s independent review,
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-53 NUREG-1817

the staff concludes that no noticeable impacts on recreation in the vicinity of the River Bend site

would result from construction and operation of a new generating facility at the site.

Housing

A 18.7 percent vacancy rate out of a total of 4485 housing units currently exists in West

Feliciana Parish (USCB 2005b). However, given the proximity of the River Bend site to the |

Baton Rouge metropolitan area, which has 12,000 vacant housing units in East Baton Rouge

Parish alone, housing for construction workers, most of whom will be coming from within the

region, and the subsequent operations workforce is expected to be available (USCB 2005b). |

Sufficient housing is available in West Feliciana Parish and the Baton Rouge area to support

the additional workforce that would be needed to operate a new generating facility at the River

Bend site (Scott 2004a). |

Based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent |

review, the staff concludes that the impact of a construction and operations workforce on the

demand for housing could be easily handled. This conclusion is based on the availability of

approximately 840 vacant housing units in West Feliciana Parish, existing construction plans,

and the proximity of the River Bend site to the larger Baton Rouge metropolitan area.

Public Services

Water Supply and Waste Treatment. West Feliciana Parish would have to upgrade some of its |

water distribution lines from 15 to 20 cm (6 in. to 8 in.) to accommodate growth, but plans for |

that upgrade already are in place. The Parish has a plentiful groundwater supply and a

complete Parish-wide water distribution system. The Parish government regulates sewage

treatment, but there are individual sewage districts (Scott 2004a). |

Most of the construction workforce would come from within the region, so their demands on the

water treatment and distribution systems are already accounted for. The station operating

workforce, some of which would probably relocate into the region, would probably reside |

throughout the region; therefore, their presence would not particularly affect any one community

or jurisdiction. Based on the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the |

impact of construction and operation on the water treatment and distribution systems would not

be noticeable.

Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities. In the larger metropolitan area of West Feliciana

Parish, East Feliciana Parish, East Baton Rouge Parish, and Baton Rouge, and in nearby

St. Francisville, police, fire, and medical facilities would not be materially affected by an
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-54 April 2006

increase in the construction workforce. It is anticipated that many of the workers who would be

involved in construction at the River Bend site already live in the region and would commute to

the site from their permanent residences. These workers already are being served by existing

police, fire, and medical services and facilities.

| Thirty percent of the resident construction workforce of 2835 (approximately 90 percent of the

| 3150 total workers) is anticipated to come from outside the region, resulting in an overall

| population increase of 2459 persons (Entergy Nuclear 2001). Because these workers would

probably reside throughout the region, their presence would not particularly affect any one

| community or jurisdiction and is not expected to place inordinate demands on police, fire, and

| medical services and facilities. The impact of the operations workforce would likely be smaller,

| since the operations workforce is only 1160 (SERI 2005).

| Based on the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the impact of

construction and operations workforce on police, fire, and medical services facilities would not

be noticeable. Most construction workers already live within the region. New operations

| workforce employees would live throughout the region, so there should be minimal new

demands placed on these services and facilities by either construction or operations workers.

Social Services. A variety of emergency assistance, counseling, child and family services, and

other social services are provided in each parish by the Louisiana Department of Social

Services. During the construction phase at the River Bend site, there may be an increased

demand for some social services.

Generally, construction and operation of a new generation facility at the River Bend site would

be viewed as beneficial economically to the disadvantaged population segments served by the

Louisiana Department of Social Services. The workforce associated with construction at the

River Bend site would be relatively higher paid than other employment categories in the region. 

| Construction and operation of new units should increase employment through the multiplier

| effect (see Section 4.5.3.1) and may enable the disadvantaged population to improve their

social and economic position by moving up to higher paying jobs. At a minimum, the

| expenditures of the construction and operations workforce in the parishes for food, services,

etc., could, through the multiplier effect, increase the number of jobs available to the

disadvantaged population.

| Based on the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the demand for social

and related services as a result of construction and operation of a new generation facility at the

River Bend site likely would be insignificant. Construction and operation would have a

| beneficial economic impact on the economically disadvantaged population of the region, which

should decrease the demand for social services. There could be an initial increase in demand

for social services at the beginning of the construction period, but this is considered

manageable and limited.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-55 NUREG-1817

Education

The West Feliciana Parish school system has just over 2000 students (NCES 2004b). There

currently is no overcrowding in the system, and the system enjoys some of the lowest student

teacher ratios in Louisiana, high standardized test performance, and excellent facilities

(Scott 2004a). The extensive regional parochial school system is also considered to be strong. |

In the other parishes and cities of the region, it is anticipated that the construction and |

operations workforce would minimally affect school infrastructures because many construction

workers already live within the region. Entergy Nuclear estimates that it would take |

3150 construction workers 5 years to build one or more new nuclear units at the River Bend site |

(Entergy Nuclear 2001); most of the workforce would reside in the region already. Entergy

Nuclear estimates that the population increase in the region during peak construction would be |

2459, 759 of whom are likely to be children (Entergy Nuclear 2001). The operations workforce, |

while partly coming from outside and relocating into the region, would probably be distributed |

throughout the region, thereby placing little demand on school infrastructure.

It is anticipated that most of the construction workforce would come from within the area and

would not relocate their families. Those construction and operations workers potentially

relocating to the region would most likely reside throughout the region and, as a result, would

not be in sufficient concentrated pockets to place an undue burden on the existing

infrastructure. Based on the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the |

impact of the construction and operations workforce on education facilities in West Feliciana

Parish and the area would be easily accommodated by the existing school systems and

facilities.

Summary of Infrastructure and Community Services

Based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent |

review, the staff concludes that impacts on infrastructure and community services from

construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units at the River Bend site would be |

SMALL to MODERATE adverse.

Summary of Socioeconomics

In summary, on the basis of information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC |

staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of the construction and

operations at the River Bend site on socioeconomics would be SMALL, with the exceptions that

the transportation impacts during construction likely would be adverse and MODERATE and

that the impacts on the West Feliciana Parish economy and tax base likely would be beneficial

and LARGE. Some of the increase in taxes may have to be used to improve local |

transportation infrastructure. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-56 April 2006

8.5.1.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The footprint for a new generating facility at the River Bend site does not appear to have any

historic properties located within areas likely to be affected by new construction and operations

(AEC 1974a). In 1972, Gulf States Utilities Company commissioned an archaeological survey

of portions of the planned River Bend Station. No archaeological deposits were encountered

during that survey (Neuman 1972). In 1978, Gulf States Utilities commissioned two

transmission line surveys. Prehistoric sites were identified within the right-of-way, but not within

the plant boundaries (Neuman 1978a, 1978b). In 1982, personnel from Gulf States Utilities

informed the Louisiana State Archaeologist’s Office of the remains of a 19th century sugar mill

within the plant boundaries. Testing and evaluation of the mill remains conducted in 1983

determined that the site was not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places

(Shuman and Orser 1984). Miscellaneous archaeological surveys conducted over the years in

the area indicate that while sites may exist on the premises, either the sites are not eligible for

listing on the National Register of Historic Places or are located away from areas where new

construction would likely occur. Protective measures would be implemented if historic and/or

cultural resources were discovered during construction or during operations. In the event that

an unanticipated discovery is made, site personnel would be instructed to notify the State

Historic Preservation Officer and would consult with him or her in assessing the discovery to

determine if additional evaluation of the discovery is needed.

There are no significant differences between the Grand Gulf ESP site and the River Bend site

that would make any material difference in the potential for historic properties or other important

| cultural sites to be adversely affected. Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy, and

| the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts on historic and cultural

resources at the River Bend site would be SMALL.

8.5.1.7 Environmental Justice

As part of the evaluation of the potential environmental justice impacts related to the River Bend

site, the staff used information from interviews with community leaders, U.S. Census Bureau,

Housing Assistance Council, and local Internet websites. Sightly over half of the population of

West Feliciana Parish is African-American. About 20 percent of the population live below the

Federal poverty level (Housing Assistance Council 2002). The pathways through which the

environmental impacts associated with the construction of new units at the River Bend site

could affect human populations were ascertained. The staff then evaluated whether minority

and low-income populations could be disproportionately affected by these impacts. The staff

found no unusual resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence agriculture,

hunting, or fishing, through which the populations could be disproportionately affected. In

addition, the staff did not identify any location-dependent disproportionate impacts affecting

these minority and low-income populations.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-57 NUREG-1817

Based on the information provided by Entergy Nuclear, SERI, and the NRC staff’s independent |

review, the staff concludes that the offsite impacts of construction and operation of new units at

the River Bend site to minority and low-income populations would be SMALL. No adverse and |

disproportionately high impacts were identified.

8.5.2 Evaluation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Site

This section covers the staff’s evaluation of the potential environmental impact of siting new

nuclear units within the scope of the SERI PPE at the Pilgrim Nuclear Station (Pilgrim) site.

8.5.2.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Site and Vicinity

The Pilgrim site is located on 647 ha (1600 ac) along the coast of Cape Cod, about 10 km

(6 mi) east southeast of the central business district in the town of Plymouth, Massachusetts. |

The area around the site and the vicinity has become increasingly urbanized since the existing

facility was built, but the area also features coastal forest, cranberry farms, and access to Cape

Cod recreational areas. The new facility would be situated on a bluff above and to the westnorthwest of the existing Pilgrim unit. Because the site of the ESP facility would use a portion |

of the existing Pilgrim site, no land would be preempted for additional facilities built at this site

(SERI 2005). |

The types of impacts of new facility construction and operations (i.e., physical, ecological,

social, and radiological impacts) are likely to be similar to those expected for the Grand Gulf

ESP site. The Pilgrim site is significantly different from Grand Gulf in that it is located within the |

costal zone of Cape Cod and is subject to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), |

as amended. Congress enacted the CZMA to address the increasing pressures of |

over-development upon the nation’s coastal resources. At the Federal level, the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administers the Act. The CZMA encourages States to

preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore or enhance valuable natural coastal

resources such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral

reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using those habitats. Participation by states is voluntary;

however, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has an approved coastal zone management |

program. The staff assumed that SERI would comply with all provisions of the CZMA as

implemented in the Cape Cod region. Based on the information provided by SERI and the NRC |

staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts on the site and vicinity

of construction and operations would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-58 April 2006

Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

| The existing 345-kV transmission line runs south-southeast from the Pilgrim site, crossing

| Commonwealth Highway 3, then turning west and continuing another 0.8 km (0.5 mi) to a

| substation near Long Pond Road, covering 7.6 km (4.75 mi). This transmission line right-of-

| way traverses rural coastal forested lands. The existing right-of-way crosses land currently

| zoned residential (0.4 to 0.8 ha (1 to 2 ac)) (40,000 to 80,000 sq ft lots). From the substation at

| 7.6 km (4.75 mi) from the Pilgrim switchyard, rights-of-way exit to the north and to the south

| and traverse lands zoned for conservation and passive recreation. Section 3.3 discusses the

| regulatory procedure required to link new large generation to the grid. The issues that could

| result in potential impacts of construction and operation in these transmission line rights-of-way

| (i.e., physical and ecological impacts) would be similar to those land-use impacts of

| construction and operation in the transmission line rights-of-way and offsite areas associated

| with the Grand Gulf ESP site. However, the existence of zoning regulations and the higher

| density of inhabitants in proximity to the affected rights-of-way distinguish the Pilgrim site from

| the Grand Gulf ESP site. Therefore, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts of

| transmission system construction associated with a new ESP facility could range from SMALL

| to MODERATE. For transmission system operations, impacts would be SMALL.

8.5.2.2 Water Use and Quality

Water Use

The Pilgrim site is located adjacent to Cape Cod Bay. Construction activities for new nuclear

units at Pilgrim would have similar water use impacts (i.e., physical and ecological impacts) to

Grand Gulf and would be bounded by the operational impacts. During operation, the

consumptive use of water from the cooling towers would be very small compared to the supply

available in the ocean; however, there are concerns with Pilgrim’s existing level of entrainment,

| which could increase. Cooling towers in a salt water environment use fewer cycles of

concentration than would be required with a similar cooling tower using fresh water. Therefore,

the intake flow rate of makeup water and discharge flowrate of blowdown water are expected to

| be higher than at Grand Gulf. The staff concludes that the impacts on surface-water use and

water supply at the Pilgrim site would be SMALL given the water supply available.

Water Quality

Construction activities for new nuclear units sited at Pilgrim would follow best management

practices and have similar water-quality impacts as the construction at Grand Gulf, which would

be bounded by the operational impacts. The additional heat from the relatively small amount of

blowdown water would be commingled with the discharge of the existing Pilgrim Station. This

| addition would marginally increase the size of the current thermal plume. Thermal and

chemical discharges to Cape Cod Bay would be regulated by the Massachusetts Department of
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-59 NUREG-1817

Environmental Protection and EPA via an NPDES permit issued to protect the environment. |

Since the combined discharge represents a very small fraction of the water volume, the staff

concludes that the impacts on water quality at the Pilgrim site would be SMALL. |

8.5.2.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

Construction Impacts

The western portion of the Pilgrim site is largely undeveloped, consisting primarily of forest that

has been harvested multiple times and was burned in 1957. The most extensive plant

community on the Pilgrim site and in the surrounding region is oak-pine forest, which covers

most of the western portion of the site. Small tracts of permanently moist soil support plant

species not associated with oak and pine forest, such as stands of red maple (Acer rubrum). 

Small tracts of other forest communities are also found onsite, such as black locust (Robinia

pseudoacacia). Only very small ponds and artificially created wetlands occur on the Pilgrim site

(south of the plant), in contrast to bogs and lakes that are a common feature of the surrounding

landscape (AEC 1974b).

It is assumed that a new generating facility would be located on the western portion of the

Pilgrim site and would thus primarily affect the oak and pine forest habitat, and that the small

ponds and artificial wetlands would not be affected. Consequently, the impacts on habitat from |

construction of a new generating facility on the Pilgrim site are expected to be minor. |

Potential construction impacts, such as erosion and dust generation, would be typical of large

construction projects. These impacts could be mitigated using standard industrial procedures

and best management practices. Standard practices, such as silt fences to control

sedimentation and water sprays to limit dust generation, should be adequate to protect

wetlands and other ecological resources on and in the vicinity of the site.

One transmission line right-of-way, extending a total length of 8 km (5 mi) (AEC 1974b) and

covering 70 ha (173 ac) (NRC 1996), currently serves the Pilgrim site. It traverses rural coastal

forest and does not cross any land known to be designated for special uses such as wildlife |

refuges or state natural areas. It is assumed this transmission line would not have the capacity |

to carry the power that would be generated by a new generating facility, and that a transmission

system upgrade including new transmission lines and an additional right-of-way would be

needed. It is assumed that any additional right-of-way would be an expansion, or doubling, of

the existing right-of-way. Although land cover details are unknown for the transmission line |

right-of-way, the terrestrial ecological impacts associated with the expansion would be expected

to be small, given the relatively short length of the right-of-way. |

Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy, and the NRC staff’s independent review, the |

staff concludes that impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from construction of a new |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-60 April 2006

generating facility at the Pilgrim site and construction associated with possible expansion of the

| existing Pilgrim transmission line right-of-way would be SMALL.

Threatened and Endangered Species

| The Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species that may occur in the vicinity

of the Pilgrim site include one turtle, the Plymouth population of the redbelly turtle (Chrysemys

rubriventris bangsi), and three birds: the roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii), the Atlantic

coast breeding population of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and the bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Table 8-9) (FWS 2004b).

| The redbelly turtle, a large, freshwater basking turtle of deep, coastal plain ponds, is restricted

| to approximately 17 ponds of varying sizes and one river site in Plymouth County,

| Massachusetts (FWS 1994; MNHESP 1995a). The current known range of the turtle overlaps

| the Pilgrim site (FWS 1994), and the species is known to occur within 3.2 km (2 mi) (Table 8-9)

| (MDFW 2004). Designated critical habitat for the species is located approximately 4.8 km

| (3 mi) to the southwest (FWS 1994). Therefore, the turtle could potentially occur on the Pilgrim

| site. Consequently, if construction of a new generating facility on the Pilgrim site were to affect

| the small ponds and wetlands and/or adjacent upland areas, which are typically important for

| egg laying and movement away from the ponds, it could potentially affect the species, if in fact

| the species is present.

| Approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) of the Pilgrim transmission line right-of-way crosses critical habitat

| for the redbelly turtle (AEC 1974b; 45 FR 21828; FWS 1994). Within the critical habitat, the

| transmission line passes adjacent to a cranberry bog and otherwise crosses upland areas

| (FWS 1994). Expansion of the existing Pilgrim transmission line right-of-way could affect

| critical habitat via disturbance of vegetation and soils. Indirectly, this could adversely affect the

| species via destruction of basking, nesting, and overwintering areas around ponds and

| alteration of water quality resulting from erosion/siltation.

| The Federally protected roseate tern is a colonial species that in Massachusetts prefers to nest

along islands, coastal beaches, and inshore waters (MNHESP 1988a). The tern is known to

occur beyond 3.2 km (2 mi) but within 16 km (10 mi) of the Pilgrim site (Table 8-9)

(MDFW 2004) on Plymouth Bay (MNHESP 1988a). Because of this distance, it is not

anticipated that construction of a new generating facility at the Pilgrim site would affect the tern. 

| The Pilgrim transmission line right-of-way is located more than 3.2 km (2 mi) from this tern

| colony. Thus, it is not anticipated that expansion of the right-of-way would affect the tern. 

There is no proposed or designated critical habitat for the tern (52 FR 42064).

| The Atlantic coastal breeding population of the piping plover in Massachusetts requires sandy

| coastal beaches for nesting that are relatively flat and free of vegetation (MNHESP 1990a).

| The plover is known to occur beyond 3.2 km (2 mi) but within 16 km (10 mi) west of the Pilgrim
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-61 NUREG-1817

Table 8-9. Terrestrial Federally Listed and State-Listed Species Occurring in the Vicinity of the

Pilgrim Site

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a)

Distance from the 

Pilgrim Site

(b) Source

Birds

Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper

sparrow

ST beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Charadrius melodus piping plover

(Atlantic coast

population)

FT/ST beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004;

FWS 2004b

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle FT/SE beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004;

FWS 2004b

Pooecetes gramineus vesper sparrow ST beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Sterna dougallii roseate tern FE/SE beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004;

FWS 2004b

Reptiles

Emydoidea blandingii Blanding’s turtle ST beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Pseudemys rubriventris

 bangsi

Plymouth redbelly

turtle

FE/SE <3.2 km (2 mi) MDFW 2004;

FWS 2004b

Moths and Butterflies |

Acronicta albarufa barrens

daggermoth

ST beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Cicinnus melsheimeri Melsheimer’s sack

bearer

ST beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Erynnis persius persius persius duskywing SE beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Hypomecis buchholzaria Buchholz’s gray SE beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Zanclognatha martha pine barrens

zanclognatha

ST beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Damselflies

Enallagma recurvatum pine barrens bluet ST beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Plants

Calamagrostis pickeringii reed bentgrass SE beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-62 April 2006

Table 8-9. (contd)

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a)

Distance from the 

Pilgrim Site

(b) Source

Carex striata brevis Walter’s sedge SE beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Eupatorium leucolepis

 novae-angliae

New England

boneset

SE beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Isoetes acadiensis acadian quillwort SE beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Lipocarpha micrantha dwarf bulrush ST beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Ophioglossum pusillum adder’s-tongue

fern

ST <3.2 km (2 mi) MDFW 2004

Rhynchospora inundata inundated hornsedgeST beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Rhynchospora nitens short-beaked baldsedgeST beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Rhynchospora torreyana Torrey’s beaksedgeSE beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

Sphenopholis pensylvanica swamp oats ST beyond 3.2 km (2 mi)

but within 16 km (10 mi)

MDFW 2004

(a) Federal status rankings developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under the Endangered

Species Act, FE = Federal endangered, FT = Federal threatened (FWS 2004b). State status rankings

developed by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW), SE = State endangered,

ST = State threatened (MDFW 2004).

(b) Distances provided by MDFW (2004).

| site (Table 8-9) (MDFW 2004) on Plymouth Bay (FWS 1996; MNHESP 1990a) where it likely

| nests within the roseate tern colony discussed above. Because of this distance, construction of

| a new generating facility at the Pilgrim site would not be expected to impact the plover. The

| Pilgrim transmission line is located more than 3.2 km (2 mi) from this plover colony. Thus,

| expansion of the existing Pilgrim transmission line right-of-way would also not be expected to

| impact the plover. There is no proposed or designated critical habitat for the Atlantic coastal

| breeding population of the piping plover (FWS 1996).

| Bald eagles usually inhabit coastal areas, estuaries, and larger inland waters in Massachusetts

| (MNHESP 1995b). The bald eagle is known to occur beyond 3.2 km (2 mi) but within 16 km

| (10 mi) of the Pilgrim site (Table 8-9) (MDFW 2004). Year-round range occurs to the southwest

| of the Pilgrim site and an historical breeding site and winter range to the southeast (MNHESP

| 1995b). Because of this distance, construction of a new generating facility at the Pilgrim site
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-63 NUREG-1817

would not be expected to impact the eagle. The Pilgrim transmission line is located more than |

3.2 km (2 mi) from the eagle areas noted above. Thus, expansion of the existing Pilgrim |

transmission line right-of-way would not be expected to impact the eagle. There is no proposed |

or designated critical habitat for the bald eagle in the area of the Pilgrim site. |

Two State-listed threatened birds are known to occur beyond 3.2 km (2 mi) but within 16 km

(10 mi) of the Pilgrim site: the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) and the

vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) (Table 8-9) (MDFW 2004). The grasshopper sparrow

(MNHESP 1986a) and vesper sparrow (NJDFW 2004c) are species of open fields. The only

habitat on the Pilgrim site similar to open fields is grass meadow. However, because this

habitat type appears to comprise less than 3 percent of the site (AEC 1974b), it is unlikely that

the grasshopper or vesper sparrow exist onsite. It is also unlikely that these species exist along

the Pilgrim transmission line right-of-way because it crosses coastal forest habitat (AEC 1974b). |

Thus, it is not anticipated that construction of a new generating facility at the Pilgrim site or

expansion of the Pilgrim transmission line right-of-way would affect these two sparrow species. |

One State-listed threatened turtle is known to occur beyond 3.2 km (2 mi) but within 16 km |

(10 mi) of the Pilgrim site: Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) (Table 8-9) (MDFW 2004). 

Blanding’s turtle is primarily aquatic, preferring densely vegetated shallow ponds, marshes, or

small streams (MNHESP 1987). Because small ponds (but no marshes and small streams) are

found on the Pilgrim site (AEC 1974b), Blanding’s turtle could occur there and, thus, could be

affected by construction of a new generating facility. The Pilgrim transmission line right-of-way |

crosses coastal forest habitat (AEC 1974b). However, it is unclear if the right-of-way also |

crosses ponds, marshes, or small streams that could support Blanding’s turtle.

Five State-listed threatened or endangered moths and butterflies are known to occur beyond |

3.2 km (2 mi) but within 16 km (10 mi) of the Pilgrim site: barrens daggermoth (Acronicta

albarufa), Melsheimer’s sack bearer (Cicinnus melsheimeri), Persius duskywing (Erynnis

persius persius), Buchholz’s gray (Hypomecis buchholzaria), and pine barrens zanclognatha

(Zanclognatha martha) (Table 8-9) (MDFW 2004). All five species occur in open pitch pine

(Pinus rigida)/scrub oak (Quercus ilicifolia) barrens (Wagner et al. 2003). Barrens daggermoth

and Melsheimer’s sack bearer also occur in scrub oak thickets (Wagner et al. 2003). Persius

duskywing, Buchholz’s gray, and pine barrens zanclognatha likely do not occur on the Pilgrim

site, because pitch pine/scrub oak barrens are not known to occur there (AEC 1974b). 

However, barrens daggermoth and Melsheimer’s sack bearer could potentially occur on the

Pilgrim site, because oak forest and mixed saplings and pole-sized oak stands occur there

(AEC 1974b). Thus, these two species could be directly affected by construction of a new

generating facility on the Pilgrim site if present in the impact area or indirectly via destruction of

host plants. Insufficient detail is available about plant communities to determine whether these

five moths and butterflies could occur along the coastal forest-dominated Pilgrim transmission |

line right-of-way (AEC 1974b).
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-64 April 2006

| One State-threatened damselfly is known to occur beyond 3.2 km (2 mi) but within 16 km

(10 mi) of the Pilgrim site: pine barrens bluet (Enallagma recurvatum) (Table 8-9)

(MDFW 2004). Pine barrens bluet appears to be restricted to ponds on the coastal plains

(MNHESP 2003). Because small ponds are found on the Pilgrim site (AEC 1974b), pine

barrens bluet could occur there and, thus, could be affected by construction of a new

| generating facility. The Pilgrim transmission line right-of-way crosses coastal forest habitat

(AEC 1974b). However, it is unclear if it also crosses ponds on the coastal plains, marshes, or

small streams that could support pine barrens bluet.

| Only one State-listed threatened or endangered terrestrial plant species is known to occur

within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the Pilgrim site: adder’s tongue fern (Ophioglossum pusillum)

(Table 8-9) (MDFW 2004). Adder’s tongue fern in Massachusetts is found in ecologically

diverse sites (boggy meadows, acidic fens [sphagnous areas with seeping groundwater],

borders of marshes, wet fields, and moist woodland clearings) (MNHESP 1990b). Because

small ponds and developed wetlands occur on the Pilgrim site, adder’s tongue fern could occur

there and, thus, could be affected by construction of a new generating facility. However, it is

| unclear whether the transmission line right-of-way also crosses wet habitats that could support

adder’s tongue fern.

| Nine other State-listed threatened or endangered terrestrial plant species are known to occur

beyond 3.2 km (2 mi) but within 16 km (10 mi) of the site: reed bentgrass (Calamagrostis

pickeringii), Walter’s sedge (Carex striata brevis), New England boneset (Eupatorium leucolepis

novae-angliae), acadian quillwort (Isoetes acadiensis), dwarf bulrush (Lipocarpha micrantha),

inundated horn-sedge (Rhynchospora inundata), short-beaked bald-sedge (Rhynchospora

nitens), Torrey’s beak-sedge (Rhynchospora torreyana), and swamp oats (Sphenopholis

pensylvanica) (Table 8-9) (MDWF 2004). Seven of these species – Walter’s sedge,

New England boneset, acadian quillwort, dwarf bulrush, inundated horn-sedge, short-beaked

bald-sedge, and Torrey’s beak-sedge – occur along the shorelines of or within freshwater

| ponds (MDCNAP 2004a, 2004b; MNHESP 1986b, 1988b, 1988c, 1990c, 1993). Reed

bentgrass occurs along the shorelines of coastal, nontidal, nonforested wetlands

(MDCNAP 2004c). Swamp oats occur in a variety of wet places, including swamps

(ODNR 2004). Because small ponds and developed wetlands occur on the Pilgrim site, these

nine species could occur onsite and, thus, could be affected by construction of a new

| generating facility. The Pilgrim transmission line right-of-way crosses coastal forest habitat

(AEC 1974b). However, it is unclear whether it also crosses wet habitats that could support

these species.

| Based on potential impacts on the Federally listed redbelly turtle and potential impacts on 

| many of the State-listed species, the staff concludes the impacts on threatened and

endangered species from construction of a new generating facility on the Pilgrim site and

| possible expansion of the existing transmission line right-of-way would be MODERATE to

LARGE.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-65 NUREG-1817

Operational Impacts

Impacts on terrestrial resources that may result from operation of one or more new nuclear |

units at the Pilgrim site include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. 

The Pilgrim plant currently employs a once-through cooling system, but cooling towers would

be employed for a new nuclear unit(s). Uncertainty exists regarding the potential impacts of salt

drift deposition on crops and ornamental vegetation and native plants from cooling towers that

draw salt water with a salinity of over 30 ppt. The impacts of salt drift from cooling towers using |

fresh water were evaluated in the GEIS (NRC 1996) and were found to be of small significance

for all plants. The EPA also concluded that impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation from

salt drift from plants using estuarine/tidal makeup water would be minimal (EPA 2001). 

However, because of the uncertainty surrounding cooling towers that use salt water, it should

be conservatively concluded that there could be damage to offsite vegetation resulting from salt

drift from operation of cooling towers for the new nuclear unit(s) at the Pilgrim site.

The impacts associated with bird collisions with cooling towers for existing power plants were

evaluated previously in the GEIS (NRC 1996) and were found to be small for all plants,

including those with multiple cooling towers of various types. The staff is not aware of any new

information that would cause it to modify its earlier conclusion. On these bases, for the

purposes of consideration of alternative sites, the impacts of bird collisions with cooling towers

resulting from operation of one or more new nuclear units at the Pilgrim site would be

negligible.

For both natural and mechanical draft cooling towers, the noise level from cooling tower

operation is anticipated to be 55 dBA at 300 m (1000 ft) (SERI 2005). The noise level for dry |

cooling towers is somewhat higher. However, these noise levels are all 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 Pilgrim site would not be likely to

disturb wildlife beyond 300 m (1000 ft) from the source. Further, impacts within this distance, if

any, would be considered negligible owing to the large expanses of open habitat into which

mobile wildlife species could move if disturbed. Consequently, the impacts of cooling tower

noise on wildlife from operation of one or more new nuclear units at the Pilgrim site would be

minimal.

The impacts usually associated with transmission line operation consist of bird collisions with

transmission lines. The staff assumes that the addition of new lines for expansion of the |

transmission system for one or more new nuclear units at the Pilgrim site would present few

new opportunities for bird collisions, and that no measurable reduction in local bird populations

would result. The issue of bird collisions with transmission lines was evaluated previously in the

GEIS (NRC 1996) and was found to be small for all facilities, including those with multiple

transmission line rights-of-way with various numbers of transmission lines. Based on the above |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-66 April 2006

| rationale and the associated conclusions presented in GEIS (NRC 1996), the effects of bird

collisions with transmission lines for one or more new nuclear units at the Pilgrim site would

be negligible.

| The impacts usually associated with transmission line right-of-way maintenance (cutting and

herbicide application) consist of erosion/siltation and disturbance of wildlife and wildlife habitat

| and similar impacts where rights-of-way cross floodplains and wetlands. The staff assumes

| that right-of-way maintenance would be conducted similar to current operations, only over a

| wider area. The effects of right-of-way maintenance were evaluated previously in the GEIS

| (NRC 1996) and were found to be small for all plants, including those with transmission line

| rights-of-way of various widths. The staff is not aware of any new information that would cause

it to modify its earlier conclusion. Therefore, general wildlife and wildlife habitat would be

| expected to be minimally affected by right-of-way maintenance in the expanded transmission

line right-of-way. However, it is unknown to what extent the redbelly turtle would be affected by

increasing the area of right-of-way maintenance over the approximately 1.6-km (1-mi) segment

| of Pilgrim transmission line right-of-way that crosses critical habitat for the species. 

| Nonetheless, it is likely that potential impacts on the redbelly turtle (e.g., mortality, destruction

of basking, nesting, and overwintering areas around ponds) and its critical habitat (e.g.,

alteration of water quality resulting from erosion/siltation) from right-of-way maintenance would

be less acute, although more long-term, than the construction impacts resulting from right-of-

| way widening. Therefore, potential impacts on the species from right-of-way maintenance in

| the expanded right-of-way could be minor to modest.

The staff reviewed the operation of one or more nuclear units at the Pilgrim site, including the

associated heat-dissipation system and transmission line operation and right-of-way

maintenance. Because of the potential for salt damage to vegetation from cooling tower drift

| and potential impacts on the Federally endangered redbelly turtle from transmission line right-

| of-way maintenance, the staff concludes that the impacts of operation of one or more nuclear

units at the Pilgrim site on terrestrial resources and threatened and endangered species could

range from SMALL to MODERATE.

8.5.2.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

Construction and Operation Impacts

The staff does not expect that the aquatic resources near the Pilgrim site would be affected

| by the construction and operation of new nuclear unit(s) and associated cooling towers. The

existing intake structure in Cape Cod Bay would be sufficient to withdraw water necessary for

| one or more ESP units using closed-cycle cooling. Discharges to Cape Cod Bay would not

increase substantially over the discharges from the existing unit. Thus, issues with
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-67 NUREG-1817

impingement, entrainment, and heat shock from the current system are not expected to

increase substantially for the operation of new nuclear unit or units. Current dredging activities |

for operation of the existing intake system would have to continue. 

Since 1974, the licensee has identified approximately 68 species through programs on |

impingement and entrainment. Of these species, approximately 26 are of commercial or

recreational value (EPA 2002). Winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) is one of the

species that is important to the commercial and recreational industry in the vicinity of the Pilgrim

Nuclear Station. In response to concerns from entrainment of winter flounder larvae, Entergy |

Nuclear and the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries have been raising flounder in a

hatchery and releasing them into Cape Cod Bay (Galya et al. 2003; Lawton 2000; NEI 2002). 

Operation of new nuclear unit(s) at the Pilgrim site would result in increased use of cooling |

water from Cape Cod Bay by approximately 20 percent over current Pilgrim Nuclear Station

rates. This would increase entrainment of winter flounder larvae approximately proportional to

the amount of water withdrawal. Increased production of hatchery flounder could be used to

mitigate the anticipated increased in larval mortality resulting from the operation of new unit(s). |

Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy, and the NRC staff’s independent review, the |

staff concludes that the overall impacts on aquatic ecological resources from construction of

new nuclear unit(s) and associated cooling towers at the Pilgrim ESP site would be SMALL. |

However, the overall impacts on aquatic ecological resources from operation of new nuclear |

unit(s) and associated cooling towers at the Pilgrim ESP site, considering the potential for

increased entrainment of winter flounder larval would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Federally listed threatened and endangered species are found within the vicinity of Cape Cod

Bay (Table 8-10); however, construction and operation of new nuclear unit(s) are not expected |

to affect the species. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries

identified three species of sea turtles and two species of whales that are known to be

seasonally located in waters off Massachusetts and may be present in the vicinity of the site

(NMFS 2004). The sea turtles include loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), Kemp’s ridley turtle

(Lepidochelys kempii), and leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). The whales include

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) and humpback whale (Megaptera

novaeangliae). No federally threatened or endangered species were identified at the Pilgrim

site by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS 2004b).

One State-listed threatened species has been identified within the vicinity of the Pilgrim site |

(Table 8-10). The American brook lamprey (Lampetra appendix) are primitive jawless, eel-like

fish and are a non-parasitic species of lamprey. They may grow as large as 0.2 m (8 in.). Their

larvae live for 4 to 6 years in fine sediment of backwaters or freshwater streams. When they

metamorphose into an adult, they stop feeding, spawn and die. While the American brook 
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-68 April 2006

| Table 8-10. Aquatic Federally and State-Listed Species Occurring in the Vicinity of the

Pilgrim Site

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a)

Distance from the 

Pilgrim Site

(b) Source(b)

Fish

Lampetra appendix American brook

lamprey

ST <3.2 km (2 mi) MDFW 2004

Mammals

Eubalaena glacialis North Atlantic right

whale

FE 16 km (10 mi) NMFS 2004

| Megaptera novaeangliae humpback whale FE 16 km (10 mi) NMFS 2004

Reptiles

Caretta caretta loggerhead turtle FT 16 km (10 mi) NMFS 2004

Dermochelys coriacea leatherback turtle FE 16 km (10 mi) NMFS 2004

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley turtle FE 16 km (10 mi) NMFS 2004

(a) Federal status rankings developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under the Endangered Species

Act, FE = Federal endangered, FT = Federal threatened. State status rankings developed by the

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW), ST = State threatened (MDFW 2004).

| (b) Distances provided by MDFW (2004) and U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMSF 2004).

lamprey is found in the vicinity of the Pilgrim site, it is not found on the site. Operations and

future construction are not likely to affect the streams within 16 km (10 mi) where the lamprey

may be found. 

The staff is unaware of any incidents involving threatened and endangered species and the

operation of Pilgrim Nuclear Station. No sea turtles or whales have been impinged or entrained

at the Pilgrim Nuclear Station, nor have any of these species been observed in the vicinity of

| the station since biological monitoring began in 1973 (Entergy Services 2005). The additional

| intake flow as a result of new nuclear unit(s) at the Pilgrim site is unlikely to increase the

| probability of impingement of sea turtles and whales. Based on information provided by SERI

| and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the overall impacts on

threatened and endangered aquatic species from construction and operation of new nuclear

unit(s) and associated cooling towers at the Pilgrim site would be SMALL.

8.5.2.5 Socioeconomics

| In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of construction at the Pilgrim site, Entergy Nuclear

undertook a “reconnaissance” survey of the site using readily obtainable data from the Internet

| or published sources. The staff conducted local interviews with knowledgeable local officials. 

No new data were collected. The socioeconomic subsections follow the organizational

structure of the socioeconomic discussions in Sections 2.8, 4.5, and 5.5. The impacts expected

from both construction and station operation are discussed.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-69 NUREG-1817

Physical Impacts

Construction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impact such as noise, odor,

vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emissions. The use of public

roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport construction materials and

equipment. Some of these roadways, such as the Pilgrim access road and Massachusetts

Route 3A with which it connects, could require some minor repairs or upgrading (such as

patching and filling potholes) to allow safe transport of these materials and equipment. 

However, no extensive work is planned for the existing roads. It is expected that all

construction activities would occur within the existing Pilgrim site. Offsite areas that would

support construction activities (for example borrow pits, quarries, and disposal sites) are

expected to be already permitted and operational. Impact on those facilities from construction |

of the new unit(s) would be small and incremental and associated with their normal operation. |

Potential impacts from station operation would include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal

emissions, and visual intrusions. There would be a significant visual intrusion because the |

existing site does not have cooling towers and cooling towers would be proposed for any new |

units. The new unit(s) would produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling tower fans, |

transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard equipment, and traffic associated with

construction and operation of the new unit(s) would also produce noise. SERI states that any |

noise coming from the proposed Grand Gulf ESP site would be controlled in accordance with

standard noise protection and abatement procedures (SERI 2005). By inference, this is also |

expected to apply to the Pilgrim site. Regulations concerning noise limits can be found in

310 CMR 7.10: Noise, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulations. 

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 and from

the Pilgrim site (SERI 2005). |

The new unit(s) would have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power systems. Permits |

obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions comply with regulations. In

addition, the generators would be operated on a limited short-term basis. During normal plant

operation, the new unit(s) would not use a significant quantity of chemicals that could generate |

odors exceeding odor threshold values. Appropriate speed limits would minimize the dust

generated by the commuting workforce (SERI 2005). |

Construction activities would be temporary and would occur mainly within the boundaries of

the Pilgrim site. Offsite impacts would represent small incremental changes to offsite services

supporting the construction activities. During station operations, noise levels would be

managed by complying with local ordinances. Air quality permits would be required for the

diesel generators, and chemical use would be limited, which should help minimize production of
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-70 April 2006

| odors. Based on the information provided by SERI and the NRC staff’s independent review, the

| staff concludes that the physical impacts of construction and operation would be SMALL to

| MODERATE.

Demography

The population base is considered to be the population of significant population centers within a

80-km (50-mi) radius of the Pilgrim site. The combined population of the Boston Metropolitan

| Statistical Area is over six million people (USCB 2004). The 2000 U.S. Census reported the

population within the five counties nearest the Pilgrim site (Plymouth, Barnstable, Suffolk,

Norfolk, and Middlesex Counties) to be about 3.5 million, and the Massachusetts Institute for

Social and Economic Research middle population projection series projected the counties to

grow by approximately 6 percent to 3.7 million by 2020 (MISER 2004).

| Entergy Nuclear (Entergy Nuclear 2001) assumed that 75 percent of the resident construction

| workforce of 2835 is expected to already live in the region, and the projected 2000 people who

might relocate to the region would represent a small percentage of the larger population base. 

| While an unknown percentage of the station operation workforce would be expected to relocate

| into the region, the increase is a small percentage of the total base population, and they would

| probably reside throughout the region. Based on the information in the SERI environmental

| report (SERI 2005), the Early Site Permit Selection Committee Notebook (Entergy Nuclear

| 2001), and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the demographic

| impacts within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the region resulting from construction and operation

would be SMALL.

Social and Economic Impacts

Economy

| The Pilgrim site is located in the town of Plymouth in Plymouth County, which is much smaller

than the Boston metropolitan area, approximately 64 km (40 mi) to the north. This part of

Massachusetts is growing quickly, in part because of the suburbanization of Boston and the fact

that the Cape Cod Commission acts as a strong constraint on growth on nearby Cape Cod. 

Tourism is a primary economic driving force in the Plymouth County area, with about 10,000 to

| 15,000 people living in summer rental housing. About 3500 people are employed in the tourism

industry out of 13,300 employed in the county. Other effects of tourism include $80 million in

| payroll, State tax payment of about $17 million, and local tax payments of about $15 million

(TIA 2003). In recent years, the regional economy has become more diversified and includes

major businesses, financial and health care components, and a growing “high-tech” sector. 

| Local industrial parks are reportedly fully occupied (Scott 2004b). The local economic

| development leaders consider construction and operation of additional unit(s) at the Pilgrim site

to be incompatible with the current tourism-based economy and their economic plans for the
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-71 NUREG-1817

county (Scott 2004b). Regionally, the service sector now offers the most employment |

opportunities. Construction and operation of new reactors at the Pilgrim site would decrease

the availability of housing in Plymouth County, where new housing and growth control are

already issues.

Based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent |

review, the staff reviewed the impact of station construction and operation on the regional

economy and concludes that the impact would not be noticeable in most of the region except

for Plymouth County, where the impact could be either beneficial or adverse and significant,

depending on how other economic sectors (most noticeably tourism) are affected. The

magnitude of the economic impact would be diffused in the larger economy in the Boston

metropolitan area. With the smaller economic bases of Plymouth County, the economic impact

would be more noticeable.

Entergy Nuclear estimates that it would take 3150 construction workers 5 years to build one or |

more new nuclear units at the Pilgrim site (Entergy Nuclear 2001). SERI is expected to be able |

to attract the necessary workforce for construction activities at the Pilgrim site because of its

proximity to the major population center of Boston. In 2003, the construction industry employed

over 10,500 workers in Plymouth County and over 85,000 in the Boston Labor Market Area

(Massachusetts Division of Career Centers and Division of Unemployment Insurance 2004).

The addition of the proposed new unit(s) would require an increase in the operations workforce |

of 1160 employees. A total of 569 permanent employees currently work at the Pilgrim site

(SERI 2004c), plus numerous additional contractor employees during outages. In its site |

comparison study, Entergy Nuclear stated that it expected 25 percent of the construction labor |

force for the new unit(s) would relocate from outside the region (Entergy Nuclear 2001). Some |

nuclear defense sites are reducing their workforces as they change missions, and workers from |

these sites could be potential pools of labor for the operating workforce at Pilgrim.

Based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent |

review, the staff concludes that there would be little impact on the availability of construction

and operating workers. Construction labor would be available from within the region, and there

would be little problem recruiting the required labor skills to enable the construction of the

nuclear unit(s) at the Pilgrim site. Much of the operations workforce likely would relocate to |

the region.

Taxes

Construction and operations workers would pay income, sales, and use taxes to Massachusetts

and the local governments in the region where sales take place and property taxes to the

counties in which they own a residence. Sales and use taxes would be paid from the sales of

construction materials and supplies purchased for the project and on expenditures of both the
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-72 April 2006

construction and operations workforce for goods and services. SERI has made no estimate of

the day-to-day expenditures that would occur in the region during construction. Corporate

income taxes on profits would also be paid by those companies engaged in construction.

There are two types of property taxes in Massachusetts. The first is the tangible personal

| property taxes paid by contractors during construction of the additional unit(s). This tax is

| based on the value of property owned by the contractors that acquire taxable status in the town

| of Plymouth during the construction period. The second is the real property taxes levied for the

| incremental increase in value to the entire site from the operation of the additional unit(s). It is

expected that the town of Plymouth would be the only beneficiary of the these taxes. Entergy

Nuclear Generation Company currently has a significant but declining impact on the economic

| well-being of Plymouth County. Entergy Nuclear Generation Company is reportedly the second

| largest taxpayer in Plymouth with the existing Pilgrim plant having a negotiated value of

| $125 million under a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement that declines after 2008 (SERI 2004c). 

| The current value of property owned by Entergy Nuclear Generation Company is about one

third the assessed value for the industrial property and 1.7 percent of the $7.3 billion local

assessed value in the municipality of Plymouth (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department

| of Revenue 2004). While the value of new unit(s) would be subject to negotiations of a

payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement, the assessed value of a new plant would be in the vicinity

| of $1 billion, thus increasing the municipal total assessed values by about 14 percent. At the

| 2004 commercial rate of 11.81 mills (Town of Plymouth 2005), the estimated tax bill for the

| property would be $11.8 million per year. Local officials believe that the value of other property,

| especially that related to tourism, might decline in value if a new plant were built (Scott 2004b),

thereby offsetting at least some of this increase. The level of taxes paid would depend on the

outcome of tax negotiations between Entergy and the local officials on the amount of property

taxes, but could noticeably increase the property taxes collected in Plymouth County.

Summary of Social and Economic Impacts

| Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent

| review, the staff concludes that impacts on social and economic resources from construction

| and operation of new nuclear unit(s) at the Pilgrim site would be MODERATE adverse resulting

from the physical and social demands, for example, to MODERATE beneficial resulting from

economy and tax base, for example.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-73 NUREG-1817

Infrastructure and Community Services

Transportation

The general area around the Pilgrim site is served by several major highways, but site access

from the south side of Plymouth is crowded (Scott 2004b). The principal road access to the |

Pilgrim site is via Power House Road from Massachusetts Highway 3A, both of which are

winding, low-speed, two-lane paved roads that pass through wooded areas. 

The construction of new power unit(s) would require significant additions to the workforce. In |

addition, construction materials, wastes, and excavated materials would be transported both to

and from the site. These activities would result in increases in operation of personal-use

vehicles by commuting construction workers, in commercial truck traffic, and in traffic

associated with daily operations. In addition, the level of service would significantly degrade. 

There are no current plans to upgrade either road. No direct rail access is available to the

Pilgrim site, so large equipment would have to be offloaded and transported by road and/or

barge. Pilgrim has an onsite barge slip that can be used for the transport of large loads,

thereby reducing some of the burden on road access.

The Providence Regional Airport in Providence, Rhode Island, and Logan International Airport

in Boston serve the area. These airports provide regular freight and passenger jet services and

are of sufficient size to accommodate the relatively small air shipments normally associated

with a construction project.

The impact of station operation employees on the transportation system would be less than that

incurred during construction of the ESP facilities. However, there would be increases in |

personal-use vehicles by commuting operations staff. Portions of Massachusetts Highway 3A |

may be affected by commuters to the plant site, particularly during shift changes. During new

plant operation, the level of service on Massachusetts Highway 3A and Power House Road

would degrade, but not as significantly as during construction.

Based on a review of information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s |

reconnaissance-level review, the staff concludes that the impacts of a construction workforce

and related transportation of construction supplies and materials on transportation infrastructure

would significantly degrade their level of service during construction. Also, it is possible that,

given the heavy loads carried by vehicles transporting construction materials to the Pilgrim site,

some of the roads may need repair to carry the additional load.

Recreation

The Pilgrim site is clearly an industrial site. However, while its current structures are not

visually obtrusive from any vantage point, the Pilgrim site is quite visible to recreational boaters
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-74 April 2006

and from the residential neighborhoods on highlands along the shoreline to the south of the

existing facilities. Any new facilities would not be able to take advantage of once-through

cooling, so cooling towers would be necessary and would be visually obvious. Traditionally,

visible plumes generated by the operation of cooling towers could cause a negative aesthetic

| effect. As long as any new transmission lines are confined to (possibly expanded) existing

| rights-of-way, as assumed in Section 8.5.2.3, the aesthetic effects of new transmission lines are

| not likely to be significant. 

Housing

| The 2000 U.S. Census reported that over 13,100 housing units out of about 181,500 in

| existence in Plymouth County in April 2000 were vacant; this amounts to a 7.3 percent vacancy

rate (USCB 2004). However, over 8900 units, or 4.7 percent of the total number of units, were

considered seasonal or vacation property (mostly summer residences, and most of which likely

would be vacant in early April), meaning that the “true” number of vacant houses was

considerably lower in Plymouth County. Low vacancy rates are currently a challenge during

| plant outages at the existing Pilgrim plant (Scott 2004b). Given the proximity of the Pilgrim site

to the Boston metropolitan area, housing for construction workers, most of whom will be coming

from within the region, and the operations workforce is expected to be available, although not in

Plymouth itself. The ability of the Plymouth area to supply additional housing for construction

| workers is limited (Scott 2004b).

Public Services

Water Supply and Waste Treatment. Plymouth County has a municipal water supply system

that serves the town of Plymouth and a 269-km2 (104-mi

2

) area. Permitted groundwater wells

supply this system. Water supply needs in the intermediate term can be met, but there is little

| excess capacity (Scott 2004b). 

Most of the construction workforce would come from within the region, so they already are

accounted for in the demand placed on the regional water systems. The station operating

workforce, while relocating to the region, would probably reside throughout the area, so they

| would not affect any one community or jurisdiction. Based on the NRC staff’s independent

review, the staff concludes that the impact of construction and operation on water supply

treatment facilities would not be noticeable.

Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities. In the larger metropolitan area of Boston and in Plymouth

itself, police, fire, and medical facilities would not be materially affected by an increase in the

construction workforce. It is anticipated that many of the construction workers will already live

in the region and would commute to the Pilgrim site. As a result, these workers already are

being served by existing services and facilities.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-75 NUREG-1817

It is anticipated that an unknown percentage of the operations workforce and their families will

come from outside the region. Most likely they would reside throughout the region (although

possibly not in Plymouth because of its limited availability of housing) and would not

concentrate in any one place or jurisdiction. Should this occur, there should not be inordinate

demands placed on police, fire, and medical services and facilities.

Based on the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of |

construction and operations workforce on police, fire, and medical services and facilities would

be easily handled by existing capabilities. Most construction workers already live within the

region. New operations workforce employees would reside throughout the region. As a result,

there should be minimal new demands placed on these services and facilities by either

construction or operations workers.

Social Services. Social services in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are provided in each

county by the Massachusetts Department of Social Services, and a variety of other public and

private social service agencies. During the construction phase at the Pilgrim site, there may be

an increased demand for social services.

Generally, construction and operation of new nuclear unit(s) at the Pilgrim site would be |

viewed as beneficial economically to the disadvantaged population segments served by

Massachusetts Department of Social Services. The construction workforce associated with the

Pilgrim site would be relatively higher paid than other employment categories in the region. 

Construction and operation of new unit(s) should increase employment through the multiplier |

effect (see Section 4.5.3.1), projected by Entergy Nuclear at 1260 jobs during the construction |

period (Entergy Nuclear 2001), and may enable the disadvantaged population to improve their |

social and economic position by advancing to higher paying jobs. At a minimum, the

expenditures of the construction and operations workforce in the counties for food, services,

etc., could, through the multiplier effect, increase the number of jobs that could be filled by

members of the disadvantaged population. This would have a beneficial economic impact on

the economically disadvantaged population of the region, which should decrease the demand |

for social services. There could be an initial increase in demand for social services at the

beginning of the construction period, but this is considered manageable and limited in extent.

Education

The Plymouth school system has just over 8750 students (Massachusetts Department of

Education 2004a). There currently is significant overcrowding in the system (Scott 2004b), and |

the system is ranked slightly below the median (i.e., 188 out of 320) of Massachusetts school

districts in spending (Massachusetts Department of Education 2004b). In the other counties

and cities of the region, it is anticipated that the construction and operations workforce would

affect school infrastructure minimally. The reasons are that many construction workers already

live within the region. Entergy Nuclear estimates that the number of persons added to the |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-76 April 2006

region during construction would be 2000, 610 of whom are likely to be children (Entergy

Nuclear 2001), and most of whom would not be attending Plymouth schools. The operations

workforce, while coming from outside and relocating into the region, would probably reside

throughout the region, thus placing little demand on school infrastructure as a result.

Summary of Infrastructure and Community Services

| Based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent

review, the staff concludes that impacts on infrastructure and community services from

| construction and operation of new nuclear unit(s) at the Pilgrim site would be MODERATE.

Summary of Socioeconomics

| In summary, based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s

independent review, the staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts of construction and

operation of new reactors on the region surrounding the Pilgrim site would be SMALL, except in

Plymouth County. In Plymouth County, the exceptions are as follows: the impacts on the tax

| base of the town of Plymouth during operations would be beneficial and MODERATE; the

impacts on the economy of Plymouth County may be either beneficial or adverse, depending on

how other sectors of the economy react, and up to MODERATE in extent; local transportation

and housing availability are likely to be adversely affected and the effect is likely to be

MODERATE.

8.5.2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The area at the Pilgrim site where new reactors would be built and operated does not appear to

be the location of any historic properties (AEC 1974b). Previous archaeological surveys

indicate that while sites may exist on the premises, either the sites are not eligible for listing on

the National Register of Historic Places or they are located away from likely areas of new

construction. Protective measures would be put in place in the event that historic or

archaeological materials are discovered during construction or during operations. In the event

that an unanticipated discovery is made, site personnel would be instructed to notify the State

Historic Preservation Officer and would conduct an assessment of the discovery to determine if

additional work is needed.

No significant differences exist between the Grand Gulf ESP site and the Pilgrim site that would

make any material difference in the potential for historic properties or other important cultural

| sites to be adversely affected. Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and

| the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts on historic and cultural

| resources at the Pilgrim site would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-77 NUREG-1817

8.5.2.7 Environmental Justice

As part of the evaluation of the potential environmental justice impacts related to the Pilgrim

site, the staff used information from the U.S. Census Bureau and local interviews. There is a

very limited minority population in Plymouth County. This population is concentrated in the

vicinity of Brockton (NRC 2004b) and makes up only about 12 percent of the total population |

(USCB 2004). The pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with the

construction of one or more additional new nuclear units at the Pilgrim site could affect human |

populations were ascertained. The staff then evaluated whether minority and low-income

populations could be disproportionately affected by these impacts. The staff found no unusual

resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing,

through which the populations could be disproportionately affected. In addition, the staff did not

identify any location-dependent disproportionate impacts affecting these minority and

low-income populations. 

Based on the information provided by Entergy Nuclear, SERI, and the NRC staff’s independent |

review, the staff concludes that the offsite impact of construction and operation of new unit(s) at |

the Pilgrim site to minority and low-income populations would be not be evident. At the 2000

U.S. Census, Plymouth County had a lower percentage of low-income persons (6.6 percent) |

than did Massachusetts (9.9 percent), which in turn had a lower percentage than the nation

(12.4 percent). However, there are a few low income block groups concentrated in Brockton

and also one centered on the East Wareham-Onset area (USCB 2005a). No adverse and |

disproportionately high impacts were identified. Impacts in the region would be SMALL.

8.5.3 Evaluation of the FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Site

This section covers the staff’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting one or |

more new nuclear units within the scope of the SERI PPE at the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear |

Plant site (FitzPatrick).

8.5.3.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Site and Vicinity

The FitzPatrick site is located on 360 ha (900 ac) along the shore of Lake Ontario, about 11 km

(7 mi) east-northeast of Oswego, New York. The area around the site and the vicinity is known

as Nine Mile Point and is shared with the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. In the past, the land

in the vicinity of the existing FitzPatrick plant was farmed, but it has been fallow since initial

construction of the plant and is now second-growth forest and brush. The new ESP facility
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-78 April 2006

would be situated next to or just east of the existing plant. Because the site of the ESP facility

would use a portion of the existing FitzPatrick site, no land would be preempted for additional

| facilities (SERI 2005). 

The types of impacts of new facility construction and operations (i.e., physical, ecological,

social, and radiological impacts) are likely to be similar to those expected for the Grand Gulf

| ESP site. The FitzPatrick site is different from Grand Gulf in that it is located within the costal

zone of Lake Ontario and is subject to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Congress

enacted the CZMA to address the increasing pressures of over-development upon the nation’s

coastal resources. At the Federal level, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

administers the Act. The CZMA encourages States to preserve, protect, develop, and, where

possible, restore or enhance valuable natural coastal resources such as wetlands, floodplains,

estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using

| those habitats. Participation by States is voluntary, however, the state of New York has an

approved coastal zone management program. The staff assumed that SERI would comply with

all provisions of the CZMA as implemented in the Lake Ontario region. Based on the

| information provided by SERI and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that

the land-use impacts on the site and vicinity of construction and operations would be SMALL.

Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

The existing 345-kV transmission line right-of-way runs east-southeast from the FitzPatrick site,

| crossing rural forested and agricultural lands for approximately 112 km (70 mi), to a substation

| just north of Utica, New York. The existing transmission line right-of-way does not cross any

| land known to be protected or designated for special uses. Section 3.3 discusses the

| regulatory procedure required to link new large electrical generation facilities to the grid. The

| issues that could result in potential impacts of construction and operation in this transmission

| line right-of-way (i.e., physical and ecological impacts) would be similar to those land-use

| impacts of construction and operation in the transmission line rights-of-way associated with the

| Grand Gulf ESP site. However, the potentially affected right-of-way crosses land that is more

| densely populated than the Grand Gulf rights-of-way, therefore, the likelihood of conflicting

| uses may be greater. The staff assumed that zoning regulations also would be in place that

| may affect what activities can occur in the affected right-of-way. Therefore, the staff concludes

| that land-use impacts of transmission system construction associated with a new ESP facility

| could range from SMALL to MODERATE. For transmission system operations, impacts would

be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-79 NUREG-1817

8.5.3.2 Water Use and Quality

Water Use

The FitzPatrick site is located adjacent to Lake Ontario. Construction activities for new nuclear

unit(s) at the FitzPatrick site would have similar water usage impacts (i.e., physical and |

ecological impacts) as the construction at Grand Gulf and would be bounded by the operational

impacts. During operation, the consumptive use of water from the cooling towers would be very

small compared to the supply available in the lake. Therefore, the staff concludes that the

impacts on water use and water supply at the FitzPatrick site would be SMALL. |

Water Quality

Construction of new nuclear unit(s) at the site would follow best management practices and |

have similar water-quality impacts as the construction at Grand Gulf, and would be bounded by

the operational impacts. The additional heat from the relatively small amount of blowdown

water would be commingled with the discharge of the existing FitzPatrick Plant. This would |

marginally increase the size of the current thermal plume. Thermal and chemical discharges to |

Lake Ontario would be regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation via a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued to protect the

environment. Since the combined discharge represents a very small fraction of the water

volume, the staff concludes that the impacts on water quality at the FitzPatrick site would |

be SMALL.

8.5.3.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

Construction Impacts

The FitzPatrick site’s coastal zone is a transitional area between northern boreal forest and

northeastern hardwood forest. The two ecosystems present in this coastal zone are wetlands

and upland areas. The climax community is a deciduous forest with an extensive herbaceous

ground cover. Much of the original mature forest land was cleared in the past for farming, and

a great deal of farm land has since been abandoned. Consequently, the uplands are mostly

second-growth communities in a variety of successional stages. Wetlands are attributable to

relatively impermeable glacial till soils where perched groundwater lies at or near ground

surface at least seasonally or during particularly wet years. Wetlands are, therefore, generally

transitional and include shallow ponds, shrub swamps, wood swamps, and intermittently wet

bottomland-like forests (NMPC 1983).

The FitzPatrick facility occupies the majority of the northwest quarter of the site. The northeast

quarter and southern half of the site consist of forest, old fields, and remnant orchard trees. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-80 April 2006

These sections of the site also contain numerous freshwater forested/shrub wetlands,

freshwater emergent wetlands, and freshwater ponds (Cowardin et al. 1979), totaling from

| about 24 to 32 ha (60 to 80 ac), representing an estimated 8 to 12 percent of the site. These

| wetlands range in size from 0.4 to 10 ha (1 to 24 ac), are widely scattered across the northeast

quarter and the southern half of the site, and are part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) National Wetlands Inventory Database (FWS 2004c).

It is assumed that a new generating facility would be located in the northeast quarter or

southern half of the site. In either of these areas, forests and old fields would be affected. 

| Wetlands would also likely be affected because of their relatively uniform distribution across the

northeast quarter and southern half of the site. Consequently, habitat impacts from

construction of a new generating facility on the site would be expected to be substantial.

The potential impacts from construction, such as erosion and dust generation, would be typical

of large construction projects. These impacts could be mitigated using standard industrial

procedures and best management practices. Standard practices such as silt fences to control

sedimentation and water sprays to limit dust generation would protect wetlands and other

ecological resources in the vicinity.

| One transmission line right-of-way, extending for a distance of 112 km (70 mi) (Section 8.5.3.1)

| and covering 400 ha (988 ac) (NRC 1996), currently serves the FitzPatrick plant. Land cover

| along the transmission line right-of-way consists of forest (63 percent); cropland and pasture

(29 percent); wetlands (8 percent); and recreational areas, residential areas, and highways

(less than one percent) (AEC 1973). It is assumed this transmission line right-of-way would not

have the capacity to carry the power generated by a new facility and that a transmission system

upgrade, including new transmission lines and an additional right-of-way, would be needed. It

is assumed any additional right-of-way would involve an expansion, or doubling, of the existing

| right-of-way. Consequently, a substantial amount of forest habitat, 252 ha (622 ac), could be

lost because of the expansion, and a substantial amount of wetland habitat could be affected.

| Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy, and the NRC staff’s independent review, the

staff concludes that the impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from construction of a new

| generating facility at the FitzPatrick site and associated expansion of the transmission line rightof-way would be MODERATE to LARGE.

Threatened and Endangered Species

No terrestrial animal or plant species that are Federally listed as threatened, endangered, or

proposed for listing, and no associated designated or proposed critical habitat are known to

occur in the vicinity of the FitzPatrick site (NYDFWMR 2004; FWS 2004d). No State-listed

threatened or endangered terrestrial animal or plant species are known to occur within 3.2 km

(2 mi) of the FitzPatrick site (NYDFWMR 2004).
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-81 NUREG-1817

Six State-listed threatened or endangered bird species are known to occur beyond 3.2 km

(2 mi) but less than 16 km (10 mi) from the FitzPatrick site: Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus

henslowii), black tern (Chlidonias niger), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), sedge wren

(Cistothorus platensis), least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), and pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus

podiceps) (Table 8-11) (NYDFWMR 2004). Henslow’s sparrow breeds and migrates in open

fallow and grassy fields, sedge meadows, and pastures (NJDFW 2004a). The black tern

breeds in inland marshes and sloughs with fairly dense marsh vegetation and pockets of open

water (University of Michigan 2004). Northern harriers nest and feed in wet meadows,

grasslands, abandoned fields, and coastal and inland marshes (MNHESP 1990d). The sedge |

wren inhabits wet meadows, freshwater marshes, bogs, and the drier portions of salt or

brackish coastal marshes throughout the year (NJDFW 2004b). The least bittern inhabits

freshwater marshes (MNHESP no date). The pied-billed grebe nests in marshes, lakes, large

ponds, and other wetlands that have an abundance of marsh vegetation. They winter in open

lakes and rivers, estuaries, and tidal creeks (MNHESP 1990e). Because forested wetlands are |

prevalent on the FitzPatrick site and along its transmission line right-of-way, the black tern,

northern harrier, sedge wren, least bittern, and pied-billed grebe could occur there and could

thus be affected by construction of a new generating facility and expansion of the existing rightof-way. Because old fields occur on the FitzPatrick site and cropland and pasture occur along

the transmission line right-of-way, Henslow’s sparrow could occur there and could thus be

affected by construction of a new facility and expansion of the right-of-way. 

All the above avian species, except for the black tern, have been reported in studies at the |

neighboring Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNS), its transmission line right-of-way, and |

the Heritage Station site (a natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating facility located on Lake |

Ontario about 3.2 km (2 mi) southwest of NMPNS, which exhibits comparable wetland types |

and edaphic conditions) as potentially occurring in the general area. However, it is unlikely that

any of these species nest on the NMPNS site, based on available habitat (Constellation |

Energy 2004). Further, these species do not appear in the results of a 1979 field survey of the

NMPNS Unit 2 environs that included the FitzPatrick site (NMPC 1983). It, therefore, appears |

unlikely these species would use the FitzPatrick site for nesting.

Four State-listed threatened or endangered terrestrial plant species are known to occur beyond

3.2 km (2 mi) but less than 16 km (10 mi) from the FitzPatrick site: creeping sedge (Carex

chordorrhiza), giant pine-drops (Cypripedium arietinum), little-leaf tick-trefoil (Desmodium

ciliare), and swamp smartweed (Polygonum setaceum interjectum) (Table 8-11)

(NYDFWMR 2004). Creeping sedge is a wetland obligate in the northeastern United States

and is known to occur in wet sphagnum bogs (USGS 2004). Giant pine-drops occurs in damp 
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-82 April 2006

| Table 8-11. Terrestrial State-Listed Species Occurring More than 3.2 Kilometers (2 Miles) but

Less than 16 Kilometers (10 Miles) from the FitzPatrick Site

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a)

Birds

Ammodramus henslowii Henslow’s sparrow ST

Chlidonias niger black tern SE

Circus cyaneus northern harrier ST

Cistothorus platensis sedge wren ST

Ixobrychus exilis least bittern ST

Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe ST

Plants

Carex chordorrhiza creeping sedge ST

Cypripedium arietinum giant pine-drops SE

Desm odium ciliare little-leaf tick-trefoil ST

Polygonum setaceum interjectum swamp smartweed SE

(a) Status rankings developed by the New York State Division of Fish, Wildlife, and

Marine Resources, SE = State endangered, ST = State threatened

(NYDFWMR 2004).

or mossy woods or bogs, in conifer, hardwood, and mixed forests, and in forested wetlands

(MDCNAP 2004d). Little-leaf tick-trefoil occurs in shrub succession areas with disturbed sands

(NearActica 2005). Swamp smartweed occurs on the open shores of natural lakes and less

frequently in swamp forests (ODNR 1998). Because forests and forested wetlands are

prevalent on the FitzPatrick site and along its transmission line right-of-way, creeping sedge,

giant pine-drops, and swamp smartweed could occur there and could thus be affected by

construction of a new generating facility and expansion of the existing right-of-way. It appears

unlikely that little-leaf tick-trefoil would occur on the FitzPatrick site or along its transmission line

right-of-way because shrub succession areas are not known from there. 

| Surveys were conducted in 1991 and 1999 for State-listed threatened and endangered plant

species at the Heritage Station site and none were found. Constellation Energy (2004)

considers the results of these surveys to indicate that these plant species are unlikely to occur

| on the NMPNS site because the habitat types present are essentially the same. It is assumed

the results of the Heritage site surveys would also apply to the neighboring FitzPatrick site. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-83 NUREG-1817

Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy, and the NRC staff’s independent review, the |

staff concludes that the impacts on threatened and endangered species from construction of a |

new generating facility on the FitzPatrick site and possible expansion of the existing

transmission line right-of-way would be SMALL. |

Operation Impacts

Impacts on terrestrial resources that may result from operation of one or more new nuclear |

units at the FitzPatrick site include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. 

The FitzPatrick plant currently employs a once-through cooling system, but cooling towers

would be employed for a new nuclear unit(s). The impacts of cooling tower drift and bird

collisions for existing power plants were evaluated previously in the GEIS (NRC 1996) and were

found to be small for all plants, including those with multiple cooling towers of various types. 

The staff is not aware of any new information that would cause it to modify its earlier

conclusions. On these bases, for the purposes of consideration of alternative sites, the impacts

of cooling tower drift and bird collisions with cooling towers resulting from operation of one or

more new nuclear units at the FitzPatrick site likely would be negligible.

For both natural and mechanical draft cooling towers, the noise level from cooling tower

operation is anticipated to be 55 dBA at 300 m (1000 ft) (SERI 2005). The noise level for dry |

cooling towers is somewhat higher. However, these noise levels are all 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 FitzPatrick site would not be likely to

disturb wildlife beyond 300 m (1000 ft) from the source. Further, impacts within this distance, if

any, would be considered negligible owing to the large expanses of open habitat into which

mobile wildlife species could move if disturbed. Consequently, the impacts of cooling tower

noise on wildlife from operation of one or more new nuclear units at the FitzPatrick site would

be minimal.

The impacts usually associated with transmission line operation consist of bird collisions with

transmission lines. The staff assumes that the addition of new lines for expansion of the |

transmission system for one or more new nuclear units at the FitzPatrick site would present few |

new opportunities for bird collisions, and that no measurable reduction in local bird populations |

would result. The issue of bird collisions with transmission lines was evaluated previously in the |

GEIS (NRC 1996) and was found to be small for all facilities, including those with multiple |

transmission line rights-of-way with various numbers of transmission lines. Based on the above |

rationale and the associated conclusions presented in GEIS (NRC 1996), the effects of bird |

collisions with transmission lines for one or more new nuclear units at the FitzPatrick site would |

be negligible.

The impacts usually associated with transmission right-of-way maintenance (cutting and |

herbicide application) consist of erosion/siltation and disturbance of wildlife and wildlife habitat, |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-84 April 2006

| and similar impacts where transmission line rights-of-way cross floodplains and wetlands. The

| staff assumes that right-of-way maintenance would be conducted similar to current operations,

| only over a wider area. The effects of right-of-way maintenance were evaluated previously in

| the GEIS (NRC 1996) and were found to be small for all plants, including those with

| transmission line rights-of-way of various widths. The staff is not aware of any new information

| that would cause it to modify its earlier conclusion. Therefore, general wildlife and wildlife

| habitat would be expected to be minimally affected by right-of-way maintenance in transmission

| line rights-of-way expanded for one or more new nuclear units at the FitzPatrick site.

The staff reviewed the operation of one or more nuclear units at the FitzPatrick site, including

the associated heat-dissipation system and transmission line operation and right-of-way

| maintenance. Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy, and the NRC staff’s

independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of operation of one or more nuclear

units at the FitzPatrick site on terrestrial resources and threatened and endangered species

would be SMALL.

8.5.3.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

Construction and Operation Impacts

| The aquatic resources near the FitzPatrick site would not be expected to be affected by the

construction and operation of a new nuclear facility and associated cooling towers. The existing

| FitzPatrick intake structure in Lake Ontario would be sufficient for additional water withdrawals

for proposed cooling towers. This system includes an acoustic deterrent system on the intake

structure to discourage fish from approaching the inflow region, an approach that is considered

best available technology for discouraging impingement of aquatic organisms. Intake and

| discharge flow to Lake Ontario would not increase substantially because the new facility would

use closed-cycle cooling. Impingement, entrainment and heat shock from the current system

| are not expected to increase substantially for the operation of new nuclear units. Based on

| information provided by SERI, Entergy, and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff

concludes that the overall impacts on aquatic ecological resources from construction and

| operation of one or more new nuclear units and associated cooling towers at the FitzPatrick site

would be SMALL.

Threatened and Endangered Species

| No Federally listed or proposed threatened and endangered species are found within the

vicinity of the FitzPatrick site. The FWS and NOAA Fisheries did not identify any Federally

listed threatened or endangered species, except for the occasional transient individual, in the

vicinity of the FitzPatrick site (FWS 2004d; NMFS 2004). 
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-85 NUREG-1817

The New York State Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources (2004) has listed three

species of fish that are listed as endangered that might be in the region of the FitzPatrick site:

lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), deepwater sculpin (Myoxocephalus thompsoni), and

round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) (Table 8-12). Mature adult lake sturgeon average

between 0.9 to 1.5 m (3 to 5 ft) in length and 4.5 to 36 kg (10 to 80 lbs) in weight. They have a |

torpedo-shaped body and a sharp, cone-shaped snout. The top and side bony plates (called

scutes) are the same color as the dull grey body. Lake sturgeon spawn in the spring from May

to June in areas of clean, large rubble such as along windswept rocky shores of islands and in

rapids in streams. Lake sturgeon are bottom feeders, eating leeches, snails, clams, other

invertebrates, small fish, and even algae. The cause for the decline of lake sturgeon in Lake

Ontario is uncertain. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation has been |

trying to reestablish populations of lake sturgeon in selected tributaries of Lake Ontario

(NYSDEC 2003b). 

Table 8-12. State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species Reported Within a

16-Kilometer (10-Mile) Radius of the FitzPatrick Site

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a)

Distance from the

River Bend Site(b) Source

Fish |

Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SE 16 km (10 mi) NYDFWMR

2004

Myoxocephalus

thompsoni

deepwater sculpin SE 16 km (10 mi) NYDFWMR

2004

Prosopium cylindraceum round whitefish SE 16 km (10 mi) NYDFWMR

2004

(a) Status rankings developed by the New York State Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources,

SE = State endangered, ST = State threatened (NYDFWMR 2004).

The deepwater sculpin ranges from 0.05 to 0.12 m (2 to 4.7 in.) in length, and is New York’s

largest sculpin species. The fish has a long, tapered body, a blunt snout and a flat head. The

deepwater sculpin spawns year round and is usually found in deep, cold water. It was |

abundant in Lake Ontario until 1980, after which the population declined to the point where it |

was considered extirpated from the lake until it was collected in the late 1990s. The cause of |

the sculpins’ population decline is unknown but may be related to competition and

predation with alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus) and rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax)

(NYSDEC 2003a).
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-86 April 2006

Round whitefish are a medium-sized fish, averaging 0.2-0.3 m (8-12 in.) in length. The shape

of the fish is long and tubular with a nearly round midsection (hence its name). Round whitefish

are bottom feeders, and they eat a variety of invertebrates, small fish, and fish eggs. Round

whitefish spawn in the fall (November-December) over gravel shoals of lakes or at river mouths

(NYSDEC 2003c).

None of these State-listed endangered fish species have been reported in the extensive lake

sampling and impingement monitoring efforts at FitzPatrick, nor at the nearby Nine Mile Point

Nuclear Station and Oswego Steam Station. The lake sampling efforts were conducted through

the 1970s until 1981. The impingement and entrainment studies have been conducted through

| 1997 (Constellation Energy 2004).

| Based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy, and the NRC staff’s independent review,

the staff concludes that the overall impact on threatened and endangered aquatic species from

construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units and associated cooling towers at

| the FitzPatrick site would be SMALL.

8.5.3.5 Socioeconomics

In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of construction at the FitzPatrick site, Entergy

undertook a “reconnaissance” survey of the site using readily obtainable data from the Internet

| or published sources. The NRC staff did the same and also conducted some local interviews

with knowledgeable local officials. No new data were collected. The socioeconomic

subsections follow the organizational structure of the socioeconomic discussions in Sections

2.8, 4.5, and 5.5. The impacts expected from both construction and station operation are

discussed.

Physical Impacts

Construction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor,

vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emissions. The use of public

roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport construction materials and

equipment. However, extensive work is planned to the existing roads or railways, and new

routes are being built to reduce existing bottlenecks in the regional highway system, so no

physical impacts on the existing road net are expected. It is expected that all construction

activities would occur within the existing FitzPatrick site. Offsite areas that would support

construction activities (borrow pits, quarries, and disposal sites, for example) are expected to be

already permitted and operational. Impacts on those facilities from construction of the new

| unit(s) would be a small incremental impact associated with their normal operation.

Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and

| visual intrusions. The new unit(s) would produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-87 NUREG-1817

tower fans, transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard equipment, and noise from

traffic. New York regulations or guidelines regarding noise limits were revised February 2, 2001

(NYSDEC 2001). SERI states in its environmental report (SERI 2005) that any noise coming |

from the Grand Gulf site would be controlled in accordance with standard noise protection and

abatement procedures. By inference, this is also expected to apply to the FitzPatrick site. |

Commuter traffic would be controlled by speed limits. Good road conditions and appropriate

speed limits would minimize the noise level generated by the workforce commuting to the ESP

site (SERI 2005). |

The new unit(s) would have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power systems. Permits |

obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions are in compliance with

regulations. In addition, the generators would be operated on a limited, short-term basis. 

During normal plant operation, the new unit(s) would not use significant quantities of chemicals |

that could generate odors that exceed olfactory threshold values. Good access roads and |

appropriate speed limits would minimize the dust generated by the commuting workforce

(SERI 2005). |

Construction activities would be temporary and would occur mainly within the boundaries of the

FitzPatrick site. Offsite impacts would represent small incremental changes to offsite services

that support the construction activities. During station operations, noise levels would be

managed to local ordinances. Air quality permits would be required for operation of the diesel

generators, and chemical use would be limited, which should limit odors. Based on the

information provided by SERI and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that |

the physical impacts of construction and operation would be SMALL.

Demography

The population base potentially affected is considered to be the population of significant

population centers within 80 km (50 mi) of the FitzPatrick site. The population of Oswego

County is about 122,000 (USCB 2004). The estimated population within 80 km (50 mi) of the

FitzPatrick site is slightly over 943,000 (NRC 2004b). The populations of the 10 counties within |

80 km of the FitzPatrick site are projected to decline by approximately 6 percent by the

year 2030 (NYSIS 2002).

Most (70 percent) of the estimated resident construction workforce of 2835 is expected to come |

from within the region, and those who might relocate to the region (up to 2360 people) would |

represent a small percentage of the larger population base (Entergy Nuclear 2001). While |

some of the station operation workforce is expected to relocate into the region, their numbers |

are small (an unknown percentage of 1160 new operating employees and their families) when |

compared to the total base population, and their locations of residence would probably be

distributed throughout the region. Based on the information in SERI’s environmental report

(SERI 2005), the Early Site Permit Selection Committee Notebook (Entergy Nuclear 2001) |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-88 April 2006

| prepared by Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that

| the demographic impacts within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the FitzPatrick site attributable to

| construction and operation would be SMALL.

Social and Economic Impacts

Economy

The FitzPatrick site is located in an economic area of New York that is in the process of

reinvention and renewal that is organized around clusters of businesses in energy, health care,

manufacturing, and outdoor recreation. The Syracuse labor market area (Oswego, Onodaga,

| Cayuga, and Cortland Counties) had an unemployment rate of 5.3 percent in August 2004,

| while the unemployment rate in Oswego County was somewhat higher at 7.7 percent

(NYSDOL 2004). The economy within the an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the FitzPatrick site is

diverse and mature, with major manufacturing employment in paper and primary metals and

service companies in many sectors. The Oswego area has lost several major manufacturing

plants over the past few years (for example, Néstle in 2003), and community leaders are now

working hard to replace these jobs and further diversify the local economy. The local economic

| development leaders consider additional nuclear unit(s) at the FitzPatrick site to be highly

| compatible with the current economy and their economic plans for the county (Scott 2004b). 

Regionally, the service sector now offers the most employment opportunities. The construction

| and operation of one or more new nuclear units at the FitzPatrick site would be expected to add

to the prosperity of the region, especially Oswego County.

| Based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent

review, the staff reviewed the impacts of station construction and operation on the economy of

the region and concludes that the impacts would only be significant in Oswego County where

the impacts could be positive and noticeable. Much of the economic impacts would be diffused

in the larger economic bases of the central New York region. With the smaller economic base

of Oswego County, the economic impacts would be more noticeable.

| Entergy Nuclear estimates it would take 3150 construction workers 5 years to build one or more

| new nuclear units at the FitzPatrick site (Entergy Nuclear 2001). SERI is expected to be able to

attract the necessary workforce for construction activities at the site because of its proximity to

the major population center of Syracuse, with additional workers available in the Watertown,

Utica-Rome, and Rochester areas. The availability of craft workers for regular construction

projects of longer duration is reported to be good. In the year 2002, about 12,500 construction

workers were employed in the Syracuse labor market area, with several thousand more located

within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the FitzPatrick ESP site (NYSDOL 2004).

| The addition of new unit(s) would require an increase in the operations workforce of

approximately 1160 employees. Currently, approximately 700 permanent employees work at
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-89 NUREG-1817

the FitzPatrick site (SERI 2004c). In its site comparison study, Entergy Nuclear did not state |

what percentage of the operations labor force for the new unit(s) would relocate from outside |

the region (Entergy Nuclear 2001). Some defense nuclear sites are reducing their workforces |

as they change missions, and workers from these sites could be potential pools of labor for the

operating workforce at the new FitzPatrick reactors.

Construction labor would be readily available from within the region, and there should be little

problem recruiting the required labor skills to enable construction of the nuclear unit(s) at the |

FitzPatrick site. Some of the operations workforce likely would already be in the region.

Taxes

Construction and operations workers would pay income, sales, and use taxes to New York and

the local governments in the region where sales take place, and property taxes to the counties

and school districts in which they own a residence. Sales and use taxes would be applied to

the sales of construction materials and supplies purchased for the project and to purchases

made by the construction and operations workforce for goods and services. SERI has made no

estimate of the day-to-day expenditures that would be made in the region during construction. 

During operations, the current plant generates about $150,000 per year in sales and use taxes

(Oswego County Business Magazine 2001). Corporate income taxes on profits would also be

paid by companies engaged in construction at the site.

New York has no personal property tax (Empire State Development 2002), so no tax would be

paid by companies on the value of equipment used during construction of any new nuclear unit

at the site. The local property tax impact is the real property taxes levied for the incremental

increase in value to the entire site from the operation of the additional unit(s). The increase in |

value would depend on how the eventual agreements on assessed value are reached. It is

expected that Oswego County, the town of Scriba, and the Mexico School District would be the

only beneficiaries of the these taxes. Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC currently has a |

significant impact on the tax revenue of governmental entities in Oswego County, paying |

$436,000 to the town of Scriba (out of a budget of roughly $4.2 million), $2.9 million to Oswego

County (out of $50 million total property taxes and payments in lieu of taxes and $150 million

total revenues raised), and $3.9 million to the Mexico School District (out of $9.1 million from

local sources and $31.7 million total from 2001 to 2002) (SERI 2004c; Constellation Energy |

2004; Oswego County 2004; NYSED 2004).

Based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy, and the NRC staff’s independent review, |

the staff concludes that the overall impacts from construction and operation of taxes collected

through the income, sales and use, and property taxes would be noticeable in Oswego County,

Mexico School District, and town of Scriba, but not noticeable elsewhere. The taxes paid, while

substantial, are nevertheless a small sum when compared to the total amount of taxes collected

by New York and local governments in the 80-km region surrounding the site. Depending on
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-90 April 2006

| the outcome of tax negotiations between Entergy and the state of New York on the amount of

property taxes, the staff considers the overall impacts of the property taxes collected in Oswego

County would be significant and beneficial relative to the total amount of taxes the county

collects through property taxes.

Summary of Social and Economic Impacts

| Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent

| review, the staff concludes that impacts on social and economic resources from construction

| and operation of new nuclear unit(s) at the FitzPatrick site would be MODERATE beneficial to

| SMALL beneficial.

Infrastructure and Community Services

Transportation

The general area around the FitzPatrick site is served by several major highways, including

Interstate 90, Interstate 81, and State Highway 481. Oswego is about a 10-minute drive from

the site on good, straight, two-lane roads. The principal road access to the FitzPatrick site is

via County Roads 1 and 1A (Lake Road), which is a two-lane paved road.

The construction of new reactors would require additions to the workforce. In addition,

construction material, waste, and excavated material would be transported both to and from the

site. These activities would result in increases in operation of personal-use vehicles by

commuting construction workers, in commercial truck traffic, and in traffic associated with daily

operations.

| Although neither state nor local governments have level-of-service information for county roads

| in the state of New York, a capacity analysis of area intersections was performed as part of the

application for Certification of a Major Generating Facility Under Article X of the New York State

| Public Service Law for the proposed natural gas-fired Heritage Station, approximately two miles

west of the neighboring Nine Mile Point nuclear site. In the study, the average count for the

segment of County Road 1A from County Road 1 to Lakeview Road was 4900 in 1995. Levelof-service ratings of the approaches for the two intersections closest to the Nine Mile Point site

along County Road 1A for peak use hours ranged from “A” to “C,” with one approach having an

| “F” rating; however, the majority of approaches carried an “A” or “B” rating (Constellation

| Energy 2004). The level-of-service designation on nearby county roads would likely be

degraded (as individual users are significantly affected by interactions with the traffic stream)

during the peak construction period for new nuclear reactors at the FitzPatrick site.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-91 NUREG-1817

Direct rail access is available from CSX Corporation to the FitzPatrick site, so large equipment

and bulk deliveries could be sent via that mode of transportation. There is also a barge slip at

the site that could be used for large equipment |

The Oswego County Airport and the Syracuse-Hancock International Airport serve the area. 

The airport in Syracuse provides regular freight and passenger jet services and is of sufficient

size to accommodate the relatively small air shipments normally associated with a construction

project.

The impacts of station operation employees on the transportation system would be less than

that incurred during construction of the ESP units. However, there would be increases in |

personal-use vehicles by commuting operations staff. Portions of County Road 1, County |

Road 1a, and New York State Route 104 may be affected by commuters to the plant site,

particularly during shift changes. No level-of-service or traffic count information appear to be

readily available for these roads in the vicinity of the FitzPatrick site. County Road 1 was

recently upgraded. Route 104 to New Haven and the town of Mexico is due to be upgraded in

2007 to remove current congestion (Scott 2004b). A degraded level of service indicates that |

the freedom to select speed or freedom to maneuver is diminished.

Based on a review of information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and its own |

reconnaissance-level review, the staff concludes that the impacts of a construction workforce

and related transportation of construction supplies and materials on the transportation

infrastructure at the FitzPatrick site would be noticeable but temporary. Some of the local roads

could have their level of service degraded during construction. Much of the Oswego County

road network has been improved for heavy trucks; however, if heavy loads are carried by

vehicles transporting construction materials to the FitzPatrick site, some of the roads may need

additional repair. The impacts of the operations workforce and related transportation impact

likely would be less. There may be some minor congestion at shift changes.

Recreation

The FitzPatrick site is clearly an industrial site with nearby lake and state park recreation. The

Nine Mile Point reactor site (nearby) already has cooling towers, so new towers would not

create much of a change. Traditionally, visible plumes generated by the operation of cooling

towers could cause a negative aesthetic effect on recreation. As long as any new transmission |

lines are confined to (possibly expanded) existing rights-of-way, as assumed in Section 8.5.3.3, |

the aesthetic effects of new transmission lines are not likely to be significant. Based on the |

information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent review, the |

staff concludes that the impact of construction and operation on aesthetics in the vicinity of the

FitzPatrick site would not be significant.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-92 April 2006

Housing

| Of the 3150 construction workers needed to build one or more new nuclear units at the

| FitzPatrick site, Entergy Nuclear expects that virtually all would be available from the major

| nearby population centers of Syracuse, Watertown, Utica-Rome, and Rochester (Entergy

| Nuclear 2001). A 13.8 percent vacancy rate out of a total 52,800 housing units existed in

Oswego County at the 2000 U.S. Census (USCB 2004). The housing market in the Oswego

| area has been “soft” since about 1993 (Scott 2004b). Given the proximity of the FitzPatrick site

to the Oswego metropolitan area, housing for any additional construction workers, most of

whom will be coming from within the region, and the operations workforce is expected to be

available. During operations, Oswego County and the Oswego area could easily support

| additional housing (Scott 2004b).

| Based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent

review, the staff concludes that the impacts of a construction and operations workforce on the

| demand for housing and housing availability would be a modest positive development in what is

currently a soft housing market. The conclusion is based on approximately 7300 vacant

housing units in Oswego County, existing construction plans, and the proximity of the

FitzPatrick site to the larger Syracuse metropolitan area.

Public Services

Water Supply and Waste Treatment. There are 29 public water districts in Oswego County. 

These districts cover the cities of Fulton and Oswego and the towns of Central Square,

Cleveland, Mexico, Phoenix, Pulaski, Sandy Creek, and Lacona, as well as portions of the

surrounding towns. The total population served is over 50,870, which is over 40 percent of the

total population of the county (the remainder use private wells). These districts obtain their

water from a variety of sources, including directly from Lake Ontario, local wells, and water

purchased from the Onondaga County Water Authority. The main water sources for the public

water districts are Lake Ontario and a variety of groundwater aquifers and associated springs

(Oswego County Department of Planning and Community Development 2000). While there are

districts close to their capacity, in general the decline of manufacturing in the county and

several additions to capacity over the years mean that substantial excess capacity is available.

Most of the construction workforce would come from within the region, so they are already

accounted for in the demands being placed on the local water systems. The station operating

workforce, while relocating to the region, would probably reside throughout the region, so they

| would not particularly affect any one community or jurisdiction. Based on the NRC staff’s

independent review, the staff concludes there would be no noticeable impact of construction

and operation on water supply treatment facilities.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-93 NUREG-1817

Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities. In the larger area of Oswego County, and the towns of |

Texas, Mexico, Syracuse, and in nearby Oswego itself, police, fire, and medical facilities would

not be affected materially by an increase in the construction workforce. Many of the

construction workers are anticipated to live in the region already and would commute to the

FitzPatrick site. As a result, these workers are being served by existing police, fire, and medical

services and facilities already.

An unknown percentage of the approximately 1160 operations workers and their families is

anticipated to come from outside the region. Most likely they would reside throughout the

region and would not concentrate as a group in any one place or jurisdiction. Should this occur, |

there should not be any significant additional demands placed on these services and facilities.

Social Services. A variety of social services in New York are provided in each county by the

New York Department of Family Assistance, Office of Mental Health, Office for the Prevention

of Domestic Violence and others (New York State Citizen Guide 2005). During construction at

the FitzPatrick site, there may be an increased demand for some social services.

Generally, construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units at the FitzPatrick site |

would be viewed as beneficial economically to the disadvantaged population segments served

by the New York Department of Social Services. The new workforce that would be associated

with the FitzPatrick site would be relatively higher paid than workers in other employment

categories in the region. Construction and operation of new unit(s) should increase |

employment, through the multiplier effect (see Section 4.5.3.1) and may enable the |

disadvantaged population to improve their social and economic position by moving up to higher

paying jobs. At a minimum, the expenditures of the construction and operations workforce in

the counties for goods and services could, through the multiplier effect, increase the number of

jobs that could be filled by members of the disadvantaged population. Noticeable new demand

for social and related services as a result of construction and operation of the new facility is

unlikely. Construction and operation would have a beneficial impact on the economically |

disadvantaged population of the region, which should lessen the demand for social services. 

There could be an initial increase in demand for social services at the beginning of the

construction period, but this increased demand is considered manageable and limited.

Education

The 10 Oswego County school systems have just over 25,300 students, and private schools

enroll another 460 students (NCES 2004a). The school districts for the city of Oswego and the

town of Mexico in particular have taken advantage of recently conferred payments in lieu of

taxes on the existing FitzPatrick and Nine Mile Point nuclear plants to upgrade facilities. There

currently is no overcrowding in the systems, and the Oswego and Mexico school systems enjoy

some of the lowest teacher-to-student ratios in the state of New York, high standardized test |

performance (top 10 in New York State), and excellent facilities (Scott 2004b). In the other |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-94 April 2006

counties and cities of the region, it is anticipated that the construction and operations workforce

would minimally impact school infrastructure. The reasons are that many construction workers

| already live within the region. Entergy Nuclear estimates that new population drawn to the

| region during construction would be 2360 persons (Entergy Nuclear 2001), 661 of whom are

| likely to be children. The unknown percentage of the operations workforce moving from outside

and relocating into the region would probably be distributed throughout the region, thus placing

little demand on school infrastructure as a result.

It is anticipated that most of the construction workforce would come from within the area and

would not relocate their families. Those construction and operations workers potentially

relocating to the region would most likely reside throughout the region and, as a result, would

not be in sufficiently concentrated groups to place an undue burden on the existing

infrastructure. 

Summary of Infrastructure and Community Services

| Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s independent

review, the staff concludes that impacts on infrastructure and community services from

| construction and operation of new nuclear unit(s) at the FitzPatrick site would be SMALL to

MODERATE.

Summary of Socioeconomics

| In summary, based on the information provided by SERI, Entergy Nuclear, and the NRC staff’s

independent review, the staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts of the construction and

operations on the region surrounding the FitzPatrick ESP site would be SMALL with the

following exceptions. The impacts on the economy of Oswego County would be MODERATE

beneficial, and the impacts on the tax bases of the three nearest taxing jurisdictions would be

| MODERATE beneficial to SMALL beneficial during construction and MODERATE beneficial

during operations. The impacts on transportation near the plant during construction would likely

be MODERATE adverse during construction. Some additional transportation upgrades may

be necessary.

8.5.3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The footprint for proposed new reactors at the FitzPatrick site does not appear to have any

historic properties located within areas that are likely to be affected by new construction and

| operation. Previous investigations indicate that no historic properties exist on the site

(AEC 1973). Protective measures would be implemented in the event that historic or

archaeological materials are discovered during construction or during operations. In the event

that an unanticipated discovery is made, site personnel would be instructed to notify the State
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-95 NUREG-1817

Historic Preservation Officer and would consult with him or her in conducting an assessment of

the discovery to determine if additional work is needed.

There are no significant differences between the Grand Gulf ESP site and the FitzPatrick site

that would make any material difference in the potential for historic properties or other important

cultural sites to be adversely affected. Based on information provided by SERI, Entergy, and

the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts would be SMALL. |

8.5.3.7 Environmental Justice

As part of the evaluation of the potential environmental justice impacts related to the FitzPatrick |

site, the staff used information from U.S. Census Bureau (USCB 2004), SERI (2005), Entergy |

Nuclear (2001), interviews with local officials (Scott 2004b), and the NRC staff’s independent |

review of local conditions. The Oswego County area has relatively few minority residents

(3.5 percent of the population), and no concentrations of minority residents. Concentrations of

minority residents within 80 km are mostly found at some distance from the FitzPatrick site, in

the Syracuse and Rome-Utica areas. There are two (non-minority) low-income census block

groups within the city of Oswego, but no others in the county (NRC 2004b). The pathways |

through which the environmental impacts associated with the construction of one or more new |

nuclear units at the FitzPatrick site could affect human populations were ascertained. The staff

then evaluated whether minority and low-income populations could be disproportionately

affected by these impacts. The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices,

such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing, through which the populations could be

disproportionately affected. In addition, the staff did not identify any location-dependent

disproportionate impacts affecting these minority and low-income populations.

Based on the information provided by Entergy Nuclear, SERI, interviews, and the NRC staff’s |

independent review, the staff concludes that the offsite impacts of construction and operation of |

one or more new units at the FitzPatrick site to minority and low-income populations would be |

SMALL. No adverse and disproportionately high impacts were identified. |

8.5.4 Generic Impacts Consistent Among Alternative Sites

In evaluating the alternative sites, the staff found certain impact categories would not vary

among sites, and, as a result, would not affect the evaluation of whether an alternative site is

environmentally preferable to the proposed site. These areas include air quality;

nonradiological and radiological effects on members of the public, workforce, and biota; |

postulated accidents; and hydrological alterations. As a result, the impacts of these five areas |

are not evaluated as part of the site-specific alternatives analysis. Instead they are discussed

generically in the following subsections.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-96 April 2006

8.5.4.1 Air Quality Impacts

| Some minor impacts on air quality are likely to occur during construction at the Grand Gulf ESP

site or any of the alternative ESP sites. The impacts will result from fugitive dust emissions

from general construction activities. Elevated ambient air quality levels might also result from

the automotive emissions of workforce traffic and emissions from construction equipment. 

These impacts, which are discussed in Section 2.3.2, are not likely to vary significantly among

the Grand Gulf ESP site and the three alternative sites. In its environmental report, SERI

| (SERI 2005) stated with respect to construction at the proposed ESP site that “...controls would

be initiated to keep air emissions within applicable government standards during construction.” 

Although the environmental report does not address the impacts of construction at the

alternative sites on air quality, the staff would expect SERI to make a similar commitment for

construction at any site. Controls discussed include dust emission controls, burning controls,

and engine emission controls.

Air quality at the Grand Gulf ESP site, the FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, and the River Bend

Station alternative sites is good. None of these sites is in an area that is designated as in

nonattainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for any of the criteria air pollutants

(40 CFR Part 81). The staff concludes that the impacts of construction activities on air quality

at these sites would be SMALL because of the limited duration of the construction activities and

the use of best management practices to limit dust and emissions.

The area around the Pilgrim Nuclear Station alternative site is designated nonattainment for

both the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards. Ozone is associated with emissions from

vehicles. Federal agencies are required by 40 CFR Part 93 to prepare a written conformity

analysis where the total of direct and indirect emissions caused by a proposed Federal action

would exceed established threshold emission levels in a nonattainment area. Estimation of

direct and indirect emissions is beyond the scope of reconnaissance-level information. For the

purpose of evaluating alternative sites, the staff assumes that the construction workforce for the

Pilgrim Nuclear Station alternative site would come from the local area because of the relatively

large population of the area. Consequently, construction of the ESP facility at the Pilgrim

Nuclear Station site would not result in a large increase in vehicle emissions in the area. On

this basis, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction at the Pilgrim Nuclear Station site

would also be SMALL.

The air quality impacts from operating the ESP facility at the proposed site or at any of the

| alternative sites would be limited to those resulting from operation of wet cooling towers, such

| as visible plumes, and pollutant emissions from periodic operation of auxiliary boilers and

| generators. The impacts, which are discussed in Section 5.2 of this EIS, would be similar at the

four sites. SERI would require approval under the existing Federal, State, or local air quality

laws and regulations.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-97 NUREG-1817

8.5.4.2 Nonradiological Health Impacts

Nonradiological health impacts from construction of the proposed unit(s) on the construction

workers at all the alternative sites would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8. The

impacts would include noise, odor, vehicle exhaust, and dust emissions. Plant construction

would be in compliance with all applicable State regulations regarding fugitive dust emissions

and air pollution control. Two out of three of the alternative sites (River Bend Station and

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant) are in rural areas, and construction impacts would be minimal

on the surrounding population. For the third site, Pilgrim Nuclear Station, mitigative actions can

be taken to minimize the impacts of construction on the population. The staff concludes that

health impacts on construction workers and the public resulting from the construction of the |

new unit(s) at any of the alternative sites would be SMALL.

Occupational health impacts on operational employees would be the same for all the alternative

sites. Thermophilic microorganisms would not be a concern at alternative sites for any facilities

using either type of cooling towers. Health impacts on workers from noise would be similar |

among the sites. Noise would be monitored and controlled in accordance with applicable

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. The staff concludes that the

occupational health impacts on construction or operations employees of proposed unit(s) at any |

of the alternative sites are expected to be SMALL.

With respect to transmission systems, the potential exists for impacts on members of the public |

from operation of the transmission system in terms of electrical shock, electromagnetic field

(EMF) exposure, noise, and aesthetics. The impacts at the alternative sites would be similar to |

that evaluated in Section 5.8. The staff expects that all transmission lines, either constructed or

used as part of an existing nuclear site, would meet standards established by the most current

version of the National Electrical Safety Code (IEEE 2001). |

8.5.4.3 Radiological Health Impacts

Exposure pathways for gaseous and liquid effluents from the proposed new unit(s) at the Grand

Gulf ESP site would be similar for the alternative locations. Gaseous effluent pathways would

include external exposure to the airborne plume, external exposure to contaminated soil,

inhalation of airborne activity, and ingestion of contaminated agricultural products. Liquid

effluent pathways would include ingestion of aquatic foods, ingestion of drinking water, external

exposure to shoreline sediments, and external exposure to water through boating and

swimming.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-98 April 2006

Radiation Doses and Health Impacts on Members of the Public

| Section 5.9 provides an estimate of doses to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) and the

general population for the Grand Gulf ESP site during routine operations for both the liquid

effluent and gaseous effluent pathways. The same bounding liquid and gaseous effluent

| releases would be used to evaluate doses to the MEI and the population at each alternative site. 

However, there would be differences in the estimated doses at each of the sites. The

differences would be caused by the use of site-specific atmospheric and water dispersion data,

different exposure pathways, and site-specific population data used in the dose calculations.

| Section 4.9 shows that the estimated dose to the MEI (occupational workers during construction)

at the Grand Gulf ESP site would be well within the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix I. Considering the differences in pathways analyzed, atmospheric and water

| dispersion factors, and population size, doses estimated to the MEI for the alternative sites

would also be expected to be well within the design objectives in Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50. 

Population doses within 80 km (50 mi) of those alternative sites that are closer to major

population centers (such as Pilgrim Nuclear Station) would be higher than for the Grand Gulf

ESP site; however, the dose would still be small compared to the population dose from natural

background radiation.

| Based on the evaluation submitted by SERI (2005) and the NRC staff’s independent evaluation,

the staff concludes that annual doses to the public from the proposed system would be well

| within regulatory limits, and there would be no observable health impacts on the public from

construction and normal operation of one or more nuclear units at the Grand Gulf ESP site or at

any of the alternative sites. Therefore, the staff concludes that radiation doses and resultant

| health impacts from operation of the proposed new reactors at the alternative sites are expected

to be SMALL.

Occupational Doses to Workers

Occupational doses would be approximately the same for workers at nuclear facilities at any

of the alternative sites. The same (accumulated) annual occupational dose estimates of

| 1.5 person-Sv (150 person-rem) would be expected for all the proposed units regardless of the

site location. The advanced reactor design proposed for construction and operation at the ESP

site would result in less annual occupational exposure than that received by workers at currently

operating reactors. The staff concludes that the occupational radiation doses from operation of

the proposed ESP facility at the alternative sites would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-99 NUREG-1817

Impacts on Biota

Table 5-9 provides the annual whole body dose estimates to surrogate biota species for the

proposed new unit(s) at the Grand Gulf ESP site. The estimated doses to the biota were well |

within the guidance developed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection |

(ICRP 1977, 1991), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992), and the National |

Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1991). The staff reviewed the |

available information relative to the radiological impact on biota, other than man, and performed

an independent estimate of dose to the biota. The staff concludes that no measurable

radiological impacts on populations of biota would be expected from the radiation and

radioactive material released to the environment as a result of the routine operation of the

proposed facility, or of operation at any of the alternative sites. The staff also concludes that

impacts on biota of radiation doses from the operation of new reactors at the alternative sites |

would be SMALL.

8.5.4.4 Postulated Accidents

A suite of design basis accidents (DBAs) has been considered for new nuclear unit(s) at the |

Grand Gulf ESP site. The evaluation involved calculation of doses for specified periods at the

exclusion area and low population zone boundaries, and comparison of those doses with doses

based on regulatory limits and guidelines. Similar analyses have not been conducted for the

alternative sites. Had such evaluations been conducted, the differences in the results would only

have resulted from meteorological conditions and the distances to the site boundaries. The

release characteristics would have been the same at all sites.

For the Grand Gulf ESP site, the doses for each accident sequence considered were well below

the corresponding regulatory limits and guidelines. The Grand Gulf ESP site and the three

alternative sites have similar climatological settings (mid-latitude, non-tropical, gently rolling

terrain) and are sufficiently similar that it is highly unlikely that differences in local meteorological

conditions would be sufficient to cause doses from DBAs for new nuclear unit(s) at any of the |

alternative sites to exceed regulatory limits or guidelines. Similarly, because each of the

alternative sites is located at a nuclear reactor site, it is unlikely that differences in distances to

the exclusion area and low population boundaries would be sufficient to cause doses from DBAs

for new nuclear units at any of the alternative sites to exceed regulatory limits or guidelines. 

Therefore, the staff concludes that for the purposes of consideration of alternative sites, the

impacts of DBAs at each of the alternative sites are SMALL.

A detailed analysis of the potential consequences of severe accidents for the postulated plants

has been conducted for the Grand Gulf ESP site. Similar analyses have not been conducted for

the alternative sites. Had such evaluations been conducted, subtle differences in the results

would result from site-specific factors such as meteorological conditions, population distribution,

and land-use distribution. The release characteristics would have been the same at all sites.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-100 April 2006

| The probability-weighted consequences estimated for severe accidents for new nuclear units at

the Grand Gulf ESP site are well below the consequences estimated for severe accidents at

current generation reactors (see Section 5.10). For the purposes of license renewal, the staff

has determined the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents is SMALL for all

| existing plants (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart B, Table B-1). On this basis, the staff concludes that,

for the purposes of consideration of alternative sites, the impacts of severe accidents at each of

the alternative sites would be SMALL.

8.5.4.5 Hydrological Alterations

Construction of any major industrial facility would alter the local patterns of surface water runoff

and groundwater recharge. Detailed designs are not available for an ESP facility at the

alternative sites. However, because of hydrologic changes associated with the currently

operating facilities and best management practices at these sites, the staff concludes that the

| incremental impacts on local hydrology would be small.

Facilities at the three alternative sites would use major water bodies as the source of makeup

water and the sink for blowdown water. As at the Grand Gulf ESP site, a new nuclear facility at

the River Bend site would rely on the Mississippi River for cooling water. New nuclear facilities

at the Pilgrim or FitzPatrick sites would rely on the Atlantic Ocean and Lake Ontario,

respectively, for cooling water needs. These water bodies are so vast compared to the water

fluxes associated with a nuclear plant that any changes to the flow patterns of the water bodies

would be small and localized. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of hydrological

alterations to surface water of these alternative sites would be small.

Consumptive water use of groundwater for facility water needs other than cooling (e.g., potable,

demineralized) could affect the water table at the site. The staff concludes that if the potential

impacts on groundwater were significant, these groundwater needs could be eliminated by

treating water from the surface water sources instead of using groundwater.

Based on the above discussion, the staff concludes that the impacts of hydrological alterations,

from construction and operation of a new nuclear facility at one of the alternative sites is generic

and would be SMALL.

8.5.4.6 Ecological Impacts

| Impacts on terrestrial flora and fauna may result from exposure to EMFs (see Section 5.4.1.7). 

| The conclusion presented in the GEIS for license renewal (NRC 1996) was that the impacts of

| EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna were of small significance at operating nuclear power plants,

| and these included transmission systems with variable numbers of power lines. Since 1997,

| over a dozen studies have been published that looked at cancer in animals that were exposed to
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-101 NUREG-1817

EMFs for all of, or most of, their lives. These studies have found no evidence that EMFs cause |

any specific types of cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 2005). Thus, the incremental EMF impact |

posed by the possible addition of new transmission lines for a new generating facility at any of |

the alternative sites would be considered minimal. |

8.6 Summary of Alternative Site Impacts

Entergy Nuclear selected three sites where Entergy Corporation currently owns and operates

nuclear power plants as alternative sites to the proposed Grand Gulf ESP site. The three sites

selected for detailed review are:

 C River Bend Station, located approximately 39 km (24 mi) northwest of Baton Rouge,

Louisiana

 C Pilgrim Nuclear Station, located approximately 6 km (4 mi) southeast of Plymouth,

Massachusetts

 C James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, located approximately 13 km (8 mi) northeast

of Oswego, New York.

8.6.1 Summary of Alternative Site Construction Impacts

The staff’s characterizations of the environmental impacts of constructing new nuclear |

generating plants within the scope of the SERI PPE at the three alternatives sites are provided |

in Table 8-13. |

8.6.2 Summary of Alternative Site Operation Impacts

The staff’s characterizations of the environmental impacts of operating new nuclear |

generating plants within the scope of the SERI PPE at the three alternatives sites are provided in |

Table 8-14.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-102 April 2006

Table 8-13. Characterization of Construction Impacts at the Alternative Early Site Permit Sites

Impact Category River Bend Pilgrim FitzPatrick

Land use 

 Site and vicinity SMALL SMALL SMALL

| Power transmission line rights-of-way and

| offsite areas

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Air quality SMALL SMALL SMALL

Water-related 

 Water use SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Water quality SMALL SMALL SMALL

Ecological 

| Terrestrial ecosystems MODERATE SMALL MODERATE to

LARGE

 Aquatic ecosystems SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Threatened and endangered species SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE to

LARGE

SMALL

Socioeconomic 

 Physical SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL

| Social and economic LARGE Beneficial

to SMALL

| Beneficial 

| MODERATE

| Beneficial to

MODERATE

| Adverse 

| MODERATE

| Beneficial to

| SMALL Beneficial 

| Infrastructure and comm unity services SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

MODERATE(b) | SMALL to

MODERATE(c)

Historic and cultural resources SMALL SMALL SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL

Nonradiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

Radiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) Most of the adverse impact would be related to effects on transportation.

(b) Most of the adverse impact would be related to effects on transportation and housing.

(c) Most of the adverse impact would be related to effects on transportation near the plant.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-103 NUREG-1817

Table 8-14. Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Alternative Early Site Permit Sites

Impact Category River Bend Pilgrim FitzPatrick

Land use

 Site and vicinity SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Power transmission line rights-of-way |

 and offsite areas

SMALL SMALL SMALL

Air quality SMALL SMALL SMALL

Water-related 

 Water use SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Water quality SMALL SMALL SMALL

Ecological

 Terrestrial ecosystems(a) SMALL SMALL to |

MODERATE

SMALL

 Aquatic ecosystems SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

 Threatened and endangered species SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

Socioeconomic

 Physical SMALL SMALL to |

MODERATE |

SMALL

 Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL |

 Social and economic LARGE Beneficial |

to SMALL |

Beneficial |

MODERATE

Beneficial to

MODERATE

Adverse 

MODERATE |

Beneficial to

SMALL Beneficial

 Infrastructure and comm unity services SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE(b) SMALL |

Historic and cultural resources SMALL SMALL SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL

Nonradiological health impacts(a) SMALL SMALL SMALL |

Radiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

Impacts of postulated accidents SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) Electromagnetic field health effects are indeterminate. |

(b) Most of the adverse impact would be related to effects on transportation.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-104 April 2006

8.7 References

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

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

| Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

Criteria.”

40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50,

“National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.” 

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51,

“Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.” 

40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60,

“Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.” 

40 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 63,

“National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories.” 

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

“Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 

40 CFR Part 93. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 93,

“Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans.” 

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.”

45 FR 21828. April 2, 1980. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing as

Endangered with Critical Habitat for the Plymouth Red-Billed Turtle in Massachusetts.” Federal

Register.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-105 NUREG-1817

52 FR 42064. November 2, 1987. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; |

Determination of Endangered and Threatened Status for Two Populations of Roseate Tern.” 

Federal Register. |

55 FR 36641. September 6, 1990. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

Determination of Endangered Status for the Pallid Sturgeon; Final Rule.” Federal Register.

65 FR 32214. May 22, 2000. “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the

Combustion of Fossil Fuels.” Federal Register. 

66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: |

Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities; Final Rule.” Federal |

Register.

310 CMR 7.10: Noise. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulations.

Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended. 1970. 42 USC 7401, et seq.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). 16 USC 1451, et seq.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Revenue. 2004. “Division of Local Services,

Cherry Sheets.” Accessed on the Internet October 11, 2004 at

http://www.dls.state.ma.us/cherry/index.htm.

Constellation Energy. 2004. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Environmental Report Operating

License Renewal Stage. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. |

ML041490222. |

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the |

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. |

Accessed on the Internet February 17, 2004 at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf. |

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Empire State Development. 2002. “Tax and Financial Incentives.” Empire State Development,

Albany, New York. Accessed on the Internet October 12, 2004 at

http://www.nylovesbiz.com/default.asp. 

Entergy Nuclear. 2001. Early Site Permit Selection Committee Notebook. Available at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML041890202.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-106 April 2006

Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy Services). 2005. E-mail from M.J. Scheffer (Entergy Services,

Biologist) to A. Bunn (PNNL, Aquatic Ecological Scientist), “Concerning Sea Turtles and Whales

in the Vicinity of Pilgrim Nuclear Station.” February 7. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html, Accession No. ML0503501472.

Ernst Conservation Seeds. 2004. “Deertongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum).” Accessed on

the Internet October 19, 2004 at http://www.ernstseed.com/Catalog/page2.htm.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2000. “Obstruction Marking and Lighting.” Advisory

Circular AC 70/7460-1K. Available at http://www.faa.gov/ats/ata/ai/AC70_7460_1K.pdf.

| Flora of North America (FNA). 2004a. “Deparia acrostichoides.” Accessed on the Internet

October 19, 2004 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=233500569.

| Flora of North America (FNA). 2004b. “Actaea pachypoda.” Accessed on the Internet

| October 19, 2004 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=233500023.

Flora of North America (FNA). 2004c. “Dryopteris ludoviciana.” Accessed on the Internet

October 19, 2004 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=233500595.

Flora of North America (FNA). 2004d. “Eleocharis radicans.” Accessed on the Internet October

19, 2004 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242357780.

Flora of North America (FNA). 2004e. “Magnolia pyramidata.” Accessed on the Internet

October 19, 2004 at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=233500770.

Gabbard, A. 1993. “Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger,” Oak Ridge National

Laboratory Review. Summer/Fall 1993. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,

Tennessee. Available at http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html.

Galya, D., J. Jolley, D. Urban, and J. Tracey. 2003. Application of a Comprehensive

Framework for Assessing Alternative Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies under

Section 316(b). An ENSR International Technical Paper. Presented at Power-Gen 2003,

Las Vegas, Nevada, November 2003.

Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data

Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Gulf South Research Corporation (GSRCORP). 2004. “Silky Camellia, Stewartia

malacodendron.” Accessed on the Internet October 20, 2004 at

http://www.gsrcorp.com/tes/STMA/stma_text.html.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-107 NUREG-1817

Housing Assistance Council. 2002. “Lower Mississippi Case Study.” In: Taking Stock: Rural

People, Poverty, and Housing at the Turn of the 21st Century. Housing Assistance Council,

Washington, D.C.

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 1997. U.S. Hydropower |

Resource Assessment for Mississippi. DOE/ID-10430(MS), Idaho Falls, Idaho. Available at |

http://hydropower.id.doe.gov/resourceassessment/pdfs/states/ms.pdf. |

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). 2001. National Electrical Safety

Code ! 2002 Edition. Accredited Standard Committee C2-2002. New York.

Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA). 2004. About Waste-to-Energy: Clean,

Reliable, Renewable Power. Accessed on the Internet September 30, 2004 at

http://www.wte.org/waste.html. 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and |

Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series |

No. 332. Vienna, Austria. |

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1977. Recommendations of the |

International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 26, Pergamon Press, |

New York. |

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. Recommendations of the |

International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Pergamon Press, |

New York. |

Lawton, R. 2000. “New focus for DMF’s Power Plant Investigations Project: Final flounder tag

lottery held.” DMF News. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Marine Fisheries. 

Volume 20, First Quarter, January-March 2000.

Linzey, D., and C. Brecht. 2002a. Mustela frenata Lichtenstein, Long-tailed Weasel. Accessed

on the Internet October 19, 2004 at

http://www.discoverlife.org/nh/tx/Vertebrata/Mammalia/Mustelidae/Mustela/frenata/.

Linzey, D., and C. Brecht. 2002b. Sorex longirostris Bachman, Southeastern Shrew. Accessed

on the Internet January 7, 2005 at

http://www.discoverlife.org/nh/tx/Vertebrata/Mammalia/Soricidae/Sorex/longirostris/.

Louisiana Department of Labor. 2003. Louisiana Employment and Wages Annual Report 2002. 

Louisiana Department of Labor, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Accessed on the Internet October 6,

2004 at http://www.ldol.state.la.us/forms/lmi/2002pub.pdf. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-108 April 2006

| Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD). 2003. Final

| Environmental Assessment, Mississippi River Bridge, Route LA 10, St. Francisville-New Roads,

| West Feliciana-Pointe Coupee Parishes. State Project 700-28-0022, State of Louisiana

| Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP). 2004a. Letter from G. Lester (LNHP, Coordinator)

to J. Becker (PNNL, Terrestrial Ecology Scientist), “Occurrences of Federal- and State-Listed

Species Near the River Bend Site.” April 4. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html, Accession No. ML0503501472.

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP). 2004b. Physalis carpenteri, Carpenter’s

Groundcherry. Rare Plant Fact Sheet PDSOL0S060. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and

Fisheries. Accessed on the Internet October 19, 2004 at

http://www.wlf.state.la.us/apps/netgear/clientfiles/lawlf/files/Physalis%20carpenteri.pdf.

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP). 2004c. Triphora trianthophora, Threebirds,

Nodding Pogonia. Rare Plant Fact Sheet PMORC2F050. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and

Fisheries. Accessed on the Internet October 19, 2004 at

http://www.wlf.state.la.us/apps/netgear/clientfiles/lawlf/files/Triphora%20trianthophora.pdf.

Louisiana Population Data Center (LPDC). 1997. Louisiana Population Projections to 2020.

Prepared by Michael D. Irwin, Department of Sociology and Louisiana Population Data Center,

Louisiana State University for the Office of Planning and Budget, Division of Administration. 

Accessed on the Internet October 6, 2004 at http://www.lapop.lsu.edu/products.html. 

Maine Department of Conservation Natural Areas Program (MDCNAP). 2004a. Isoetes

| acadiensis, Acadian Quillwort. Augusta, Maine.

Maine Department of Conservation Natural Areas Program (MDCNAP). 2004b. Lipocarpha

| micrantha, Dwarf Bulrush. Augusta, Maine.

Maine Department of Conservation Natural Areas Program (MDCNAP). 2004c. Calamagrostis

| pickeringii, Pickering’s Reed Bent-Grass. Augusta, Maine.

Maine Department of Conservation Natural Areas Program (MDCNAP). 2004d. Cypripedium

| arientinum, Giant Pine-Drops, Augusta, Maine.

Massachusetts Department of Education. 2004a. “Student Enrollment Data Files. School Year

2003-2004 (Oct. 1), Enrollment by District/Grade.” Accessed on the Internet October 11, 2004

at http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/enroll/default.html. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-109 NUREG-1817

Massachusetts Department of Education. 2004b. “Statistical Comparisons. Per Pupil

Expenditure Reports, FY 03 Per Pupil Expenditures.” Accessed on the Internet October 11,

2004 at http://finance1.doe.mass.edu/statistics/.

Massachusetts Division of Career Centers and Division of Unemployment Insurance. 2004. 

“Employment and Wages (ES-202) [Annual Data for 2003].” Accessed on the Internet

October 11, 2004 at http://lmi2.detma.org/lmi/lmi_es_a.asp#IND_LOCATION. 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW). 2004. Letter from T. French

(MDFW, Assistant Director) to J. Becker (PNNL, Terrestrial Ecology Scientist), “Occurrences of

federal and state listed species near the Pilgrim site.” June 1. Available at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML0503501472.

Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research (MISER). 2004. MISER Population

Projections 2010 and 2020. Copyright 1998, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Accessed

on the Internet October 11, 2004 at http://www.umass.edu/miser/population/miserproj.html. 

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). No Date.

Massachusetts Rare and Endangered Wildlife, Least Bittern, Ixobrychus exilis. Division of

Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1986a.

Massachusetts Rare and Endangered Wildlife, Grasshopper Sparrow, Ammodramus

savannarum. Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1986b. 

Massachusetts Rare and Endangered Plants, New England Boneset, Eupatorium leucolepis

novae-angliae. Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1987. 

Massachusetts Rare and Endangered Wildlife, Blanding’s Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii. Division

of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1988a. 

Massachusetts Rare and Endangered Wildlife, Roseate Tern, Sterna dougalli. Division of

Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1988b. 

Massachusetts Rare and Endangered Plants, Short-Beaked Bald-Rush, Rhynchospora nitens. 

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-110 April 2006

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1988c. 

Massachusetts Rare and Endangered Plants, Torrey’s Beak-Rush, Rhynchospora torreyana. 

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts. 

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1990a. 

Massachusetts Threatened Species, Piping Plover, Charadrius melodus. Division of Fisheries

and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1990b. 

Massachusetts Threatened Plants, Adder’s-Tongue Fern, Ophioglossum vulgatum. Division of

Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts. 

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1990c. 

Massachusetts Threatened Plants, Inundated Horned-Sedge, Rhynchospora inundata. Division

of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1990d. 

Massachusetts Threatened Wildlife, Northern Harrier, Circus cyaneus. Division of Fisheries and

Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1990e. 

Massachusetts Rare and Endangered Wildlife, Pied-Billed Grebe, Podilymbus podiceps. 

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1993. 

Massachusetts Endangered Plants, Walter’s Sedge, Carex striata brevis. Division of Fisheries

and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts. 

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1995a. 

Massachusetts Endangered Species, Plymouth Redbelly Turtle, Pseudemys rubriventris. 

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts. 

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 1995b. 

Massachusetts Endangered Species, Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus. Division of

| Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP). 2003. Pine

Barrens Bluet Damselfly, Enallagma recurvatum. Division of Fisheries and Wildlife,

Westborough, Massachusetts.

Missouriplants. 2004. “Mimulus ringens L.” Accessed on the Internet October 19, 2004 at

http://www.missouriplants.com/Blueopp/Mimulus_ringens_page.html.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-111 NUREG-1817

Moulder, J.E. 2005. “Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health: Power Lines and Cancer |

FAQs.” Available on line at http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlines-cancer-faq/toc.html#16B |

[Accessed on the Internet December 7, 2005]; (dated July 11, 2005). |

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2004a. “Search for Public School Districts

[Oswego County, New York].” Accessed on the Internet October 13, 2004 

at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2004b. “West Feliciana Parish School Board.”

Accessed on the Internet October 8, 2004 at

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?Search=1&details=1&State=22&County=

West+Feliciana&DistrictType=1&DistrictType=2&DistrictType=3&DistrictType=4&DistrictType=5

&DistrictType=6&DistrictType=7&NumOfStudentsRange=more&NumOfSchoolsRange=more&ID

2=2201980.

NearActica. 2004. “Eastern Wildflowers, Solitary Pussytoes (Antennaria solitaria).” Accessed

on the Internet October 19, 2004 at

http://www.nearctica.com/flowers/composit/agenus/Asolit.htm.

NearActica. 2005. “Eastern Wildflowers, Small-leaved Tick Trefoil (Demodium ciliare).”

Accessed on the Internet January 7, 2005 at

http://www.nearctica.com/flowers/legume/desmod/Dciliare.htm.

Neuman, R.W. 1972. An Archaeological Survey of the River Bend Station, West Feliciana

Parish, Louisiana. Report 22-141, on file at the Louisiana Historic Preservation Office,

Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Neuman, R.W. 1978a. An Archaeological and Historical Site Survey of the River Bend Station

Transmission Line Route B, Louisiana. Report 22-431, on file at the Louisiana Historic

Preservation Office, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Neuman, R.W. 1978b. Cultural Resource Survey of the Gulf State Utilities Transmission Line

Right-of-Ways, Louisiana. Report 22-432, on file at the Louisiana Historic Preservation Office,

Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (NJDFW). 2004a. “Henslow’s sparrow, Ammodramus

henslowii.” Accessed on the Internet October 22, 2004 at

http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/henslows.pdf.

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (NJDFW). 2004b. “Sedge wren, Cistothorus latensis.” 

Accessed on the Internet October 22, 2004 at

http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/sedgewren.pdf.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-112 April 2006

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (NJDFW). 2004c. “Vesper Sparrow, Pooecetes

gramineus.” Accessed on the Internet October 18, 2004 at

http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/vespersparrow.pdf.

New York State Citizen Guide. 2005. “Family” and “Government.” Accessed on the Internet on

January 10, 2005 at http://www.nysegov.com/citguide.cfm.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2001. Assessing and

Mitigating Noise Impacts. Division of Environmental Permits Policy Documents, Albany, New

York. Accessed on the Internet October 11, 2004 at

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dcs/policy/noise2000.pdf.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003a. Deepwater

| Sculpin Fact Sheet. Division of Environmental Permits Policy Documents, Albany, New York. 

Accessed on the Internet November 30, 2004 at

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/dpwtscul.html#top.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003b. Lake Sturgeon

| Fact Sheet. Division of Environmental Permits Policy Documents, Albany, New York. Accessed

on the Internet November 30, 2004 at

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/lakestur.html.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003c. Round

| Whitefish Fact Sheet. Division of Environmental Permits Policy Documents, New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. Accessed on the Internet

November 30, 2004 at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/rndwfish.html.

New York Department of Labor (NYSDOL). 2004. “Employed, Unemployed, and Rate of

Unemployment by Place of Residence for New York State and Major Market Areas,

August 2004.” Accessed on the Internet October 12, 2004 at

http://www.labor.state.ny.us/labor_market/LMI_subject/LMI_subject.html#U. 

New York State Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources (NYDFWMR). 2004. Letter

from B.A. Ketchum (NYDFWMR) to J. Becker (PNNL, Terrestrial Ecology Scientist), “Regarding

the Locations of Federally and State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species within 2 mi

and 10 mi of the FitzPatrick Site.” April 29. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html, Accession No. ML0503501472. 

New York State Education Department (NYSED). 2004. “Mexico 460901," School District Fiscal

Profiles. Office of Management Services, Fiscal Analysis and Research Unit, Albany, New York. 

Accessed on the Internet October 12, 2004 at

http://www.oms.nysed.gov/faru/Profiles/profiles_cover.htm. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-113 NUREG-1817

New York Statistical Information System (NYSIS). 2002. “Projected Population by Sex by

5-Year Interval.” Cornell Institute for Social and Economic Research, Cornell University, Ithaca,

New York. Accessed on the Internet October 13, 2004 at http://www.nysis.cornell.edu/.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC). 1983. Environmental Report Operating License

Stage, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2. Supplement 1.

Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC). 2000. “Northwest Power Supply Adequacy/

Reliability Study Phase I Report.” Available at

http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2000/2000-4a.pdf.

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2002. “The Unsung Environmentalists: Nuclear Plants are |

Havens for Environmental Protection, Conservation.” Nuclear Energy Insight. April 2002. |

Available at http://www.nei.org/documents/insight2002_04.pdf. |

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 1998. “Polygonum setaceum interjectum,

Bristly Smartweed.” Accessed on the Internet October 21, 2004 at

http://www.ohiodnr.com/dnap/heritage/..\Abstracts\p\polyseta.htm.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2004. “Sphenopholis pensylvanica, SwampOats.” Accessed on the Internet October 19, 2004 at

http://www.ohiodnr.com/dnap/heritage/..\Abstracts\s\sphepens.htm.

Oswego County. 2004. 2003 Annual Financial Report, County of Oswego. Accessed on the |

Internet October 11, 2004 at |

http://www.co.oswego.ny.us/treasurer/2003annualreport_files/frame.htm.

Oswego County Business Magazine. 2001. “Oswego - The Energy County Changes in the |

Local Nuclear Energy Industry,” Cover Story - February/March 2001. by Adele DelSavio. |

Accessed on the Internet October 12, 2004 at

http://oswegocountybusiness.com/issue52/52Cover.html. 

Oswego County Department of Planning and Community Development. 2000. Oswego County

Comprehensive Plan. Oswego, New York. March 13, 1997. Updated 2000. Accessed on the

Internet October 12, 2004 at http://www.co.oswego.ny.us/pdf/compplan.pdf. 

Pennington, S. 2002. “Spilogale putorius (eastern spotted skunk).” Accessed on the Internet

October 19, 2004 at 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Spilogale_putorius.html.

Public Service Company of New Hampshire. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-8. |

5 NRC 503, 516. (1977). |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-114 April 2006

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA). 42 USC 6901, et seq. 

| Scott, M.J. 2004a. “Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Contribution to Grand Gulf Trip

| Report 4-12-04 to 4-16-04.” Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession

No. ML050350147.

| Scott, M.J. 2004b. “Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Contribution to Alternative Sites

| Grand Gulf Trip Report 7-6-04 to 7-09-04.” Available at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML050350147.

Shuman, M., and C.E. Orser. 1984. Historical and Archaeological Investigation of the Ruins of

a Nineteenth Century Sugar Mill (16WF-36) in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. Report 22-916,

on file at the Louisiana Historic Preservation Office, Baton Rouge.

Southeastern Rare Plant Information Network (SERPIN). 2004. “Pachysandra procumbens”

Accessed on the Internet October 19, 2004 at

http://www.serpin.org/cfm/plantdetail.cfm?plantid=450.

| System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI). 2004a. Letter dated May 19, 2004 from G.A. Zinke to

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Follow up to Early Site Permit Application Environmental Audit

- Response 1.” Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No.

ML01890361.

System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI). 2004c. Letter dated July 2, 2004 from G. A. Zinke to

| Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Response to Request for Additional Environmental

| Information Related to Early Site Permit Application (Partial Response No. 1).” Available at

| http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML050380151.

| System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI). 2004d. Letter dated July 19, 2004 from G. A. Zinke to

| Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Response to Request for Additional Environmental

| Information Related to Early Site Permit Application (Partial Response No. 2).” Available at

| http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML050380151.

System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI). 2005. Grand Gulf Site Early Site Permit Application.

Revision 2, Jackson, Mississippi. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html,

| Accession No. ML052780449.

| Town of Plymouth. 2005. Tax Rates from 1995 to 2005. Accessed November 1, 2005 at

| http://plymouthma.virtualtownhall.net/public_documents/PlymouthMA_Assessor/S006D72D7. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-115 NUREG-1817

Travel Industry Association of America (TIA). 2003. The Economic Impact of Travel on

Massachusetts Counties 2002. A Study prepared for the Massachusetts Office of Travel and

Tourism by the Research Department, Travel Industry Association of America,

Washington, D.C., 51 pp. Accessed on the Internet October 11, 2004 at

http://www.massvacation.com/html/industry_news/research/MA%202002%20Report.pdf.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Operation of James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. Directorate of Licensing,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974a. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Construction of River Bend Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2. Directorate of Licensing,

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974b. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Proposed Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Unit 2. Directorate of Licensing, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2004. “Table DP-1 General Demographic Characteristics: 2000.” 

American FactFinder - Select Geography, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent

Data, Geographic Area: [Location Varies]. Accessed on the Internet February 16, 2004 at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTSelectedDatasetPageServlet?_lang=en&_

ts=99320447326.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2005a. “Table P-87. Poverty Status in 1999 by Age.” American

FactFinder - Select Geography, Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data, Geographic

Area: [Location Varies]. Accessed on the Internet March 30, 2005 at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&_

lang=en&_ts=130255822801.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2005b. “Table QT-H1. General Housing Characteristics: 2000.” |

American FactFinder - Select Geography, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent |

Data, Geographic Area: [Location Varies]. Accessed on the Internet November 1, 2005 at |

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&state=qt&context=qt&qr_name=DEC_2000 |

_SF1_U_QTH1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-tree_id=05000US22037&- |

geoid=05000US22077&-geo_id=05000US2212&-geo_id=05000US22125&- |

search_results=01000US&-format=&-_language=en. |

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004a. Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program, Wind |

Energy Resource Potential. Accessed on the Internet September 30, 2004 at

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/. |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-116 April 2006

| U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004b. Mississippi Wind Resources. Accessed on the

| Internet September 30, 2004 at http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/wind.cfm 

| U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004c. Mississippi Solar Resources. Accessed on the

| Internet September 30, 2004 at http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/csp.cfm 

| U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004d. Mississippi Geothermal Resources. Accessed on

| the Internet September 30, 2004 at

| http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/geothermal.cfm 

| U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004e. Future Fuel Cells. Accessed on the Internet

September 30, 2004 at http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/fuelcells/.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001. Renewable

Energy 2000: Issues and Trends. DOE/EIA-0628(2000), Washington, D.C. Available at

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/renewables/06282000.pdf.

| U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2005. Annual

| Energy Outlook 2005 with Projections to 2025. DOE/EIA-0383(2005). Washington, D.C. 

Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Technical Development Document for the

Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities. 

EPA-821-R-01-036. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Case Study Analysis of the Proposed

Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. EPA-821-R-02-002. Office of Water,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.

| U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Municipal Solid Waste Disposal. 

Accessed on the Internet September 30, 2004 at

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/disposal.htm. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan. Bismark,

North Dakota.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994. Plymouth Redbelly Turtle (Pseudemys

rubriventris) Recovery Plan. Second Edition. Northeast Region, Hadley, Massachusetts.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995. Recovery Plan Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus

americanus luteolus). Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-117 NUREG-1817

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1996. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Atlantic Coast

Population Revised Recovery Plan. Northeast Region, Hadley, Massachusetts.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004a. Letter from R.C. Watson (FWS, Louisiana Field

Office) to P.-T. Kuo (NRC), “Responding to Request for Information on Endangered and

Threatened Species.” February 5. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html,

Accession No. ML040500681.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. Letter from M.J. Amaral (FWS, New England

Field Office) to P.-T. Kuo (NRC), “Responding to Request for Information on Endangered and

Threatened Species.” February 9. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html,

Accession No. ML040650620.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004c. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed on the |

Internet October 21, 2004 at http://wetlands.fws.gov/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004d. Letter from D.A. Stillwell (FWS, New York Field

Office) to P.-T. Kuo (NRC), “Responding to Request for Information on Endangered and

Threatened Species.” January 26. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html,

Accession No. ML040370323.

U.S. Geologic Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (USGS). 2004. Aquatic and

Wetland Vascular Plants of the Northern Great Plains, 62. Cyperaceae, the Sedge Family.

Accessed on the Internet, October 22, 2004 at

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1999/vascplnt/species/ccho.htm. |

U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Letter from M.A. Colligan (NMFS,

Northeast Region, Gloucester, Massachusetts) to P.T. Kuo (NRC), “Regarding Federally Listed

Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat that may Occur in the Vicinity of the

Grand Gulf ESP Site as well as in the Vicinity of the River Bend, FitzPatrick, and Pilgrim ESP

Sites.” January 28. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession

No. ML040350504.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Preparation of Environmental Reports for

Nuclear Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. Section 9.2.1, Washington, D.C. 

Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML003739519.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1985. Final Environmental Statement Related to

the Operation of River Bend Station. Docket No. 50-458, NUREG-1073, Office of Nuclear |

Reactor Regulation. Washington, D.C.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1817 8-118 April 2006

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

| for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

| Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1998. Regulatory Guide 4.7 Rev. 2 - General Site

Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations. Available at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/environmental-siting/active/04-007/.

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

| for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

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

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

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

| Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

| Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 10, Regarding Peach Bottom Nuclear

Reactor, Units 2 & 3. NUREG-1437, Supplement 10. Washington, D.C. Available at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement10/.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. System Energy Resources, Inc. (Early

| Site Permit for Grand Gulf ESP Site), 61 NRC 277, LBP-04-19. Available at

| http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML042300040.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. GEn&SIS: The Geographical,

| Environmental, and Siting Information System, “Minority and Low-Income Data, Pilgrim and

| FitzPatrick sites from 2000 census.” Accessed on the Internet October 6, 2004 at: 

| http://gensis.llnl.gov/. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession

| No. ML053570336.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Exelon Generating Company, LLC. (Early

| Site Permit for Clinton ESP Site), 62 NRC 801, 805-08, CLI-05-29. Available at

| http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML053460102.

University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology, Animal Diversity Web. 2004. “Chlidonias niger

(black tern).” Accessed on the Internet, October 22, 2004 at

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Chlidonias_niger.html. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

April 2006 8-119 NUREG-1817

Verburg, R. 1998. “The Model Species Circaea lutetiana.” Accessed on the Internet

October 19, 2004 at http://www.bio.uu.nl/~boev/staff/personal/rverburg/thesis/model.htm.

Wagner, D.L., M.W. Nelson, and D.F. Schweitzer. 2003. “Shrubland Lepidoptera of Southern

New England and Southeastern New York: Ecology, Conservation, and Management.” Forest

Ecology and Management 185:95-122.